TL;DR;

You responses are weak and full of unjustifiable black and white objective statements.

I was never arguing for assassinations, only for you to try and phrase your arguments in a better way.

If you want to interpret me questioning your word choice as a personal attack on you, you might want to look in to why you are having that reaction, your call though.

So I'm going to break this in to two sections.

The first one is a clarification on my actual point because your reply implies you didn't really understand what was being said, that could be on me and my poor communication skills.

The second is a reply to you assuming you did understand and were intentionally raising strawmen to dodge actually addressing the points. This only applies if you were intentionally ignoring the content of my reply, feel free to skip it

FIRST SECTION

Just in case its my fault for not being clear, here's a more comprehensive version of my original arguments.

A false dichotomy is where you present two options in such a fashion as to imply they are the only two options.

I think we can agree there are more than just the options you posited.

Speaking of the options:

You are a U.S. citizen and therefor a hypocrite for not having died on your sword already.

You are a foreigner with no skin in the game who should be focusing on problems at home (because there are).

Neither of these make sense.

1. Nobody was arguing that all US citizens had to fall on their sword.

Perhaps i missed it, fell free to point to an example of this and i will rescind my claim.

2. For this to be true you'd have to argue that no-one outside of the US is affected by anything happening inside the US.

I think we can both agree that you can't possibly justify that claim.

SECOND SECTION

To my knowledge of the reign of terror, the majority of people killed were the working class, peasants, followed by the middle class — for a series of killings seemingly only pointed at the bourgeois that certainly seems indiscriminate.

Ok, so firstly that's a terribly worded sentence but i think i get the gist.

Secondly the killings weren't exclusively aimed at the bourgeois though the movement was ostensibly about that, a lot of the people were purportedly killed for not being fully onboard with the revolution.

Regardless of any of that, unless you're about to argue they were just pulling up randoms on the street and killing them just because they could then it still doesn't satisfy the word indiscriminate.

Just because it doesn't fit your criteria of what was appropriate doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination.

If you participate in a system that punishes people with violent retribution indiscriminately, that violence will be visited upon you inevitably.

If you want to live your life by pretty sounding black and white aphorisms, that's your call, but i think we both know that sentence isn't true.

Increased likelihood, probably, inevitable that's some black and white hyperbolous nonsense.

Randomly killing politicians will not solve anything, and I’m not about to detail what will on a public forum. You can take that however you will, I’m not about to continue arguing with blue MAGA.

i wasn't arguing any solution, assassination-based or otherwise but if you wish to pretend i was so you don't have to address the actual point made i suppose that that is an answer in and of itself.

Edit: oh, and no — I’m not of the opinion that a reign of terror will happen. I think something worse will happen.

I wasn't implying you were, i was wondering what kind of acceleration you were envisioning but nothing you've said so far leads me to believe you are going to engage on any of the actual points i raised, so i won't hold my breath.