I somehow don't think he has the same emotional attachment to his pinky finger.

K

To a misogynist, yes it absolutely is. But even absent that dynamic, suggesting a person is somehow incomplete is hurtful.

I am suggesting that she tell the men doing this that they also have no testicles.

Granted, you were: in Afghanistan. 

If your "democracy" can be totally undermined by a decrepit regional power making some low effort posts on the internet, it's not worth much to begin with.

I thought this was pretty damn funny, but that is largely because of how ludicrous it is to think Biden actually has an issue with fascism.

Now I think you are being disingenuous. That is not what the person pictured here said and you're going out of your way to ignore multiple points they made. I do not believe your comprehension is this poor.

The statement they made was very obviously not just about voting and pretending like it was is dishonest. Stating "you're not actively helping" and taking about "sitting back" is the biggest indicator.

I'm using this person's own statements. You are ignoring or deliberately misinterpreting those statements. I guess like-minded people stand up for one another.

I feel like this is just saying the quiet part out loud.

So you think the argument that the person made, which I quoted, does not exist even though we have a picture of them making it? Again: "... the other option is ignoring it and sitting back while the bad shit gets worse for more people". That is not just about voting. That is stating that if their interlocutor does not vote, they will also not take any other action. They will "ignore it", "it" meaning the political issues being discussed, and "sit back" i.e. do nothing. 

This is further stated in the previous paragraph:  

"You're not actively helping the people in danger" 

"You're putting more people in harms way through inaction" 

The argument you're saying doesn't exist is right there in plain English. So again, explain what you think I got wrong about the meaning of these statements. They seem extremely clear to me.

Right.

"Sounds like we have something in common!"

What's interesting is that you think stating their position using their words is misrepresenting them. Maybe you need to reread the posts.

"The other option is ignoring it and sitting back while the bad shit gets worse for more people." Their exact words. Explain what you think I said that misrepresents that stance or admit that you're lost here.

Entirely wrong. Nobody says they will be doing any additional activities, or that they won't, so someone stating that it means they won't is 100% a strawman if done deliberately. By your reasoning here, "I will not eat eggs for breakfast" is the same statement as "I will not eat breakfast". While both statements could be true, interpreting the first statement as though it guarantees the second is a lapse in logic. 

The person in that last post literally says "the other option is ignoring it and sitting back" but that isn't the only other option (so this is already a dishonest claim) and isn't something that the other person proposed doing. It's either a strawman, or the person doing this just can't conceive of any political effort beyond filling out a ballot. Either way it's a failure of logic.

I got on a Trump text list and instead of asking them to stop I send them back communist propaganda. 

"I am such a good business owner! Wait, what the fuck are supply and demand?"

A strawman is deliberately misrepresenting a person's position as a weaker one, and then attacking that weaker false position.

So if someone is stating "I am not planning to vote" and you deliberately misrepresent their position as "I am not going to take any political action at all", that is a strawman. We don't know if this is deliberate though, so it's not clear if it is one. It's hard to tell without seeing more from the person saying this which is why I allowed for the possibility that the person is simply ignorant and not actually dishonest.

Hopefully not for much longer.

Those are kind of the things we're looking to regard, here.

I feel there's a considerable difference between this being done in a way that promotes actual thought, and just making bigoted jokes and appealing to peoples' insecurities and violent fantasies. Most of what I'm criticizing from Garand Thumb is the latter. It's not an expression of values and beliefs so much as lazy pandering.

Unfortunately the only thing about this that surprises me is that all they did to the dog was taze it.

Garand Thumb seems to be actively trying to incorporate the maximum possible amount of cringey chud fodder in his videos. When he does something on topics where he actually has expertise (i.e survival techniques) he actually gets serious and informative, but the rest of what he makes now is just him licking boots to get views.

They absolutely do think that.

Also, ask them when those refugees fled. Before or after the Nakba?

It's easy to avoid civilian casualties when you declare that anyone you kill isn't a civilian! 

You were absolutely intending to be an asshole, and you were. Your tone was hostile and disrespectful from the start. You were unreasonable and I don't want to argue with you at all, let alone win any argument. Still, I gave you a chance to act like an adult and you declined it.