B. U. G. S.

@ ‘….Suddenly, we are FRAMING the issue, and the other side is caught flat-footed….’

Unsure how people feel about divide and conquer where there is no “other side,” per se, and not just “one” other side.

Like, when you start arguments about who is MOST GeNocided, instead of “whether one is being GeNocided or not.” (That’s a yes or no dead end.)

E.g., I think wasps are and have always been the only target of GeNocide in the u.s., and can offer my “proofs.” Then somebody says, that’s total B.S. you ass-blank, their more historical populations weren’t even affected by “de-industrialization!” Yeah, ok, but what about de-colonization, you freak…” etc.

Now, this argument between white people can just go on and on, no synthesis, for onlookers, but assumes and disseminates genocide is obvious, and everyone already knows that, or could wind up at a synthesis: like, well, we are both GeNocided!—but with a different strategy, omg!” (bonding over joint grievance)

So the audience doesn’t even get to contemplate whether OR NOT Genocide is real, or happening, or too harsh a term, etc, etc. (which seem to be questions coming up with it). The underlying assumption of the presented “debate” / argument is that genocide is obvious, but it’s just an argument about who is genocided THE MOST. (And unless you want to be caught holding the bag, you’d better “weigh in” b/c Genocide could lead to lots of money payouts.)

In other words, controlled opposition. You can demean others for using it, but it does WORK, especially if the argument is done in a team of two or three, like “pundits” on t.v. In fact, it’s ALL they do on t.v. Like imagine: the pundit panel discussing some aspect of white genocide (like when it started, or who was most affected, or which films and media specifically most contributed; i.e. topic: “In your opinion, what’s the one film that most contributed to White genocide? ).

Framing a debate seems less about “does it exist or not,” but rather assumes it exists, then moves onto arguing about all its various aspects?

The usual objection to that is that owning all sides is dishonorable strategy, and it could cause white “disunity” and infighting, but bugs may differ in this regard. The trick being that “disunity” is known and managed for the larger goal (dissemating “white genocide”) —and examining the genocide in all its aspects, not even allowing the question of “whether it is real” or “too strong a term.”

This doesn’t allow the opposition any voice at all— they must take a side WITHIN your paradigm of “white genocide” with nowhere else for them to go. (That’s imo, more “framing the debate.” where your own idea is untouchable, and people can only “take sides” within what you believe and are putting out.)