Explanation: "We should bring back the guillotine" or similar is a common internet quip in response to billionaires doing billionaire things, when in reality the guillotine was invented to provide equal and humane deaths to people of all classes, and from there it was always a tool of the state rather than the people. Not the best euphemism for "we should depose the bourgeoisie." In fact plenty of Revolutionary justice folks were themselves offed by the guillotine during the Terror.
No, that isn't my point at all. My point is that it is one aspect of it, so defining it solely by that trait in such a binary way, yes or no, is infantile and anti-intellectual.
Words are meant to share ideas, not bonk other people over the head to prove your rightness. Try reading them, and consider what would happen if someone else said them, rather than how it might fit into your own narrow world view.
And what I'm saying is that if a campfire turns into a wildfire it's no longer a fucking campfire.
But it started as a compfire, from your own words
So the argument is that's its ok to be reductive about your point, as long as it's in favor of your point.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Edit: I will be continuing this discussion with various emotionally charged grunts.