2 ms·

> It's a bit silly, since Obama did get a lot of criticism for this stuff, so the only argument for hypocrisy is that he should have had more. That's a fair po

> It's a bit silly, since Obama did get a lot of criticism for this stuff, so the only argument for hypocrisy is that he should have had more. That's a fair point, right? People weren't skipping work and class to march in the town square when Obama bombed Yemen and other countries, but they'll do it when Trump makes a (insensitive, idiotic, broken, heavy-handed, unjust) change to the visa process?

mikeash 10y ago
It can be a fair point, depending on exactly what the ultimate argument is. Some have used this argument to defend Trump's actions. It doesn't work for that at all. "You didn't protest sufficiently about Obama, so you should approve of Trump's policies" is just a non sequitur. Some have used this argument to say that we should have protested more about these other things. That argument works, but it's not actionable unless someone invents a time machine (and we'd have to go back and assassinate Hitler first anyway). The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future, which is great, but I don't know that I've seen anyone make it.
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > "You didn't protest sufficiently about Obama, so you should approve of Trump's policies" is just a non sequitur. The argument is that the current reaction doesn't make sense given recent history. So the current "debate" is instead a placeholder for a culture war, disappointment with the election results, or something. That is, the non sequitur is the new levels of disgust. The non sequitur is resolved if you add some subtext that make Obama deserve a (perhaps begrudging) pass and Trump a fail. > That argument works, but it's not actionable... Sure it's actionable. Politicians apologize for letting Obama get a pass. Some writers rip Obama a new one in ex post facto editorials. Propose laws to make sure president's can't bomb countries without Congressional approval. Propose laws giving Congress more oversight into the visa process, etc. Shoot, propose Constitutional Amendments if the rights of foreign nationals aren't clear enough. > The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future Honestly, being heard isn't the problem. Trump supporters know what others think. Corporate America literally has TV specials, policies, and training courses about this stuff. The people with different concerns are just on different wavelengths, so there's no conversation, just a big struggle over the reigns of power. We need to actually understand others' arguments (so we can in turn be better understood) instead of wondering if we need to do a better job of making themselves heard.

mikeash 10y ago

It can be a fair point, depending on exactly what the ultimate argument is. Some have used this argument to defend Trump's actions. It doesn't work for that at all. "You didn't protest sufficiently about Obama, so you should approve of Trump's policies" is just a non sequitur. Some have used this argument to say that we should have protested more about these other things. That argument works, but it's not actionable unless someone invents a time machine (and we'd have to go back and assassinate Hitler first anyway). The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future, which is great, but I don't know that I've seen anyone make it.

humanrebar 10y ago
> "You didn't protest sufficiently about Obama, so you should approve of Trump's policies" is just a non sequitur. The argument is that the current reaction doesn't make sense given recent history. So the current "debate" is instead a placeholder for a culture war, disappointment with the election results, or something. That is, the non sequitur is the new levels of disgust. The non sequitur is resolved if you add some subtext that make Obama deserve a (perhaps begrudging) pass and Trump a fail. > That argument works, but it's not actionable... Sure it's actionable. Politicians apologize for letting Obama get a pass. Some writers rip Obama a new one in ex post facto editorials. Propose laws to make sure president's can't bomb countries without Congressional approval. Propose laws giving Congress more oversight into the visa process, etc. Shoot, propose Constitutional Amendments if the rights of foreign nationals aren't clear enough. > The only good, useful argument to be made with this is that we should be more critical and more willing to make ourselves heard in the future Honestly, being heard isn't the problem. Trump supporters know what others think. Corporate America literally has TV specials, policies, and training courses about this stuff. The people with different concerns are just on different wavelengths, so there's no conversation, just a big struggle over the reigns of power. We need to actually understand others' arguments (so we can in turn be better understood) instead of wondering if we need to do a better job of making themselves heard.