5 ms·

Your post implies that everyone who supports Trump supports that policy. That’s exactly the lack of nuance that’s the topic of discussion. People who voted for

Your post implies that everyone who supports Trump supports that policy. That’s exactly the lack of nuance that’s the topic of discussion. People who voted for Trump had two options: Trump and that policy or Biden who they found even more unpalatable. The nuance is there: Why do they find Biden more unpalatable than that policy?

mewse 6y ago
You tell me. If there’s nuance there, then I’m super interested to hear about it. What’s so bad that it outweighs breaking up families, or any of the other things Trump and his government have done over the past four years?
- cgriswald 6y ago
  Why don't you find someone who voted for Trump, ask, and listen with an open mind? There are pro-lifers who think that basically nothing outweighs the 'murder of unborn children' and can't fathom voting for a Democrat. You might have more in common with them than you think.
  - codegrappler 6y ago
    Was about to write this very thing. Also many people frightened that a defunded police will not be able to protect them.
  - mewse 6y ago
    I thought I was asking someone who voted for Trump and had been intending to listen to your reply. I don’t really require that particular “you should talk to people” lecture, thanks. I’m nowhere remotely close to the USA. I know very few people who are able to vote in the USA, and none of those people voted for Trump. Asking people online, as I did, is my only real option. Anyhow, thanks for the answer. Got it; ‘murder’ of unborn theoretical children is worse than separating and losing track of actual real objectively alive, conscious, and suffering children. (Only as long as they’re brown, presumably? You don’t actually say that, but I assume that’s the intent?) And also, simply voting for a Democrat is worse, too. Got it. I’ll be sure to keep those worse things in mind and not be at all insulted that you think I have a lot in common with that worldview.
    - cgriswald 6y ago
      Thank you for admitting that you are vilifying Trump supporters online in a thread about nuance for beliefs you have ascribed to them without talking to one of them. > Anyhow, thanks for the answer. Got it; ‘murder’ of unborn theoretical children is worse than separating and losing track of actual real objectively alive, conscious, and suffering children. The intent here was to provide an example of a thought process; not to speak for all, or even the average, Trump supporter. > (Only as long as they’re brown, presumably? You don’t actually say that, but I assume that’s the intent?) Why would this be my intent or even 'the' intent? In this case it doesn't even make sense. Non-whites have, by far, more abortions in the United States than whites. So ending abortion would 'save' a lot more non-white babies than white babies. People are also allowed to be against both these things, but they aren't allowed to vote that way (at least if they believe voting for a third party throws their vote away). To play devil's advocate, there are far more abortions than there are immigrant children separated from parents; so a voter against both of these might reasonably conclude they're doing more good voting for Trump than for a pro-choice Democrat. > And also, simply voting for a Democrat is worse, too. Got it. Democrats are overwhelmingly pro-choice, so yes, if someone is pro-life and motivated by the single issue of abortion voting for a Democrat may very well be worse. You seem to be incorrectly ascribing this particular belief to me when all I have said is there are people who hold this belief. >I'll be sure to keep those worse things in mind and not be at all insulted that you think I have a lot in common with that worldview. What your worldview has in common with theirs is that it is a hard (read: non-nuanced) stance on a single issue. Just like you might think someone who could vote for Trump is vile because of the separation issue, a pro-lifer might think you are vile for thinking a pro-choice candidate is worthy of your (hypothetical) vote.
      - mewse 6y ago
        > Thank you for admitting that you are vilifying Trump supporters online in a thread about nuance for beliefs you have ascribed to them without talking to one of them You’re putting words in my mouth. > you might think someone who could vote for Trump is vile Please don’t presume to tell me what I think. You don’t know me or my mind. > What your worldview has in common with theirs is that it is a hard (read: non-nuanced) stance on a single issue. Oh, don’t worry about that; I have opinions on a whole bunch of issues; this was just a single example of one that I thought was pretty simple and ought to be relatively uncontroversial. And also, see my above comment re: not presuming to tell me what I think.
  - crooked-v 6y ago
    As a registered Democrat, I would happily support a variety of measures factually proven to reduce (legal or illegal) abortion rates in general, such as easier access to birth control and better sex ed for teenagers, as well as programs that would reduce the appeal of abortion, such as high-quality government-funded adoption programs for newborns. Strangely enough, pro-lifers generally oppose those kinds of things.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dbrueck 6y ago
  Outside the issue of immigration, it's pretty well accepted that separating children from their parents is to be avoided, but sometimes the alternative is worse so the state steps in and does it anyway. The state steps in when there is abuse or neglect - do you oppose "breaking up families" even then, or do you concede that sometimes it's the right call? Is it not possible that in the context of immigration there can also be situations where it needs to happen? (e.g. communal housing could put children in the vicinity of harmful people, or fake families with human traffickers posing as parents)
  - not_kurt_godel 6y ago
    Trump's separation policies were put into place to punish and hurt immigrants, not protect children. Hypotheticals are not reality.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      If you’re interested in the real reason, this is not quite true, although I would not disagree that he thought the extra deterrent would be a bonus. This was not actually a policy. This was a side effect of a different policy. The policy was zero tolerance on criminal immigration law. That means, if an adult crosses the border illegally, they committed a crime and must be arrested for said crime. That part isn’t actually new, Trump just directed them to enforce the law. That’s where the issue comes in. When an adult male goes to jail, such as if I were to get a DUI with my kid in the car, I’m not allowed to take a kid in with me to jail. It doesn’t matter if they’ll be left alone with no one to care for them. No matter what, arrestees can not bring their kids to jail, ever. So in this situation, the parent is arrested and charged with a crime, and the kids are held until a guardian can be located. And guess what? Many from Mexico or El Salvador actually don’t want to come up to the US and get their kids, if such a person even exists. The Obama admin built these “cages” for that reason. But, they didn’t enforce the law as much, so they were not used so often. They did build them and they did put kids in them though.
      - butbutemails2 6y ago
adamsea 6y ago
> Your post implies that everyone who supports Trump supports that policy ... Well, everyone who supports Trump decided that those policies are better than the alternative. What could be worse than children in camps is beyond me though ...
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Those people probably didn't see that coverage that so upset you (and me, to be honest) because they live in a completely different media environment. Lots of them care more about abortion and religion that you presumably do, and that's what makes Biden worse for them - the fear that they'll lose their ability to practice their faith and have it be part of their lives. I don't get it either, but you're essentially doing the same thing to them that they do when they claim that Biden will introduce a Green New Deal, or make abortions mandatory or something (I should watch more Fox, clearly, so I'd have better examples here).
  - adamsea 6y ago
    Sadly you are probably right about the different media environments. At the same time, no, I'm not essentially doing the same thing. Let's face the facts - the current conservative media environment (Fox, etc) is deeply distorted. I'm not making claims based on bad information, or making untrue claims. Let's also bear in mind that, as much as networks like Fox distort and manipulate the truth, I'd bet plenty of people in these distorted media environments have a degree of understanding that what the Trump administration has done is wrong. But people (all people) hate the discomfort of cognitive dissonance and look for any reason to avoid it. To circle back to the main point, people making false claims (even if they are unaware of the falsehoods their claims are based on) is not the same thing as someone else pointing out the falsehood itself.

mewse 6y ago

You tell me. If there’s nuance there, then I’m super interested to hear about it. What’s so bad that it outweighs breaking up families, or any of the other things Trump and his government have done over the past four years?

cgriswald 6y ago
Why don't you find someone who voted for Trump, ask, and listen with an open mind? There are pro-lifers who think that basically nothing outweighs the 'murder of unborn children' and can't fathom voting for a Democrat. You might have more in common with them than you think.
- codegrappler 6y ago
  Was about to write this very thing. Also many people frightened that a defunded police will not be able to protect them.
- mewse 6y ago
  I thought I was asking someone who voted for Trump and had been intending to listen to your reply. I don’t really require that particular “you should talk to people” lecture, thanks. I’m nowhere remotely close to the USA. I know very few people who are able to vote in the USA, and none of those people voted for Trump. Asking people online, as I did, is my only real option. Anyhow, thanks for the answer. Got it; ‘murder’ of unborn theoretical children is worse than separating and losing track of actual real objectively alive, conscious, and suffering children. (Only as long as they’re brown, presumably? You don’t actually say that, but I assume that’s the intent?) And also, simply voting for a Democrat is worse, too. Got it. I’ll be sure to keep those worse things in mind and not be at all insulted that you think I have a lot in common with that worldview.
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    Thank you for admitting that you are vilifying Trump supporters online in a thread about nuance for beliefs you have ascribed to them without talking to one of them. > Anyhow, thanks for the answer. Got it; ‘murder’ of unborn theoretical children is worse than separating and losing track of actual real objectively alive, conscious, and suffering children. The intent here was to provide an example of a thought process; not to speak for all, or even the average, Trump supporter. > (Only as long as they’re brown, presumably? You don’t actually say that, but I assume that’s the intent?) Why would this be my intent or even 'the' intent? In this case it doesn't even make sense. Non-whites have, by far, more abortions in the United States than whites. So ending abortion would 'save' a lot more non-white babies than white babies. People are also allowed to be against both these things, but they aren't allowed to vote that way (at least if they believe voting for a third party throws their vote away). To play devil's advocate, there are far more abortions than there are immigrant children separated from parents; so a voter against both of these might reasonably conclude they're doing more good voting for Trump than for a pro-choice Democrat. > And also, simply voting for a Democrat is worse, too. Got it. Democrats are overwhelmingly pro-choice, so yes, if someone is pro-life and motivated by the single issue of abortion voting for a Democrat may very well be worse. You seem to be incorrectly ascribing this particular belief to me when all I have said is there are people who hold this belief. >I'll be sure to keep those worse things in mind and not be at all insulted that you think I have a lot in common with that worldview. What your worldview has in common with theirs is that it is a hard (read: non-nuanced) stance on a single issue. Just like you might think someone who could vote for Trump is vile because of the separation issue, a pro-lifer might think you are vile for thinking a pro-choice candidate is worthy of your (hypothetical) vote.
    - mewse 6y ago
      > Thank you for admitting that you are vilifying Trump supporters online in a thread about nuance for beliefs you have ascribed to them without talking to one of them You’re putting words in my mouth. > you might think someone who could vote for Trump is vile Please don’t presume to tell me what I think. You don’t know me or my mind. > What your worldview has in common with theirs is that it is a hard (read: non-nuanced) stance on a single issue. Oh, don’t worry about that; I have opinions on a whole bunch of issues; this was just a single example of one that I thought was pretty simple and ought to be relatively uncontroversial. And also, see my above comment re: not presuming to tell me what I think.
- crooked-v 6y ago
  As a registered Democrat, I would happily support a variety of measures factually proven to reduce (legal or illegal) abortion rates in general, such as easier access to birth control and better sex ed for teenagers, as well as programs that would reduce the appeal of abortion, such as high-quality government-funded adoption programs for newborns. Strangely enough, pro-lifers generally oppose those kinds of things.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dbrueck 6y ago
Outside the issue of immigration, it's pretty well accepted that separating children from their parents is to be avoided, but sometimes the alternative is worse so the state steps in and does it anyway. The state steps in when there is abuse or neglect - do you oppose "breaking up families" even then, or do you concede that sometimes it's the right call? Is it not possible that in the context of immigration there can also be situations where it needs to happen? (e.g. communal housing could put children in the vicinity of harmful people, or fake families with human traffickers posing as parents)
- not_kurt_godel 6y ago
  Trump's separation policies were put into place to punish and hurt immigrants, not protect children. Hypotheticals are not reality.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    If you’re interested in the real reason, this is not quite true, although I would not disagree that he thought the extra deterrent would be a bonus. This was not actually a policy. This was a side effect of a different policy. The policy was zero tolerance on criminal immigration law. That means, if an adult crosses the border illegally, they committed a crime and must be arrested for said crime. That part isn’t actually new, Trump just directed them to enforce the law. That’s where the issue comes in. When an adult male goes to jail, such as if I were to get a DUI with my kid in the car, I’m not allowed to take a kid in with me to jail. It doesn’t matter if they’ll be left alone with no one to care for them. No matter what, arrestees can not bring their kids to jail, ever. So in this situation, the parent is arrested and charged with a crime, and the kids are held until a guardian can be located. And guess what? Many from Mexico or El Salvador actually don’t want to come up to the US and get their kids, if such a person even exists. The Obama admin built these “cages” for that reason. But, they didn’t enforce the law as much, so they were not used so often. They did build them and they did put kids in them though.
    - butbutemails2 6y ago

adamsea 6y ago

> Your post implies that everyone who supports Trump supports that policy ... Well, everyone who supports Trump decided that those policies are better than the alternative. What could be worse than children in camps is beyond me though ...

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Those people probably didn't see that coverage that so upset you (and me, to be honest) because they live in a completely different media environment. Lots of them care more about abortion and religion that you presumably do, and that's what makes Biden worse for them - the fear that they'll lose their ability to practice their faith and have it be part of their lives. I don't get it either, but you're essentially doing the same thing to them that they do when they claim that Biden will introduce a Green New Deal, or make abortions mandatory or something (I should watch more Fox, clearly, so I'd have better examples here).
- adamsea 6y ago
  Sadly you are probably right about the different media environments. At the same time, no, I'm not essentially doing the same thing. Let's face the facts - the current conservative media environment (Fox, etc) is deeply distorted. I'm not making claims based on bad information, or making untrue claims. Let's also bear in mind that, as much as networks like Fox distort and manipulate the truth, I'd bet plenty of people in these distorted media environments have a degree of understanding that what the Trump administration has done is wrong. But people (all people) hate the discomfort of cognitive dissonance and look for any reason to avoid it. To circle back to the main point, people making false claims (even if they are unaware of the falsehoods their claims are based on) is not the same thing as someone else pointing out the falsehood itself.