3 ms·

That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation? Let's recap what kind of responses were made: * "It's your job t

by aydyn 1y ago

That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation? Let's recap what kind of responses were made: * "It's your job to come up with an alternative" (not helpful) * "Just let them all stay" (not realistic) * "Actually Republican want illegal immigration, not Democrats, so they can rile up their base" (retarded) * Lots and lots and lots of ad hominem: "check your carbon monoxide monitor" The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought and lacking in any civility. It's a collective tantrum full stop. > Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so. Don't gaslight. I reiterate that it was a direct response to a bad faith comment. There is nothing unclear about it. He suggested an unrealistic course of action which while he would be personally happy with, goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable and hence fails the request for a "realistic alternative". > We simply deport anyone who makes the argument he's making The response is clear: that's unrealistic and not up to him. He understood exactly what it meant but didnt like his very own words used against him.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
No no, your comprehension is failing you again. The problem people are raising is not "mass deportation." The problem is violation of due process rights. This is not a viable solution because it is 1) blatantly illegal under the American Constitution and 2) undermines the very premise of the rule of law. One reason it is clearly not a viable solution is because if it were, then it would also be a viable solution simply to deport aydyn and people who think like him/her. Doing so would only entail the same convenience-driven Constitutional violations that the current administration is undertaking. Neither is a viable solution. Let's just get to the meat of the matter so you can pick between hypocrisy or ignorance. Please answer these yes/no questions: 1. Under the US Constitution, does someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant have a right to due process? 2. Is it acceptable to violate the US Constitution when convenient?
- aydyn 1y ago
  Oh I'm sorry, I thought we already devolved into fully uncivil conversation? > Check your carbon monoxide detector.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    Thank you for sharing with everyone the level of thoughtfulness that backs opinions like yours. It’s a recipe anyone can follow: 1. Find MAGA pseudo-intellectualization 2. Ask basic factual question 3. Observe theatrical short-circuiting as brain fails to find footing in reality
    - aydyn 1y ago
      Maybe if you get angry some more?
      - komali2 1y ago
        You are a troll, and you've trolled effectively, but I hope others see your comments and then learn you aren't worth engaging with.
ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
> That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation? It's been kind of a weird (non-sequitur perhaps?) request, for a couple of reasons: First because the dismissive nature of some of your responses frames you as the judge of what is acceptable/realistic, which I think we can all agree here without any offense, you're not; Second, because mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, is itself not an acceptable solution. Indeed, "do nothing" is both more acceptable (viewed more acceptably by others) and more realistic (doing nothing is easier than doing something). Thus, it is unhelpful to rule that out as an option while preserving the even-less-acceptable option of maintaining the status quo. And let's be clear here: the relevant question is of acceptable solutions, not simply realistic ones. As we've unfortunately seen in human history, even killing millions is realistic, but obviously not acceptable. > [Doing nothing] goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable "The vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable. Why, then, must the response be more reasonable than the initial suggestion? Maybe that's why all the replies expressed confusion at the quoting: it is missing that context, and the full context makes the quote cut against the position of pro-mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc. > Don't gaslight Your personal judgement that people who don't understand your out of context quotes are gaslighting, is rude. The more likely explanation, based on the evidence, is that a given message failed to provide sufficient context and/or explanation. > The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought This is even meaner. I am confident that you are capable of civil discussion focused on ideas, not on other HN posters. If you want to call your fellow posters thoughtless, you might seek greener pastures.
- aydyn 1y ago
  > "The vast majority of people" find mass deportation The majority of Americans agree with mass deportation even if they don't agree with exactly how ICE is proceeding. There's lots of room for discussion which obviously isn't happening here. > Your personal judgement that people who don't understand your out of context quotes are gaslighting, is rude. Given the context and aggressive sarcasm of the post, the vastly more likely explanation is the poster didn't agree with the point rather than not understanding it at all. You understand now that it is simple direct response. Thus, if you want to call for intellectual honesty and civility, you can lead. > This is even meaner. I am confident that you are capable of civil discussion focused on ideas, not on other HN posters. I'm happy to have a civil conversation. I'm also happy to have an uncivil conversation. I'd ask you to be consistent when and with who that incivility started.

by aydyn 1y ago

sorcerer-mar 1y ago

No no, your comprehension is failing you again. The problem people are raising is not "mass deportation." The problem is violation of due process rights. This is not a viable solution because it is 1) blatantly illegal under the American Constitution and 2) undermines the very premise of the rule of law. One reason it is clearly not a viable solution is because if it were, then it would also be a viable solution simply to deport aydyn and people who think like him/her. Doing so would only entail the same convenience-driven Constitutional violations that the current administration is undertaking. Neither is a viable solution. Let's just get to the meat of the matter so you can pick between hypocrisy or ignorance. Please answer these yes/no questions: 1. Under the US Constitution, does someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant have a right to due process? 2. Is it acceptable to violate the US Constitution when convenient?

aydyn 1y ago
Oh I'm sorry, I thought we already devolved into fully uncivil conversation? > Check your carbon monoxide detector.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Thank you for sharing with everyone the level of thoughtfulness that backs opinions like yours. It’s a recipe anyone can follow: 1. Find MAGA pseudo-intellectualization 2. Ask basic factual question 3. Observe theatrical short-circuiting as brain fails to find footing in reality
  - aydyn 1y ago
    Maybe if you get angry some more?
    - komali2 1y ago
      You are a troll, and you've trolled effectively, but I hope others see your comments and then learn you aren't worth engaging with.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago

> That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation? It's been kind of a weird (non-sequitur perhaps?) request, for a couple of reasons: First because the dismissive nature of some of your responses frames you as the judge of what is acceptable/realistic, which I think we can all agree here without any offense, you're not; Second, because mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, is itself not an acceptable solution. Indeed, "do nothing" is both more acceptable (viewed more acceptably by others) and more realistic (doing nothing is easier than doing something). Thus, it is unhelpful to rule that out as an option while preserving the even-less-acceptable option of maintaining the status quo. And let's be clear here: the relevant question is of acceptable solutions, not simply realistic ones. As we've unfortunately seen in human history, even killing millions is realistic, but obviously not acceptable. > [Doing nothing] goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable "The vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable. Why, then, must the response be more reasonable than the initial suggestion? Maybe that's why all the replies expressed confusion at the quoting: it is missing that context, and the full context makes the quote cut against the position of pro-mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc. > Don't gaslight Your personal judgement that people who don't understand your out of context quotes are gaslighting, is rude. The more likely explanation, based on the evidence, is that a given message failed to provide sufficient context and/or explanation. > The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought This is even meaner. I am confident that you are capable of civil discussion focused on ideas, not on other HN posters. If you want to call your fellow posters thoughtless, you might seek greener pastures.

aydyn 1y ago
> "The vast majority of people" find mass deportation The majority of Americans agree with mass deportation even if they don't agree with exactly how ICE is proceeding. There's lots of room for discussion which obviously isn't happening here. > Your personal judgement that people who don't understand your out of context quotes are gaslighting, is rude. Given the context and aggressive sarcasm of the post, the vastly more likely explanation is the poster didn't agree with the point rather than not understanding it at all. You understand now that it is simple direct response. Thus, if you want to call for intellectual honesty and civility, you can lead. > This is even meaner. I am confident that you are capable of civil discussion focused on ideas, not on other HN posters. I'm happy to have a civil conversation. I'm also happy to have an uncivil conversation. I'd ask you to be consistent when and with who that incivility started.