3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  If anything, "the vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable than doing nothing. Please don't cut off my quotes mid-sentence when it omits critical context. > 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. Given that every person who responded in that thread expressed confusion at your quote (myself included), the more likely explanation, based on the evidence, is that a given message failed to provide sufficient context and/or explanation. Now that we have the context explained in my previous post, we see why the quote was confusing: because it does not support the position you have been espousing. That is to say: to whatever extent that other poster 'doesn't get to decide what constitutes American interests', neither do you. > if you want to call for intellectual honesty and civility, you can lead I think I have been civil. If I've insulted you personally, I am sorry, and wouldn't mind you pointing it out. > I'd ask you to be consistent when and with who that incivility started That other poster isn't being nice either, but I don't like to comment purely to criticize tone. I prefer redirecting to substance when I can. That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context quote, were asked what you meant, and refused to explain. Now that you have civilly explained what you meant (thank you), we can focus on substance, which is that if you don't provide an acceptable solution, then it's probably not reasonable to expect others to.
  - aydyn 1y ago
    > If anything, "the vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable than doing nothing. Please don't cut off my quotes mid-sentence when it omits critical context. It is not critical context, the root post asked for realistic alternatives. > Given that every person who responded in that thread expressed confusion at your quote (myself included) All two of you? > That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote, Flatly untrue.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]

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.

ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
If anything, "the vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable than doing nothing. Please don't cut off my quotes mid-sentence when it omits critical context. > 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. Given that every person who responded in that thread expressed confusion at your quote (myself included), the more likely explanation, based on the evidence, is that a given message failed to provide sufficient context and/or explanation. Now that we have the context explained in my previous post, we see why the quote was confusing: because it does not support the position you have been espousing. That is to say: to whatever extent that other poster 'doesn't get to decide what constitutes American interests', neither do you. > if you want to call for intellectual honesty and civility, you can lead I think I have been civil. If I've insulted you personally, I am sorry, and wouldn't mind you pointing it out. > I'd ask you to be consistent when and with who that incivility started That other poster isn't being nice either, but I don't like to comment purely to criticize tone. I prefer redirecting to substance when I can. That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context quote, were asked what you meant, and refused to explain. Now that you have civilly explained what you meant (thank you), we can focus on substance, which is that if you don't provide an acceptable solution, then it's probably not reasonable to expect others to.
- aydyn 1y ago
  > If anything, "the vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable than doing nothing. Please don't cut off my quotes mid-sentence when it omits critical context. It is not critical context, the root post asked for realistic alternatives. > Given that every person who responded in that thread expressed confusion at your quote (myself included) All two of you? > That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote, Flatly untrue.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]