3 ms·

> "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 pr

by 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]
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    > the root post asked for realistic alternatives Yes, reasonable alternatives to mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc. The response included options even more reasonable than that one, so no problem there. > All two of you? As opposed to all one of you? Why would your own comprehension of your own words somehow nullify other people saying they were incomprehensible? Of course your words weren't confusing to you, they came from your brain! > Flatly untrue Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously. I noticed you totally excluded the substantive part of my reply where it's explained why everyone found your quoting confusing. I'm sure it's much easier to just ignore it and say 'nope'. Makes for a better conversation, right? Like this one? Anyways, here is the substance again, if you want to focus on it: The quote, as used by you, 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. So why quote it in that context?
    - aydyn 1y ago
      > reasonable Thats not the adjective I used. > 2 people who tell you the same thing An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument. > That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote, >> Flatly untrue >>> Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously. For clarification (since you seem to need it a lot) I am responding to your claim that incivility started with me. That is flatly untrue, obviously.

by aydyn 1y ago

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]
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  > the root post asked for realistic alternatives Yes, reasonable alternatives to mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc. The response included options even more reasonable than that one, so no problem there. > All two of you? As opposed to all one of you? Why would your own comprehension of your own words somehow nullify other people saying they were incomprehensible? Of course your words weren't confusing to you, they came from your brain! > Flatly untrue Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously. I noticed you totally excluded the substantive part of my reply where it's explained why everyone found your quoting confusing. I'm sure it's much easier to just ignore it and say 'nope'. Makes for a better conversation, right? Like this one? Anyways, here is the substance again, if you want to focus on it: The quote, as used by you, 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. So why quote it in that context?
  - aydyn 1y ago
    > reasonable Thats not the adjective I used. > 2 people who tell you the same thing An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument. > That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote, >> Flatly untrue >>> Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously. For clarification (since you seem to need it a lot) I am responding to your claim that incivility started with me. That is flatly untrue, obviously.