3 ms·

With due respect, think about what you're doing. You're now simply discarding any poll that doesn't conform to your own personal biases, and replacing those dat

With due respect, think about what you're doing. You're now simply discarding any poll that doesn't conform to your own personal biases, and replacing those data with some rather extreme partisan talking points. This is the point about stepping out of bubbles. The people you see as 'the other side' do not think in any way, shape, or fashion like you believe that they might. For instance if you went up to an average Republican and said 'So what do you think about the human rights abuses being carried out against legal immigrants?' The overwhelming majority would have literally no clue what you're talking about. If you explained this incident or that, their response is going to be 'Well that's dumb. I hope they're doing something so this doesn't happen again.' It's like if you went up to the average Democrat and asked them what they think about having explicit LGB books made available to minors in schools? Again the overwhelming majority would have literally no clue what you're talking about. If you explained this incident or that, their response is going to be 'Well that's dumb. I hope they're doing something so this doesn't happen again.' The 'other side' these bubbles build up simply doesn't exist in reality.

wat10000 1y ago
What "rather extreme partisan talking points" are those? Referring to the well-attested, widely-reported abuses of immigrants by this administration is not extremely partisan, it's just facts. I know Republicans. I talk to Republicans. They know about this stuff and they're fine with it. They know they're not supposed to be, so they deflect. They'll say what's happening to immigrants is no different from being arrested for a crime you didn't commit, then released. They'll insist that the victim was a terrible criminal regardless of the facts. What they don't do is express any reservations whatsoever about it. I suppose you might make an argument that this deflection indicates an overall approval of immigration since they need to find excuses to support the administration's anti-immigration actions. I would argue that if you claim to believe one thing, but you always find an excuse to defend actions against it, then you don't actually believe it. Polls are not magic opinion-finding systems. They report what people say. This demonstrably frequently diverges from what people actually do, think, and feel.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  You swapped from 'heinous human rights abuses' to 'abuse' when challenged on a point being framed in a rather extreme and partisan fashion. And that's not to mock you or anything - it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Abuses are one thing, human rights abuses are another, and then human rights abuses so abnormally cruel that they deserve to be labeled as heinous? I mean are we talking about stuff like Unit 731 [1] here? I'm pretty sure we are not. Yet these echo chambers encourage people to use ever more hyperbolic and sensationalized language framing ever more actions as the most severe and consequential thing to ever happen, mostly just to rile people up (and get those votes in social media). This is why conversation, and free flow of information, from people of different worldviews is so critical for a functioning society and avoiding radicalism. And I have to say I'm still not certain what you're even talking about, whereas I assume you think literally every American knows exactly what you are trying to reference. But this is again an issue about bubbles, and what I was getting at with if you asked an average person about some trending talking point. On the overwhelming majority of issues, most people's response is going to be 'What are you even talking about?' [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
  - wat10000 1y ago
    It’s shorthand. You don’t have to repeat the full phrase every time. I’m talking about things like CECOT. No, it’s not Unit 731. I think being sent to a horrible prison in another country without a trial qualifies as “heinous.” Maybe you don’t. But that’s missing the point. The point is the support for these actions, not their precise description. You say people don’t know about this stuff. My experience is otherwise. Maybe you’re right. I don’t think so.
    - somenameforme 1y ago
      Expedited removal [1] is a part of immigration law dating back to Clinton. People who are in the country unlawfully do not have all of the same rights as citizens or legal non-citizens. And support (or opposition) for immigration in no way whatsoever implies a position on how to deal with people who are in the country illegally. For instance Hispanics are less supportive of immigration than average, but more supportive than average of allowing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And I myself am quite supportive of immigration, but not at all a fan of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I even have very specific reasons for that, but my anecdotes are probably irrelevant here. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal

wat10000 1y ago

What "rather extreme partisan talking points" are those? Referring to the well-attested, widely-reported abuses of immigrants by this administration is not extremely partisan, it's just facts. I know Republicans. I talk to Republicans. They know about this stuff and they're fine with it. They know they're not supposed to be, so they deflect. They'll say what's happening to immigrants is no different from being arrested for a crime you didn't commit, then released. They'll insist that the victim was a terrible criminal regardless of the facts. What they don't do is express any reservations whatsoever about it. I suppose you might make an argument that this deflection indicates an overall approval of immigration since they need to find excuses to support the administration's anti-immigration actions. I would argue that if you claim to believe one thing, but you always find an excuse to defend actions against it, then you don't actually believe it. Polls are not magic opinion-finding systems. They report what people say. This demonstrably frequently diverges from what people actually do, think, and feel.

somenameforme 1y ago
You swapped from 'heinous human rights abuses' to 'abuse' when challenged on a point being framed in a rather extreme and partisan fashion. And that's not to mock you or anything - it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Abuses are one thing, human rights abuses are another, and then human rights abuses so abnormally cruel that they deserve to be labeled as heinous? I mean are we talking about stuff like Unit 731 [1] here? I'm pretty sure we are not. Yet these echo chambers encourage people to use ever more hyperbolic and sensationalized language framing ever more actions as the most severe and consequential thing to ever happen, mostly just to rile people up (and get those votes in social media). This is why conversation, and free flow of information, from people of different worldviews is so critical for a functioning society and avoiding radicalism. And I have to say I'm still not certain what you're even talking about, whereas I assume you think literally every American knows exactly what you are trying to reference. But this is again an issue about bubbles, and what I was getting at with if you asked an average person about some trending talking point. On the overwhelming majority of issues, most people's response is going to be 'What are you even talking about?' [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
- wat10000 1y ago
  It’s shorthand. You don’t have to repeat the full phrase every time. I’m talking about things like CECOT. No, it’s not Unit 731. I think being sent to a horrible prison in another country without a trial qualifies as “heinous.” Maybe you don’t. But that’s missing the point. The point is the support for these actions, not their precise description. You say people don’t know about this stuff. My experience is otherwise. Maybe you’re right. I don’t think so.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    Expedited removal [1] is a part of immigration law dating back to Clinton. People who are in the country unlawfully do not have all of the same rights as citizens or legal non-citizens. And support (or opposition) for immigration in no way whatsoever implies a position on how to deal with people who are in the country illegally. For instance Hispanics are less supportive of immigration than average, but more supportive than average of allowing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. And I myself am quite supportive of immigration, but not at all a fan of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. I even have very specific reasons for that, but my anecdotes are probably irrelevant here. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedited_removal