4 ms·

Interesting that nobody on the conservative side hates immigrants but continue to vote on politicians with platforms built upon the hatred of immigrants. It’s a

Interesting that nobody on the conservative side hates immigrants but continue to vote on politicians with platforms built upon the hatred of immigrants. It’s almost as if they’re lying.

timr 5mo ago
[flagged]
- hackyhacky 5mo ago
  > the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider? Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.
  - timr 5mo ago
    > Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual. OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies. If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names. Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
    - hackyhacky 5mo ago
      You said the other side has reasons that I hadn't considered. So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
      - timr 5mo ago
        > So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider? How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not a proponent of this change. I am saying that calling your opponent a liar is not a convincing debate tactic, nor does it add anything new or useful. So you can start by explaining, in good faith, what is wrong with the argument that you’re dismissing without explanation.
        Dylan16807 5mo ago
        You don't get to skip backing up your claim while waiting for them to go first. What are the arguments they haven't bothered to consider?
        mindslight 5mo ago
        Seriously. I wish I could find any positive-constructive [0] results/values to frame Trumpism in terms of. I understood why people voted for him in 2016, or at least I thought I did. But based on his actual results, I've been trying to steelman for ~6 years now. I haven't been able to come up with any positive values, the only things I'm ever able to come up with are destruction, spite, and hate. Trump supporters should be perfectly capable of articulating some positive values they see Trump as actually championing. There's really no reason to be arguing for them. But rather instead, I just see fewer and fewer flags up as the damage to our country grows and grows. I guess the reality is finally setting in? [0] eg "deport immigrants" isn't a positive result as it's framed around a negative (immigrants not being here). "Fix the economy for manual labor" or "Restore X/Y/Z cultural values (that immigrants are supposedly disrupting)" would be positive values. But of course Trump hasn't actually made either of those examples better.
        wwweston 5mo ago
        No matter how many times you repeat your evasions, they are unlikely to persuade anyone that you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)
        timr 5mo ago
        What "evasions"? I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy. I don't support the policy. I think the argument advanced by the administration is wrong. I want you to tell me why you believe that, instead of just screaming "liar!" because you disagree. But you can't do that, to the extent that you'd rather attack me, even though I already agree with you. Calling your opponent a liar convinces nobody. Making a constructive argument has a chance of doing so. But that's harder than insulting people. > you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”) You don't understand what Motte and Bailey means. I am not making an argument in favor of the policy, then backing away from that argument to a different position. I am making an argument against calling people names in lieu of actual debate.
    - shimman 5mo ago
      For anyone curious this is a great example of sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
      - timr 5mo ago
        Well that’s cute. We’re so far around the bend now that making a plea to do something other than scream “liar” at your opponent has been characterized as a malevolent political ploy. For the record, you didn’t even read the first paragraph of the thing you linked to: > Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity I’m not asking you for evidence. I’m asking you to stop calling people names. If you think the argument is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If you can’t do that, you lose.
        throwaway173738 5mo ago
        Look man there are several different ways people argue and calling someone a liar or saying a policy is cruel despite the official line is entirely reasonable. If you’re taking that so personally that you have to personally respond to everyone about that then I have to wonder if you’re just trying to defend the policy in a motte and then retreat to the bailey of “I don’t support the policy I just don’t like how you’re arguing.” Calling someone cruel or a liar is not a slur, they’re calling out what they view as shameful acts. I think it’s within the bounds of civility to call someone cruel or a liar. I really think you’re just trolling with repeated requests for civility here.
        timr 5mo ago
        Calling someone a liar is not an argument.
        hackyhacky 5mo ago
        > Calling someone a liar is not an argument. Correct. On its own, calling someone a liar is not an argument. However, if a person is a liar, that fact provides useful context in evaluating statements made by that person. Traditionally, when a person has been shown to lie repeatedly, one should expect them to continue lying, and therefore one should not take their statements at face value. Can you understand how that is relevant in this case?
    - jasonlotito 5mo ago
      > OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies. Because they are lies. Assuming they are lying has served me well. When I did spend time assuming the best, I was disappointed time and time again to find out I'd been lied to. Now, assuming they are lying has proven to be the correct choice far more often than reasonable. > If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names. Why do you think we care at all about convincing people? Why do you think we haven't already tried to do an actual debate? You can't have reasonable discussions with people who dismiss reality and facts. I'm not talking about opinions, but facts. For example, who won the 2020 election? Who was the president when 9/11 occurred? Who was the President in 2020? Is Trump a felon? Who pays for a tariff? None of these are opinion based. And yet, you see government leaders who are unable to answer these BASIC questions. And it filters down. Sorry, but you can't debate with people who don't believe in basic facts. Let me show you how that works: > Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change. Yes, you are. Yes, you do agree with this change. Why do you agree with this change? Why do you support it? Why do you hate America?
    - tardedmeme 5mo ago
      Well yeah, they are lies. It's quite obvious to everyone who's not caught up in the lies. Those people can't be convinced anyway, so they're not the target audience.
- ourmandave 5mo ago
  then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric The POTUS has lied about immigrants since the moment he came down the escalator in 2015 and hasn't let up since. From the old tired crime arguments of the past to outright bs (eating cats and dogs!). Honestly I wish that was all he lied about, but nothing is sacred.
- joquarky 5mo ago
  > and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider? Such as?
  - orthecreedence 5mo ago
    Such as the desire for theocratic surveillance fascism (what Jesus advocated for tirelessly).
- orthecreedence 5mo ago
  > I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric The Trump admin just sent an official death threat to trans people and anti-fascists (lol??). I am so incredibly sick of people acting like this is ok and normal and any calling out is exaggerating. At some point, you're not defending sensible discourse, you're lecturing people for being upset when they have a murderous regime targeting them. It's a shitty thing to do. You're defending actual fascism at this point. And I'm happy to back up that claim without rhetoric by demonstrating the ways in which the US is (and has been) slipping into fascism for decades. Something tells me I'd be wasting my breath though.

Interesting that nobody on the conservative side hates immigrants but continue to vote on politicians with platforms built upon the hatred of immigrants. It’s almost as if they’re lying.

timr 5mo ago

[flagged]

hackyhacky 5mo ago
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider? Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual.
- timr 5mo ago
  > Cool, like what reasons, for example? The reasons given in this press release are transparently pretextual. OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies. If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names. Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
  - hackyhacky 5mo ago
    You said the other side has reasons that I hadn't considered. So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider?
    - timr 5mo ago
      > So, besides the "official" reasons in the official press release (which I have already considered), what reasons have I failed to consider? How many times do I have to repeat myself? I am not a proponent of this change. I am saying that calling your opponent a liar is not a convincing debate tactic, nor does it add anything new or useful. So you can start by explaining, in good faith, what is wrong with the argument that you’re dismissing without explanation.
      - Dylan16807 5mo ago
        You don't get to skip backing up your claim while waiting for them to go first. What are the arguments they haven't bothered to consider?
        mindslight 5mo ago
        Seriously. I wish I could find any positive-constructive [0] results/values to frame Trumpism in terms of. I understood why people voted for him in 2016, or at least I thought I did. But based on his actual results, I've been trying to steelman for ~6 years now. I haven't been able to come up with any positive values, the only things I'm ever able to come up with are destruction, spite, and hate. Trump supporters should be perfectly capable of articulating some positive values they see Trump as actually championing. There's really no reason to be arguing for them. But rather instead, I just see fewer and fewer flags up as the damage to our country grows and grows. I guess the reality is finally setting in? [0] eg "deport immigrants" isn't a positive result as it's framed around a negative (immigrants not being here). "Fix the economy for manual labor" or "Restore X/Y/Z cultural values (that immigrants are supposedly disrupting)" would be positive values. But of course Trump hasn't actually made either of those examples better.
      - wwweston 5mo ago
        No matter how many times you repeat your evasions, they are unlikely to persuade anyone that you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”)
        timr 5mo ago
        What "evasions"? I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy. I don't support the policy. I think the argument advanced by the administration is wrong. I want you to tell me why you believe that, instead of just screaming "liar!" because you disagree. But you can't do that, to the extent that you'd rather attack me, even though I already agree with you. Calling your opponent a liar convinces nobody. Making a constructive argument has a chance of doing so. But that's harder than insulting people. > you’re simultaneously entitled to your bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy) and your motte (“maybe they have honest reasons that aren’t anti-immigrant, ever think of that even though I won’t speculate on what those would be”) You don't understand what Motte and Bailey means. I am not making an argument in favor of the policy, then backing away from that argument to a different position. I am making an argument against calling people names in lieu of actual debate.
  - shimman 5mo ago
    For anyone curious this is a great example of sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
    - timr 5mo ago
      Well that’s cute. We’re so far around the bend now that making a plea to do something other than scream “liar” at your opponent has been characterized as a malevolent political ploy. For the record, you didn’t even read the first paragraph of the thing you linked to: > Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity I’m not asking you for evidence. I’m asking you to stop calling people names. If you think the argument is wrong, explain why it is wrong. If you can’t do that, you lose.
      - throwaway173738 5mo ago
        Look man there are several different ways people argue and calling someone a liar or saying a policy is cruel despite the official line is entirely reasonable. If you’re taking that so personally that you have to personally respond to everyone about that then I have to wonder if you’re just trying to defend the policy in a motte and then retreat to the bailey of “I don’t support the policy I just don’t like how you’re arguing.” Calling someone cruel or a liar is not a slur, they’re calling out what they view as shameful acts. I think it’s within the bounds of civility to call someone cruel or a liar. I really think you’re just trolling with repeated requests for civility here.
        timr 5mo ago
        Calling someone a liar is not an argument.
        hackyhacky 5mo ago
        > Calling someone a liar is not an argument. Correct. On its own, calling someone a liar is not an argument. However, if a person is a liar, that fact provides useful context in evaluating statements made by that person. Traditionally, when a person has been shown to lie repeatedly, one should expect them to continue lying, and therefore one should not take their statements at face value. Can you understand how that is relevant in this case?
  - jasonlotito 5mo ago
    > OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies. Because they are lies. Assuming they are lying has served me well. When I did spend time assuming the best, I was disappointed time and time again to find out I'd been lied to. Now, assuming they are lying has proven to be the correct choice far more often than reasonable. > If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names. Why do you think we care at all about convincing people? Why do you think we haven't already tried to do an actual debate? You can't have reasonable discussions with people who dismiss reality and facts. I'm not talking about opinions, but facts. For example, who won the 2020 election? Who was the president when 9/11 occurred? Who was the President in 2020? Is Trump a felon? Who pays for a tariff? None of these are opinion based. And yet, you see government leaders who are unable to answer these BASIC questions. And it filters down. Sorry, but you can't debate with people who don't believe in basic facts. Let me show you how that works: > Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change. Yes, you are. Yes, you do agree with this change. Why do you agree with this change? Why do you support it? Why do you hate America?
  - tardedmeme 5mo ago
    Well yeah, they are lies. It's quite obvious to everyone who's not caught up in the lies. Those people can't be convinced anyway, so they're not the target audience.
ourmandave 5mo ago
then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric The POTUS has lied about immigrants since the moment he came down the escalator in 2015 and hasn't let up since. From the old tired crime arguments of the past to outright bs (eating cats and dogs!). Honestly I wish that was all he lied about, but nothing is sacred.
joquarky 5mo ago
> and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider? Such as?
- orthecreedence 5mo ago
  Such as the desire for theocratic surveillance fascism (what Jesus advocated for tirelessly).
orthecreedence 5mo ago
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric The Trump admin just sent an official death threat to trans people and anti-fascists (lol??). I am so incredibly sick of people acting like this is ok and normal and any calling out is exaggerating. At some point, you're not defending sensible discourse, you're lecturing people for being upset when they have a murderous regime targeting them. It's a shitty thing to do. You're defending actual fascism at this point. And I'm happy to back up that claim without rhetoric by demonstrating the ways in which the US is (and has been) slipping into fascism for decades. Something tells me I'd be wasting my breath though.