4 ms·

> 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

> 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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.
        Folcon 4mo ago
        Hi timr I'm going to engage with you a bit because this situation does read to me like people talking past each other and I personally don't like when I see that happening I'm going to state some assumptions up front and I appreciate if they seem incredibly simple and or naive but I find it's useful to have a common frame of reference in these situations Reading what you wrote, I think it's plausible that you don't seem to realise that the disagreement that your getting into with people is one that's deeply emotionally charged and the current zeitgeist of how we engage in disagreement these days being predominantly meta disagreement means the vast majority of people are pattern matching on situation, context and vibes than what's said is the norm I'm not a fan, but I absolutely can recognise and acknowledge that for a lot of the people who are coming into forums like this looking for civil discussion, this meta argument is very much what they retreat to unless they feel like it's worthwhile engaging with someone else honestly and vulnerably, because the dominant tactics of online disagreement are all about managing and depleting the energy of the person who you disagree with instead of engaging with them, while at times doing so in a way that makes them look unreasonable or foolish to the wider audience or signalling to that wider audience so that they're in on the joke as it were So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying If you want to really get engagement from people now, which I believe you want to on charged topics like this, you usually have to act in a way that falls outside the pattern, which requires some thought and effort We're really cynical these days and dislike wasting our time and energy, not so much because I think we care about the time or the energy, I've seen a lot of people still just arguing back and forth and can't help thinking to myself that if they were willing to put that energy into arguing so much why didn't they try something else that might have had a higher likelihood of success But at least in my view, we don't want to be as vulnerable anymore, too many people have put in the time and the energy of disagreeing in good faith sincerely believing that they were speaking with someone and reaching for understanding only to later realise that the other person they were speaking with was just running an algorithm, probably not even a very sophisticated one at that And I'm not immune to this either, it's not fun, this dominant cynical strategy of our age It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other in what I don't think anyone will disagree with saying are trying and difficult times My personal reaction to it is stuff like what I'm doing here, jumping into a discussion when I see people speaking past each other and when I've got the capacity arguing for a pause and a change in approach and then leaving it up to them as to whether they want to do that I'm directing this at you not because I think you're particularly at fault, just that I think you've got the most capability to shift the conversation by changing how you are responding I could be wrong, maybe you don't want to, as is your right, or if you do people will still engage with you poorly believing that you aren't speaking in good faith, as is theirs Thank you for your time if you read this, hopefully it leads to a more productive discourse
    - breppp 4mo ago
      thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system
      - hackyhacky 4mo ago
        > thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system Treating an obviously racist and xenophobic immigration agenda as good-faith government policy does not help the country. It only serves to lend undeserved legitimacy to a corrupt policy-making apparatus that does not deserve it.
- shimman 4mo ago
  For anyone curious this is a great example of sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
  - timr 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
        Calling someone a liar is not an argument.
        hackyhacky 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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.

> 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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.
      - Folcon 4mo ago
        Hi timr I'm going to engage with you a bit because this situation does read to me like people talking past each other and I personally don't like when I see that happening I'm going to state some assumptions up front and I appreciate if they seem incredibly simple and or naive but I find it's useful to have a common frame of reference in these situations Reading what you wrote, I think it's plausible that you don't seem to realise that the disagreement that your getting into with people is one that's deeply emotionally charged and the current zeitgeist of how we engage in disagreement these days being predominantly meta disagreement means the vast majority of people are pattern matching on situation, context and vibes than what's said is the norm I'm not a fan, but I absolutely can recognise and acknowledge that for a lot of the people who are coming into forums like this looking for civil discussion, this meta argument is very much what they retreat to unless they feel like it's worthwhile engaging with someone else honestly and vulnerably, because the dominant tactics of online disagreement are all about managing and depleting the energy of the person who you disagree with instead of engaging with them, while at times doing so in a way that makes them look unreasonable or foolish to the wider audience or signalling to that wider audience so that they're in on the joke as it were So given that context, your argument will read to many as engaging in that style, and as a result they really don't want to engage with you on the merits of what your saying If you want to really get engagement from people now, which I believe you want to on charged topics like this, you usually have to act in a way that falls outside the pattern, which requires some thought and effort We're really cynical these days and dislike wasting our time and energy, not so much because I think we care about the time or the energy, I've seen a lot of people still just arguing back and forth and can't help thinking to myself that if they were willing to put that energy into arguing so much why didn't they try something else that might have had a higher likelihood of success But at least in my view, we don't want to be as vulnerable anymore, too many people have put in the time and the energy of disagreeing in good faith sincerely believing that they were speaking with someone and reaching for understanding only to later realise that the other person they were speaking with was just running an algorithm, probably not even a very sophisticated one at that And I'm not immune to this either, it's not fun, this dominant cynical strategy of our age It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other in what I don't think anyone will disagree with saying are trying and difficult times My personal reaction to it is stuff like what I'm doing here, jumping into a discussion when I see people speaking past each other and when I've got the capacity arguing for a pause and a change in approach and then leaving it up to them as to whether they want to do that I'm directing this at you not because I think you're particularly at fault, just that I think you've got the most capability to shift the conversation by changing how you are responding I could be wrong, maybe you don't want to, as is your right, or if you do people will still engage with you poorly believing that you aren't speaking in good faith, as is theirs Thank you for your time if you read this, hopefully it leads to a more productive discourse
  - breppp 4mo ago
    thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system
    - hackyhacky 4mo ago
      > thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system Treating an obviously racist and xenophobic immigration agenda as good-faith government policy does not help the country. It only serves to lend undeserved legitimacy to a corrupt policy-making apparatus that does not deserve it.
shimman 4mo ago
For anyone curious this is a great example of sealioning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
- timr 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
      Calling someone a liar is not an argument.
      - hackyhacky 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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.