3 ms·

#2 isn't really addressing the argument being made. > The fact that reputable sources were not provided to justify the need for fixes has been reputable source

#2 isn't really addressing the argument being made. > The fact that reputable sources were not provided to justify the need for fixes has been reputable source enough. The the question wasn't "what do people prefer" it was "what's the evidence this is a problem." People wanting a thing doesn't necessarily mean the thing is is a problem. But further, what the Trump admin is doing isn't the thing being polled. What's wrong with it is that it's a non-sequitur to the conversation at hand. What's happening is new restrictions on mail in voting. A federal registry of citizens which the post office uses to decide who does and does not get a ballot and who's ballot is allowed to arrive to the elections office. A more responsive link would be one that shows evidence of a large amount of mail in voting fraud or even a poll that shows the majority of people support federal checks and restrictions on mail in voting (though, I'd think that's not a good reply because it isn't actually evidence).

wallst07 1mo ago
It's clearly a nuanced topic that requires debate in good-faith, no? So why is it flagged and not debated? If all counter points are flagged, then there is no discourse. The only discourse is all the people who agree with each other.
- cogman10 1mo ago
  It's not good faith to mott and baily, gish-gallop, and non-sequitur. I've not seen a comment yet that is actually responsive to points being raised about why this action by the administration is a bad idea. Instead it's "Well, people want voter ID" and "Well because there's unlimited fraud in mail in voting and early voting". What a lot of the flagged comments are (but I don't speak for all the flagging, I personally avoid downvoting or flagging myself unless something is very egregious) are bad faith. It's not one sided, I've gotten into arguments about Biden/Harris when throwing critiques their way with diehard supporters. But frankly, from what I've observed it's a lot worse when it comes to Trump's actions. When he does something indefensible, like this incomplete citizen registration 2 months before an election, instead of addressing the action he just did, his supporters try and change subjects rather than justify this action. The most charitable reading I have from one of his supporters is that this will stop non-citizens from voting in federal elections. But the issues with this they don't address, like the fact that a citizenship list doesn't currently exist and that the process of creating such a list is completely opaque, are simply never addressed. And even when "Ok, if it's such a problem, where's the evidence?" is asked, the only response is to change subjects. That's not a good faith argument. That's not nuance. That's "I have an unfounded belief and rather than defend it, when questions get uncomfortable I'll rely on bad faith debate tactics to try and win the argument".

wallst07 1mo ago

It's clearly a nuanced topic that requires debate in good-faith, no? So why is it flagged and not debated? If all counter points are flagged, then there is no discourse. The only discourse is all the people who agree with each other.

cogman10 1mo ago
It's not good faith to mott and baily, gish-gallop, and non-sequitur. I've not seen a comment yet that is actually responsive to points being raised about why this action by the administration is a bad idea. Instead it's "Well, people want voter ID" and "Well because there's unlimited fraud in mail in voting and early voting". What a lot of the flagged comments are (but I don't speak for all the flagging, I personally avoid downvoting or flagging myself unless something is very egregious) are bad faith. It's not one sided, I've gotten into arguments about Biden/Harris when throwing critiques their way with diehard supporters. But frankly, from what I've observed it's a lot worse when it comes to Trump's actions. When he does something indefensible, like this incomplete citizen registration 2 months before an election, instead of addressing the action he just did, his supporters try and change subjects rather than justify this action. The most charitable reading I have from one of his supporters is that this will stop non-citizens from voting in federal elections. But the issues with this they don't address, like the fact that a citizenship list doesn't currently exist and that the process of creating such a list is completely opaque, are simply never addressed. And even when "Ok, if it's such a problem, where's the evidence?" is asked, the only response is to change subjects. That's not a good faith argument. That's not nuance. That's "I have an unfounded belief and rather than defend it, when questions get uncomfortable I'll rely on bad faith debate tactics to try and win the argument".