Comment by hackyhacky
16 hours 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?
16 hours 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?
> 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.
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”)
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.
20 replies →
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?
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.
thanks for being the voice of reason, however futile it is in a social media scoring system
> 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.