Comment by wwweston
7 hours ago
> What "evasions"?
You kicked off this subthread by saying (among other things):
> the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.
Here's one of the ways that you're evading answering that question:
> I have repeatedly said that I don't support the policy.
No one here required you to publicly marry yourself to the policy. We're all aware of situations where we can speculate on possible reasons for a position without agreeing with it in the end. So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.
If you don't want to answer the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" one way of resolving the tension left by your assertion that such reasons exist would be to say something like "I don't want to speculate on specifics, I acknowledge that this weakens any assertion that such reasons exist, but I still think we shouldn't just call the reasons given dishonest." Perhaps there are other ways of resolving that tension.
But saying "I don't support the policy" is not in any way adequate. You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
> I want you to tell me why you believe that
I don't think I've personally staked a position in this discussion regarding the administration's policy, much less whether or not they're lying, so it's not clear why I'd have any obligation to defend a position before we hear what your reasons are for asserting the administration "actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
It's also not clear why someone who has staked a position that the administration's reasons are pretextual and dishonest would be obligated tell you why they think that before asking you to back up your assertion that other reasons exist, though of course you are also free to ask people why they believe something (and some people have at least mildly elaborated on specific reasons they believe the administration is not honest).
And I understand perfectly well what Motte and Bailey means. I specified exactly what I identified as 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”) and your Bailey (disavowing any investment in defending the new policy). Repeating your Bailey does not defend your Motte. Insisting that people are misrepresenting your Motte as a defense of the new policy does not defend your Motte, it is simply repeating your Bailey.
Your original position was "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?" and you have retreated to "I don't defend this policy so I have no obligation to defend my assertion that the other side has actual reasons I just want better discussion."
If you want better discussion, an explicitly acknowledged retreat from "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider" will look more honest and less evasive. You could also speculate on what those reasons might be, and that would also strengthen your asserted position that "the other side actually has reasons" to the extent those reasons look credible.
Some people may also be considering the possibility that your claim that you disagree with the administration's position is not honest (as well as approaching the admin as dishonest actors). That's always discouraging of course -- we certainly want to be perceived as honest when we believe we are, and it's also convenient to be perceived as honest even when we are not. I haven't staked my criticisms of your engagement on whether or not you are dishonest: I allow room for the possibility that you're honestly wrong, and even some for the possibility that you may eventually make a substantial counterargument as yet unconsidered. Still, dishonesty is a real possibility to be reckoned with, and bringing it under consideration is reasonable enough. In that light, reducing reckoning with that possibility to "just screaming 'liar!'" also looks like rhetorical evasion.
> In response, it's entirely reasonable for someone to ask you to speculate what those specific reasons might be whether or not you agree with those reasons. You suggested those reasons exist, asking someone who expresses confidence they exist is a reasonable place to start.
Great. Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo. So instead of saying "I don't believe the people making the policy have legitimate reasons, because those people are liars and their reasons are all lies" (which is ~essentially the comment I was replying to) you can instead rebut them.
> So saying "I don't supporting the policy" is a non-sequitur.
No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact. I don't support the policy. I didn't write it. My advocacy for a policy I don't agree with is irrelevant to my argument here, which is: "don't just call people liars."
> You were not asked whether you support the policy, you were asked to back up your assertion that "the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider."
You're deflecting. If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument.
> Perhaps you can start with the ones stated in the memo.
You could have done that in response to the person who asked you what reasons they had not considered. That would have been one reasonable way to engage, it would have mildly trespassed the bounding attempt in their statement that they had considered the memo, but it would have introduced substance backing up your claim and let you interrogate their claim that they had in fact evaluated the reasons given in the memo.
You didn't do that, though. For some reason you instead chose "I don't support the policy" which, as stated, is a non-sequitur in response to the question ""what reasons have I failed to consider?"
If you'd like to talk about the reasons in the memo or other reasons not in the memo, no one has been stopping you.
> > So saying "I don't support the policy" is a non-sequitur.
> No it isn't. It's not an argument. It's just a statement of fact.
A non-sequitur can be entirely factual. This means affirming something as a statement of fact is not an adequate defense against the charge of non-sequitur, it is actually a further non-sequitur.
> my argument here which is "don't just call people liars."
This may be the argument you intended to make. But because you also asserted that legitimate reasons for the policy existed and then refused to defend that assertion with a reasonable response to the question "what reasons have I failed to consider?" (including "the reasons in the memo" up until this level of the discussion) and also appear determined to avoid that quality of engagement, you've ended up engaging in a way that works against a general ethos of better discussion and the micro-dynamics which support it.
There's also the fact that it's reductive to assert anyone has "just" called the administration liars. Given that the federal judiciary has retreated from traditional presumption of regularity when fulfilling their judicial responsibility[0] (ie, that the executive is acting in good faith), that's compelling reason to believe the judiciary has found a pattern of admin dishonesty in the social/institutional setting where honesty is most critical. Retreating from the presumption of honesty in lay discussion is a pretty reasonable step. This in addition to my previous argument that dishonesty certainly exists in general and reckoning with that should not simply be reduced to "screaming liar."
I can also see how someone may nevertheless feel that calling the memo transparent pretext is not adequate. The productive response to such a failure where you feel it has occurred would be to bring the official reasons from the memo into the discussion, then ask people what they specifically think is wrong with those reasons.
I didn't engage your comments to defend or attack the policy -- I probably could do that, but it certainly didn't seem to be where you've focused. Instead you've focused on the quality of the discussion, and seem to be confused about why people have been critical and even hostile towards your engagement. It seemed like if you wanted better discourse, explaining how some of your engagement draws that criticism would help. It's strange if you're not interested in that, given that your stated position is about policing the quality of engagement in general, but no one can make you focus on what you don't want to, only point out the contradiction in that as well as the problems of your engagement.
[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-t...
If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.
All the words you've spent here, and you still can't bring yourself to make a single argument against the thing you hate so much.
5 replies →