Not one of these words holds meaning in context. If it were only the phrases, there might be some grounded message. Each word and phrase seems to be code for a concept attached to your specific mental model.
People tend not to have discussions with other people who cannot grasp what they are, or are not, saying. I would guess and engage further, but assuming what you are saying is unfair and leads to the tired case of Humpty Dumpty versus Alice. Words mean what one side says they do, as a way to avoid exchange.
I agree with the phenomenon but dont thinnk that is the case here. I know lots of people that have no issue loudly oposing demograpic change that still stumble on the issue of how to read constitutional text.
My point is that I don't think anyone would be focusing on this particular constitutional text if the underlying reason they are focused on it were allowed to be discussed in the open. It sounds like you don't disagree with that? Do you logically agree but you feel like it must be wrong somehow? Moral programming do be like that.
I agree that people use convouted rationalizations to justify the outcomes they want when their actual preferences are taboo to state outright. I thought you were accusing the SCOTUS of doing that, which I disagreed with.
I agree the public discussion is more charged and less coherent because some people are trying to project their taboo moral stances on to dry and boring question of textual interpretation.
That said, I think this case isnt the best example. I think there are lots of people who question if children of tourists or illegal enterants of the US should be given automatic citizenship, even without buying into demographic preferences.
> My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910. Were they literally Hitler also?
That's not really a great counterpoint considering how much inspiration Nazi Germany took from the amazing levels of racism the US had. Jim Crow, miscegenation, segregation, citizenship…
The average American in 1910 wasn't a little Hitler, he was a Big Hitler. Hitler's father, even.
Good try, though, eierkuchen. I can see past you and so can everyone else.
You're talking in circles here. Please, use your big person words. Say what you mean explicitly.
[flagged]
> I did say what I mean explicitly.
> it comes out sideways in other dimensions
> current moral programming
Not one of these words holds meaning in context. If it were only the phrases, there might be some grounded message. Each word and phrase seems to be code for a concept attached to your specific mental model.
People tend not to have discussions with other people who cannot grasp what they are, or are not, saying. I would guess and engage further, but assuming what you are saying is unfair and leads to the tired case of Humpty Dumpty versus Alice. Words mean what one side says they do, as a way to avoid exchange.
1 reply →
I agree with the phenomenon but dont thinnk that is the case here. I know lots of people that have no issue loudly oposing demograpic change that still stumble on the issue of how to read constitutional text.
My point is that I don't think anyone would be focusing on this particular constitutional text if the underlying reason they are focused on it were allowed to be discussed in the open. It sounds like you don't disagree with that? Do you logically agree but you feel like it must be wrong somehow? Moral programming do be like that.
I agree that people use convouted rationalizations to justify the outcomes they want when their actual preferences are taboo to state outright. I thought you were accusing the SCOTUS of doing that, which I disagreed with.
I agree the public discussion is more charged and less coherent because some people are trying to project their taboo moral stances on to dry and boring question of textual interpretation.
That said, I think this case isnt the best example. I think there are lots of people who question if children of tourists or illegal enterants of the US should be given automatic citizenship, even without buying into demographic preferences.
[flagged]
Why are you being so rude? Please don't put words in my mouth, that is nothing like what I believe.
My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910. Were they literally Hitler also?
People are being rude because you're being a dumbass.
> My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910.
The question of birthright citizenship was settled law for 40 years by the 1910s, so this is - unsurprisingly - a lie.
1 reply →
1910's America with Jim Crow segregation, pre-Womens suffrage, pretty much peak wealth inequality with robber barrons?
> My views are something like what the average American believed in 1910. Were they literally Hitler also?
That's not really a great counterpoint considering how much inspiration Nazi Germany took from the amazing levels of racism the US had. Jim Crow, miscegenation, segregation, citizenship…
The average American in 1910 wasn't a little Hitler, he was a Big Hitler. Hitler's father, even.
Good try, though, eierkuchen. I can see past you and so can everyone else.
1 reply →
America had a pretty decent sized fascist movement in the early 1900s.
3 replies →