What do you mean? Prohibit trading while in office? I'd argue that it's a pretty big sacrifice to have to make your trades public while in office (but IMHO the reporting deadline should be sooner i.e. automated instant-reporting.)
As a rather conservative foreigner in the US I find this to be a very presumptive statement. We've made good friends, conservatives and liberals alike - we're people, that's what matters not the policitcal orientation. No conservative I know "hates immigrants." Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate.
I have a family split along classic ideological lines between the northeast and southeast of the US. If you are unfamiliar with conservative's hatred toward immigration, I suggest you travel more.
I just went around the circumference of the US by RV. Kinda hard to travel more.
What I do notice is a clearly liberal HN bubble that does not represent the country I see and the people I talk to and I'm not selective. You're of course entitled to your views, just don't take others' views as unfounded just because you don't agree. (Collective you). I love the US and the values it stands for but dialogue and the "I'm right, you're wrong" has to improve on both sides.
> Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate
It looks like the policy intends to prevent immigration in every way possible, and (along with other policies that have come about recently), kick out as many people as possible; even those that are immigrating here legally (or have already done so).
So, other than a hate for immigrants/immigration, I don't see another possible explanation.
When you come as a non-immigrant, you agree to not stay permanently. If you want to stay (because life happens and the US is a great country after all) you go through the proper channels. That may mean exiting for the duration of the process - that's entirely legitimate given the amount of abuse. No reason to invoke "hate" of any kind to justify the need for the policy. I know it's not the popular view here on HN and anti-HN-mainstream views get downvoted really fast. Think about that if you value democracy.
- People that didn't go through the proper channels, but have been here contributing peacefully to our society - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out, even though they're valuable members of our society
- People that are trying to go through the proper channels -hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are currently going through the proper channels - hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out (sometimes literally _at_ the court houses while trying to go through proper channels)
- People that have already gone through the proper channels and have their greencards, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
- People that are natural born citizens, hunted down, incarcerated, and/or kicked out
So our willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to the crowd that is claiming "we're just trying to get them to do it the right way to prevent abuse" is... just gone. It's not believable. Are there _some_ people that are honestly trying to do things right? Sure.. but the ones with the actual power, the ones out there taking action? They're not. They're out there causing harm just for the sake of causing harm.
This may not be the intent of some conservative voters, partly because some are plausibly immigration friendly, partly because many movement conservatives have more of a opinion-vibe than a policy position on immigration (among other things).
But conservative voters that don’t want much immigration at all (especially from some places/backgrounds) absolutely exist, and more to the point so does leadership that’s determining policy with that goal in mind.
Perhaps you and your circle reflect the more egalitarian policy-driven view. Commendable if so. But it’s not commendable to deny that conservatism has a xenophobic streak a mile wide right now.
GP seemed to be commenting on the Trump administration, not necessarily individuals of conservative persuasion. The Trump administration diverges materially from traditional conservative doctrine in many ways.
> No conservative I know "hates immigrants." Consider what the policy intends to do rather than blanket-blaming it on hate.
If you look at the rhetoric from the Trump people over the years, they absolutely and clearly do hate immigrants, or are doing their best to seem that way. As an example, consider the following quote^[1] from Trump just a few years ago:
> They let — I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They’re poisoning the blood of our country [...] That’s what they’ve done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world. They’re coming into our country from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.
It's trivial to find more like that. Weird white supremacist-adjacent rhetoric. Equating immigrants with animals. Etc.
American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
In fact, looking at the Silver Bulletin charts^[2] as of right now, immigration is the only macro issue they track where his approval isn't in free-fall.
That quote you pulled is about illegal immigration. Conflating undocumented immigrants with “anti-immigration” is a false equivalence.
There are no doubt people against immigration entirely but the majority opinion I hear from conservative leaning people is that legal immigration is great and people that skip the system are the problem and the drag on social safety nets.
But the legal immigration system is broken and they did that on purpose. And how is your immigration status relevant to your contribution to taxes?
It is not a false equivalence. Both legal and undocumented immigrants are net positive for our economy, less likely to commit crimes, and part and parcel to the American experiment. This “we only disapprove of the illegal ones” continues to be a disingenuous and ignorant point of view.
It’s still a false equivalence and the concern isn’t paying something to taxes. The bottom 30-40% of all federal tax payers contribute less than they receive back. So even in a tax argument, adding additional low income earners is not a good thing for the system.
But taxes aren’t the point, we have a process for legal immigration that works for millions of people a year. This is just like every other country (with even less stringent requirements than many other countries). Why should undocumented immigrants be granted the privilege of ignoring the law? Do you argue that Japan, China, Singapore, Australia, and/or Norway should do the same?
It’s fine that many conservatives still feel this way, but they are not electing officials implementing fair, mature immigration policies. They’re electing immature people who aren’t willing to systematically think through immigration policy, and instead say whatever hateful blurb gets them the most attention.
It’s frankly despicable, and I don’t respect conservatives who continue voting for politicians who are obvious liars and at a minimum are not campaigning on bringing level-headed reasonable ideas to immigration policy — only on how much they hate immigrants. Which reflects very, very poorly on conservative voters.
There are some that try and they get roasted as “RINOs”. The problem with the two party system is that you either vote for a despicable person that implements your major beliefs or someone pleasant that wants to implement policies you think directly result in murder/famine/societal collapse.
Trump can get far worse before the calculus changes for someone who thinks abortion is murder to start voting for Elizabeth Warren.
Whatever man. Do you remember his comments last year about Ilhan Omar ("garbage") and Somalis?
> I don’t want them in our country. I’ll be honest with you, OK. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct.’ I don’t care. I don’t want them in our country. Their country is no good for a reason,
> Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country,
> I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.
> We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? [...] Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.
> [Minnesota is] a hellhole right now. The Somalians should be out of here. They’ve destroyed our country. And all they do is complain, complain, complain,
Some other selections I found with zero effort:
> I’ve also announced a permanent pause on Third World migration, including from hellholes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia and many other countries,
> Our country was going to hell. And we had a meeting, and I say, 'Why is it we only take people from shithole countries, right?' Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few? Let us have a few from Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Do you mind?'
> I think allowing millions and millions of people to come into Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture. Look around. You go through certain areas that didn't exist ten or 15 years ago.
> And I think [Europe] better watch themselves because you are changing culture. You are changing a lot of things. You’re changing security. You’re changing — look at what’s happening. I mean, you take a look. I mean, look at what’s happening to different countries that never had difficulty, never had problems…. I do not think it’s good for Europe and I don’t think it’s good for our country.
What do you call this rhetoric if not anti-immigrant? None of this is specific to illegal immigration; he commonly targets legal immigrants with his denigratory, hateful rhetoric (see above), and his second term immigration policy has in several high-profile instances targeted legal immigrants for deportation, as well as making it more difficult to obtain residency/citizenship (see: the subject of this post).
I guess he's specifically calling out immigration from "shithole countries" (brown/black people) while he is explicitly (though apparently hypothetically) fine with white people ("people from Norway, Sweden, just a few") coming in. Maybe he's just openly racist? Is that better, easier for "conservative leaning people" to swallow? When they say "legal immigration is great", is "legal" just a wink-wink shorthand for "white"?
---
Edit: I alluded to this in a reply below, but thanks to everybody replying to this comment for demonstrating that the theoretical "conservative I know" and "conservative leaning people" are, apparently, not universally representative of conservatives.
I hope you will not be offended if I don't reply to you individually, but I'm just not interested in having a conversation about whether these attitudes are valid. It's off topic, for one thing—the fact that they exist, that they surface in this context, is the only relevant takeaway here.
In my original comment in this thread, I said this:
> American conservatives may not hate immigrants, but they sure love a guy who fervently expresses his hatred and disdain for immigrants every chance he gets. They've voted him into our highest office twice, and immigration was a central pillar of his campaign both times. I fully understand that many people who voted for him did so for reasons besides immigration, but at this point if they aren't willing to disavow him after the catastrophic first year-and-change of his second term then I am done giving them the benefit of the doubt, because there must be some reason they still support him, and at this point it sure isn't his performance on inflation, general affordability, etc.
Thank you for demonstrating what this looks like, I guess?
By most accounts Somalia is a beautiful country. It’s currently at war, in part because of its colonial legacy. But if that stopped I would love to visit.
Interesting that nobody on the conservative side hates immigrants but continue to vote on politicians with platforms built upon the hatred of immigrants. It’s almost as if they’re lying.
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?
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.
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
> 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
On the contrary, everyone is engaging timr within the scope of the exact challenge that he himself designed. Repeatedly, he has refused to answer his own question while insisting that he has. It's pretty wild.
> The only question I have asked is for you to make an affirmative argument.
You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
> You asked us to consider the reasons why conservatives vote for politicians with platforms built on the hatred of immigrants, besides hatred of immigrants. Remember?
No, that is literally not what the comment said. I'm actually sort of amazed that you can get that from what I wrote, and treat is as some kind of "gotcha", when it's the top of this thread, and literally the same message I've been repeating throughout:
> Or maybe, when you say that the platform is “built upon hatred”, that’s just your opinion, and the other side actually has reasons that you haven’t bothered to consider?
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric, then calling the other side liars because they disagree with your rhetoric, is everything that is wrong with political debate in the US right now.
To wit: stop calling people liars. Make an argument instead.
The fact that the current US administration lies is indisputable. I'm not calling them liars because they "disagree with [my] rhetoric" but because they have been shown to have repeatedly lied. Saying that Trump is a liar is not "calling names" but reminding of a well-known fact. But ok, I'll indulge your bad-faith argument:
1. The administration has claimed to oppose only illegal immigration in order to encourage legal immigration. [0]
2. The administration has consistently lied about and demonized immigrants who came legally. [1]
3. Recent policies have made legal immigration more difficult. [2]
4. The effect of these policies will be to reduce legal immigration, contradicting the administration's earlier stated goals. [3]
5. The administration has repeatedly expressed white nationalist sentiment. [4]
I didn't ask you to make an argument that the administration has lied. That's trivial. And though you're getting closer with "the administration has lied about immigration issues in the past", again, that's trivial and non-responsive. And telling me that the administration is against immigration is telling me that water is wet. So what if they are? Elections have consequences, and this is not a sudden discovery.
I asked you to rebut the arguments in front of you, instead of just calling people liars. It isn't hard, if you're even a little bit intellectually curious. I'm tired of responding, so I'll just model the behavior for you, and then I'm done.
First, five reasonable arguments against this change, none of which involve calling people liars:
1) It targets the very people who are most likely to contribute positively to US society.
2) It's clearly against the intent of the original status adjustment legislation.
3) If it's actually applied to H1B visas (which is unclear), it's clearly against the intent of the 1990 immigration reform act, which established dual-status visas.
4) It seems intended to eliminate / dramatically reduce green card issuance without legislative intervention. I am against this because it is unconstitutional.
5) It discourages smart people from moving to the USA.
OK, 6:
6) It's especially cruel to families where one family member is already a US citizen or permanent resident.
Now, five arguments in favor of it:
1) It's appropriate to ask people on non-immigrant visas (e.g. tourists, students) to return home at the end of those visas, rather than creating a limbo class of people who are sitting around waiting for status transitions, which is both real (i.e. I personally know people in this situation) and a problem.
2) It distributes the review load around the world. Obviously true.
3) It was never the intent of the 1960 status adjustment legislation to allow non-immigrant visas the ability to transition directly to permanent residence.
4) However blunt the approach, it does eliminate a major incentive problem for gaming the short-term immigration system, if you know that you have to return to wherever you came from, and wait for approval.
5) While I don't think it's appropriate to make this change for pending applications (and to be clear: we don't know if that's what's happening), I think it's completely fair to announce it as a policy change going forward.
Okay, I'm surprised by how much you are missing the point, so let's imagine a dialog taking place in the 1930s in Europe.
A: Hey, I think we should murder all people of <ethnicity> because they are a threat to national security.
B: I think that your argument in favor of genocide is based on animus and not offered in good faith.
A: How dare you call me a liar! Why don't you actually engage with my argument??
Sorry for the crude analogy, but that is what you are saying. You are completely missing what is shocking about this scenario.
Everyone already knows the arguments for and against legal immigration. We've been having that discussion for decades, or centuries, and there are valid and coherent arguments on both sides. There is no need to reiterate them here.
What is unique about the current situation is that the current administration is not engaging with valid arguments against immigration: they are offering transparently nonsense justifications, which we are not used to seeing from our government to this extreme degree -- even the bad-faith arguments for the Iraq war were dressed up in real argument clothes. No matter how you feel about immigration, you should be shocked by the administration's behavior. Not just that the arguments are unreasonable, but transparently so. Pointing that fact out is completely relevant, as it is IMHO more novel to our society and dangerous to democracy than simple immigration policy. Furthermore, treating the administration's arguments as valid just gives them legitimacy, which they do not deserve.
The people in favor of these policies are not making thoughtful decisions for the good of the nation and it does no one a favor to pretend that they do. They will not be persuaded by the well-reasoned arguments you point us towards because reasoning is not part of their decision making process. That's why everyone in this thread is calling you a tool, and why pointing out the bad faith is completely relevant.
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. I don't think I'm "talking past" the people I'm replying to -- I understand exactly what they're saying, I get that these are emotional outbursts, and I'm simply trying to re-iterate the futility of it, in the hopes that someone will get it -- but I do agree that it's likely pointless and probably a waste of time.
> It stifles legitimate and interesting discourse and prevents us from working towards better understanding each other
We definitely agree on this.
> 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 we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed.
> but I do agree that it's likely pointless and probably a waste of time
To briefly clarify, I don't believe it's pointless, that wasn't what I intended to convey, what my position is, is that the current mode of communication demands more of us, so as a result at least I and people like myself engage with it less often, but when we do, we do so wholeheartedly and if it looks like the other party isn't engaging in good faith, try a little, but are willing to wrap up, at least in my case after taking a few stabs at it
I personally find that this strategy both makes me feel more empowered and engaged in these situations as well as gives me hope that if my strategy is more sustainable, then it will slowly be adopted, which is good, I would be delighted to engage with someone who's also following this approach or something like it
> If we are at a point where "do not call people names instead of arguing" is considered a tactic or a style, we really are doomed
I don't think it's quite that negative, from my perspective this has become a very negative value game (in the Von Neumann sense) and being mindful of the fact that it is very much being treated like a game, adopt a strategy that allows for people to engage with it like discourse, deescalate and clearly signal my willingness to engage with the other party, yet however still be a reasonable move in that game are all goals that should be met when I communicate in these sorts of contexts
Given there's likely multiple other ways to hit those objectives, the route I'm taking only being one of them, I'm satisfied to continue tilling the odd windmill here and there
Once again, thanks for engaging, have a great day!
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.
The only thing I've targeted as wrong is how you argue. That's what I hate, and with amply described reasons.
I've spent a lot of words on it under the charitable assumption that you were truthful in your desire for better discussion. At this point, you've persuaded me that was overly charitable.
Instead it appears you're determined to maintain a fictional posture implying bad behavior in others whether or not it exists so you can claim whatever fruits of grievance you're here to harvest.
If the time comes when I care about defending or attacking the memo, I'll do so effectively. I haven't taken a position on the memo. I've only asked you to sustain positions you've taken or honestly retreat from them. And not pretend other people are taking positions that they aren't, which is apparently a big ask.
It's hard because you continue to love pretending that people are calling you names even when they're not. It's hard because you find it convenient to demand people defend arguments they're not making.
My position is that your arguments are bad. I've made my arguments why. I don't have to argue about the policy, because I haven't staked a position on it.
I haven't called you names, so it's disingenuous to respond as if "Don't call people names" is on topic. For sake of contrast, saying something like "You're a dishonest piece of troll shit" might be calling you names; it's pretty clear most of my discussion has instead been focused on pointing out the problems with your arguments, positions, and rhetoric, which is part of why you're finding things so hard.
Though at this point your dishonesty is manifest to anyone following along.
This is not a debate about immigration policy. This is a debate about government-sanctioned racist scapegoating under the guise of immigration policy. Honest discussion requires calling a spade a spade.
Having a debate about the policy on their terms is exactly what they want. How well did that go when for a week in 2024 everyone was asking "Do Haitians really eat cats and dogs"
> If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.
You are operating under the misapprehension that pointing out bad-faith arguments is "call[ing] people names." No. We should not engage with bad-faith arguments because the other side has already abandoned rational debate. That's what "bad-faith" means. I'm not going to waste my time, or yours, rehashing tired old pro- and anti-immigrant arguments.
I think the policy is wrong, and allegedly so do you, but that's not relevant, because the validity of the policy is not the problem here. The fact that the government has abandoned the pretense of rational policy in favor of feeding raw meat to its rabid audience in favor of openly racist policies is much more problematic. Saying, "Aktshually, immigrants on average contribute to the GDP!" is going to change exactly no one's mind.
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
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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?
> I don’t like this policy, but engaging in exaggerated rhetoric
The Trump admin just sent an official death threat to trans people and anti-fascists (lol??). I am so incredibly sick of people acting like this is ok and normal and any calling out is exaggerating. At some point, you're not defending sensible discourse, you're lecturing people for being upset when they have a murderous regime targeting them. It's a shitty thing to do. You're defending actual fascism at this point. And I'm happy to back up that claim without rhetoric by demonstrating the ways in which the US is (and has been) slipping into fascism for decades. Something tells me I'd be wasting my breath though.
I’m tired of people acting so naive past the point of zip-tying entire apartment buildings and building concentration camps. White supremacist manners and politeness are disgusting.
In the nineties usian professor of philosophy Rick Roderick produced a series of lectures for The Teaching Company called The Self Under Siege. Perhaps they might change your view that this is a recent development.
In 2011 the usian professor of political science Corey Robin published a book on conservative thought, which is a pretty succinct and easy read. Here's the second edition:
Wondering if this is attempting what github.com/gsd-build/get-shit-done has done: plan your milestones, discuss them, execute them, review them. It can also review the plans by another agent before execution... Everything documented and checked in.
To be honest, I did not know what GSD was before publishing this skill (nerviousness).
I did some research after reading your and a discord comment i received and i agree that GSD is doing something more complete — full execution orchestration with context rotation. This skill is intentionally the spec layer only: interview → requirements.md + design.md + tasks.md + AI
config files as I believe this is a more manageable as well as a core part of SDD to be tackled.
I intend it to be composable with GSD rather than a replacement for it. After all even while using GSD one still needs a spec before execution begins and that is the gap I now want to fill.
Also thank you so much for your input, it is always good to have some proper references for a project in it's early stages to avoid redundancy.
Cool, thanks for the reply. GSD is great for new projects but it burns through tokes at quite the rate. Esp. in quality mode. Something more lightweight would sometimes also be welcome. Though there is /gsd-fast and /gsd-quick that partially fill that gap.. I'll definitely check yours out, thanks for publishing
j/k, but I'm pretty sure you could substitute "AI" with a few other keywords here that a lot of people use/depend on: Govt, Healthcare, Social Security, Airport security, heck maybe even science.
The real question is how do you scale something without eroding trust. Transparency has to be part of it but I doubt that it's the only piece of the puzzle and no matter how good your intentions are, there are always people that will refuse their trust (I'm not judging, it's just a fact). As a distributed systems person, I think systems in general work best when they can deal with mistrust and people choose to rather than being forced to use your system to solve their problems. AI is not there yet.
reply