|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
i am not making any equivalences. i think i need a name for what happens when people just parrot back some rote meta-argument at me
just to make it clear, i was only specifically talking about the alternative facts around immigrant court appearances. the way you divide up the cases and track outcomes matters immensely. it is also not unreasonable to think that the very recent surge in border crossings and the tremendous strain it puts on the underequipped administration might produce deviations from even relatively recent history. i am open to the possibility that the testimony of the head of DHS in front of congress might have some validity. i am also open to the possibility that it might be false. but it seems very disingenuous to me to only accept facts because they agree with what you want to be true rather than having some reasonable explanation of why the facts you are citing are better than the others. even if 90% of immigrants have shown up over some time period under some conditions the relevant question is what about this time period, under these circumstances. and if DHS says the relevant dataset is actually 7,000 recent cases where 90% did not show up, maybe he is right?
that said, the major question about holding or releasing from my point of view is “how much does it matter if they don’t show up?” what should be the priority? is there some other way to track them? do we need more lawyers? etc.
|
On June 26 2019 03:23 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 02:54 Dan HH wrote:On June 26 2019 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 02:19 IgnE wrote:
for the record I do think that border management is a more difficult problem that most people appalled by concentration camps in this thread seem to think.
i did not know that the camps were privately run and operated though. that would seem to be a serious problem. it is no wonder at all that privately run facilities looking for profit did not speculatively build extra capacity What they are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders. Secure borders are critical elements of national integrity. Specifically, what must be understood is that government and its institutions are fundamentally reflections of the values of the people. If we imported half a billion Muslims from the Middle East into the US, it wouldn't be long before our laws and institutions began reflecting Muslim values. The land that makes up the US doesn't magically convert people into Americans who share common American values. For this reason, one of the most important roles of the government is to responsibly manage the borders and immigration into the country so as to preserve national identity. Our current crop of politicians is largely derelict in this duty, which I frankly consider to be treasonous. No one's missing your false dichotomy. The options aren't concentration camps or half a billion muslims Here's a hint: there's no false dichotomy in my post. Let me translate your first sentence for you if you think you're bullshitting your way out of this 'What [people appalled by concentration camps in this thread] are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders' That was the only 'they' in the post you responded to. The choice presented there, between open borders (which according to you is worse) and concentration camps is an entirely false one.
Good lord, what a pathetic post. Me identifying people who are appalled by concentration camps is not the same as me saying that the only options here are open borders and concentration camps.
|
|
|
|
|
On June 26 2019 03:18 Starlightsun wrote:
I think people should be allowed to make political blog threads again, to keep down the volume of completely unproductive fighting and contrarianism here.
The unproductive fighting and contrarianism is the thread. the only thing the blog did was create echo chambers. Having text based debates on the internet with anononyms strangers having any chance of actually convincing anyone of changing their opinion is a farcical level of optimism of todays cynasism based discourse.
|
On June 26 2019 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:23 Dan HH wrote:On June 26 2019 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 02:54 Dan HH wrote:On June 26 2019 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 02:19 IgnE wrote:
for the record I do think that border management is a more difficult problem that most people appalled by concentration camps in this thread seem to think.
i did not know that the camps were privately run and operated though. that would seem to be a serious problem. it is no wonder at all that privately run facilities looking for profit did not speculatively build extra capacity What they are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders. Secure borders are critical elements of national integrity. Specifically, what must be understood is that government and its institutions are fundamentally reflections of the values of the people. If we imported half a billion Muslims from the Middle East into the US, it wouldn't be long before our laws and institutions began reflecting Muslim values. The land that makes up the US doesn't magically convert people into Americans who share common American values. For this reason, one of the most important roles of the government is to responsibly manage the borders and immigration into the country so as to preserve national identity. Our current crop of politicians is largely derelict in this duty, which I frankly consider to be treasonous. No one's missing your false dichotomy. The options aren't concentration camps or half a billion muslims Here's a hint: there's no false dichotomy in my post. Let me translate your first sentence for you if you think you're bullshitting your way out of this 'What [people appalled by concentration camps in this thread] are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders' That was the only 'they' in the post you responded to. The choice presented there, between open borders (which according to you is worse) and concentration camps is an entirely false one. Good lord, what a pathetic post. Me identifying people who are appalled by concentration camps is not the same as me saying that the only options here are open borders and concentration camps.
But... that's kinda what you just said. "It's the Democrats fault we have to do this because of [list of crap you posted]". It has been pointed out to you that over a billion dollars was to be allotted among other solutions to the issue. But Republicans/Trump are not actually interested in a solution.
|
On June 26 2019 03:24 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Saving the planet isn't a "leftist" issue, it's a human issue. American Republicans are the only people on the planet, certainly the only political party, that thinks climate change is a hoax. So if anything, this is a "right-ist" problem of what they're choosing to believe. They are the issue, not everyone else who's in agreement on the reality of climate change.
They are slowly exporting that crazy. We didn't have any parties that insane, but luckily, now we have the AfD in Germany. So we have climate denying crazy right-wing people too now. We always had crazy right-wing climate denying people, they just didn't have a party willing to cater to that level of crazy.
|
On June 26 2019 03:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:23 Dan HH wrote:On June 26 2019 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 02:54 Dan HH wrote:On June 26 2019 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 02:19 IgnE wrote:
for the record I do think that border management is a more difficult problem that most people appalled by concentration camps in this thread seem to think.
i did not know that the camps were privately run and operated though. that would seem to be a serious problem. it is no wonder at all that privately run facilities looking for profit did not speculatively build extra capacity What they are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders. Secure borders are critical elements of national integrity. Specifically, what must be understood is that government and its institutions are fundamentally reflections of the values of the people. If we imported half a billion Muslims from the Middle East into the US, it wouldn't be long before our laws and institutions began reflecting Muslim values. The land that makes up the US doesn't magically convert people into Americans who share common American values. For this reason, one of the most important roles of the government is to responsibly manage the borders and immigration into the country so as to preserve national identity. Our current crop of politicians is largely derelict in this duty, which I frankly consider to be treasonous. No one's missing your false dichotomy. The options aren't concentration camps or half a billion muslims Here's a hint: there's no false dichotomy in my post. Let me translate your first sentence for you if you think you're bullshitting your way out of this 'What [people appalled by concentration camps in this thread] are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders' That was the only 'they' in the post you responded to. The choice presented there, between open borders (which according to you is worse) and concentration camps is an entirely false one. Good lord, what a pathetic post. Me identifying people who are appalled by concentration camps is not the same as me saying that the only options here are open borders and concentration camps.
You soapboxed about the great dangers of open borders as a response to people being appalled by concentration camps. Are those the ravings of a lunatic or an attempt to make concentration camps seem acceptable in the face of this alternative greater danger? I would hope it's the latter, even if it's fallacious.
And yes that question was sarcastic, just in case it needs to be said.
|
United States43460 Posts
On June 26 2019 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:24 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Saving the planet isn't a "leftist" issue, it's a human issue. American Republicans are the only people on the planet, certainly the only political party, that thinks climate change is a hoax. So if anything, this is a "right-ist" problem of what they're choosing to believe. They are the issue, not everyone else who's in agreement on the reality of climate change.
They are slowly exporting that crazy. We didn't have any parties that insane, but luckily, now we have the AfD in Germany. So we have climate denying crazy right-wing people too now. We always had crazy right-wing climate denying people, they just didn't have a party willing to cater to that level of crazy.
You’d think everyone in the Netherlands, of all places, would be opposed to rising sea levels.
|
On June 26 2019 03:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 03:24 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Saving the planet isn't a "leftist" issue, it's a human issue. American Republicans are the only people on the planet, certainly the only political party, that thinks climate change is a hoax. So if anything, this is a "right-ist" problem of what they're choosing to believe. They are the issue, not everyone else who's in agreement on the reality of climate change.
They are slowly exporting that crazy. We didn't have any parties that insane, but luckily, now we have the AfD in Germany. So we have climate denying crazy right-wing people too now. We always had crazy right-wing climate denying people, they just didn't have a party willing to cater to that level of crazy. You’d think everyone in the Netherlands, of all places, would be opposed to rising sea levels.
But it does amazing things for the local dyke-building economy.
|
On June 26 2019 03:53 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 03:24 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Saving the planet isn't a "leftist" issue, it's a human issue. American Republicans are the only people on the planet, certainly the only political party, that thinks climate change is a hoax. So if anything, this is a "right-ist" problem of what they're choosing to believe. They are the issue, not everyone else who's in agreement on the reality of climate change.
They are slowly exporting that crazy. We didn't have any parties that insane, but luckily, now we have the AfD in Germany. So we have climate denying crazy right-wing people too now. We always had crazy right-wing climate denying people, they just didn't have a party willing to cater to that level of crazy. You’d think everyone in the Netherlands, of all places, would be opposed to rising sea levels. But it does amazing things for the local dyke-building economy.
I dunno if both spellings are accurate, but I think it's dike here in the U.S. Dyke is (obviously) the derogatory term for a homosexual woman. I won't lie, when I read "dyke building", I thought of an army of robot lesbians.
|
On June 26 2019 03:46 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:33 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 03:23 Dan HH wrote:On June 26 2019 02:57 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 02:54 Dan HH wrote:On June 26 2019 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On June 26 2019 02:19 IgnE wrote:
for the record I do think that border management is a more difficult problem that most people appalled by concentration camps in this thread seem to think.
i did not know that the camps were privately run and operated though. that would seem to be a serious problem. it is no wonder at all that privately run facilities looking for profit did not speculatively build extra capacity What they are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders. Secure borders are critical elements of national integrity. Specifically, what must be understood is that government and its institutions are fundamentally reflections of the values of the people. If we imported half a billion Muslims from the Middle East into the US, it wouldn't be long before our laws and institutions began reflecting Muslim values. The land that makes up the US doesn't magically convert people into Americans who share common American values. For this reason, one of the most important roles of the government is to responsibly manage the borders and immigration into the country so as to preserve national identity. Our current crop of politicians is largely derelict in this duty, which I frankly consider to be treasonous. No one's missing your false dichotomy. The options aren't concentration camps or half a billion muslims Here's a hint: there's no false dichotomy in my post. Let me translate your first sentence for you if you think you're bullshitting your way out of this 'What [people appalled by concentration camps in this thread] are completely missing are the consequences of having open borders' That was the only 'they' in the post you responded to. The choice presented there, between open borders (which according to you is worse) and concentration camps is an entirely false one. Good lord, what a pathetic post. Me identifying people who are appalled by concentration camps is not the same as me saying that the only options here are open borders and concentration camps. You soapboxed about the great dangers of open borders as a response to people being appalled by concentration camps. Are those the ravings of a lunatic or an attempt to make concentration camps seem acceptable in the face of this alternative greater danger? I would hope it's the latter, even if it's fallacious. And yes that question was sarcastic, just in case it needs to be said.
You're demonstrating a very poor ability to follow the argument because you are conflating posts and points. When I advocated for detention, I did it in the context of congressional inaction (ie the status quo). My post where you erroneously argued that I put forward a false dichotomy argues for congress to take action.
|
On June 26 2019 03:41 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:18 Starlightsun wrote:
I think people should be allowed to make political blog threads again, to keep down the volume of completely unproductive fighting and contrarianism here. The unproductive fighting and contrarianism is the thread. the only thing the blog did was create echo chambers. Having text based debates on the internet with anononyms strangers having any chance of actually convincing anyone of changing their opinion is a farcical level of optimism of todays cynasism based discourse.
There’s this weird meta that’s developed in this thread where it’s just accepted that no one will actually change anyone else’s mind, so instead it’s turned into a training ground where people practice their arguments and rhetoric on each other (at least two people, GH and Danglars, have admitted to this in the past). I don’t necessarily mind that, but if no one is going to take each other seriously then I’d rather not waste my time slogging through bullshit debate/rhetoric techniques and calling each other out on it ad nauseum, if instead I could just learn and judge someone’s beliefs by the strength and logic of their underlying premises.
#zlefinformoderator
|
On June 26 2019 04:02 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:53 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:49 KwarK wrote:On June 26 2019 03:42 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2019 03:24 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2019 03:13 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Saving the planet isn't a "leftist" issue, it's a human issue. American Republicans are the only people on the planet, certainly the only political party, that thinks climate change is a hoax. So if anything, this is a "right-ist" problem of what they're choosing to believe. They are the issue, not everyone else who's in agreement on the reality of climate change.
They are slowly exporting that crazy. We didn't have any parties that insane, but luckily, now we have the AfD in Germany. So we have climate denying crazy right-wing people too now. We always had crazy right-wing climate denying people, they just didn't have a party willing to cater to that level of crazy. You’d think everyone in the Netherlands, of all places, would be opposed to rising sea levels. But it does amazing things for the local dyke-building economy. I dunno if both spellings are accurate, but I think it's dike here in the U.S. Dyke is (obviously) the derogatory term for a homosexual woman. I won't lie, when I read "dyke building", I thought of an army of robot lesbians.
the spelling, it uh, goes both ways. 
shit dykes are lesbians not bi. oh well. you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. -michael scott.
|
i learn stuff all the time in this thread. i make up my mind and change it all the time
|
|
|
|
|
On June 26 2019 04:22 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2019 03:41 Sermokala wrote:On June 26 2019 03:18 Starlightsun wrote:
I think people should be allowed to make political blog threads again, to keep down the volume of completely unproductive fighting and contrarianism here. The unproductive fighting and contrarianism is the thread. the only thing the blog did was create echo chambers. Having text based debates on the internet with anononyms strangers having any chance of actually convincing anyone of changing their opinion is a farcical level of optimism of todays cynasism based discourse. There’s this weird meta that’s developed in this thread where it’s just accepted that no one will actually change anyone else’s mind, so instead it’s turned into a training ground where people practice their arguments and rhetoric on each other (at least two people, GH and Danglars, have admitted to this in the past). I don’t necessarily mind that, but if no one is going to take each other seriously then I’d rather not waste my time slogging through bullshit debate/rhetoric techniques and calling each other out on it ad nauseum, if instead I could just learn and judge someone’s beliefs by the strength and logic of their underlying premises. #zlefinformoderator
On May 25 2019 09:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 09:13 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2019 07:32 Plansix wrote:
True, he is far from perfect. Nor am I. But he isn’t an asshole about it. The problem with the thread is that people are being assholes, refusing to reign in their bullshit.
Edit: the complaining in this thread is what it has always been, people trying to get the posters they disagree with banned. Conservatives, liberals and leftist alike, everyone wants to see the the posters they dislike banned. Just own up to it and drop the faux concern about quality posting and logical errors. Actually I've never called for anyone to be banned and think we should try a period of zero moderation. Maybe because I don't get the dogpile Danglars and xDaunt do it seems like a fine experiment to me. On May 25 2019 08:58 Nebuchad wrote:DMCD: that was here: https://tl.net/forum/website-feedback/542042-so-why-was-gh-banned?page=8#156For once I get to say this so I'm going to: the truth is somewhere in the middle x) There is no question that political preference plays a role in who is perceived as an annoying presence and who isn't. I'm not saying this as this objective presence that is judging you all: for example until today I thought NewSunshine was perfectly fine as a poster, and apparently some people on the right view him just as I view DMCD. Probably I don't have that perception because NS is more aligned with me politically than DMCD is. This is quite normal, and it's a bit ridiculous that we're going to pretend that some people are disruptive because of their attitude alone, and it just happens that all the disruptive people are the people who agree the less with liberal values, and there are people who agree with liberal values who are just as disruptive but aren't considered so. So that's one side of the coin. The other: a lot of you guys are definitely asking for it. Danglars has admitted himself that he's there to work on his arguments against liberals. There is no hope of ever getting him to agree that you're right on anything, that literally goes against his project here. Pretending that he gets dismissed because of the liberal bias of this forum is comical. xDaunt is, in my opinion, more honest. But he's also lawyering a whole lot. He is almost never presenting a full picture of his argument, he's focusing on what works well and ignoring what doesn't. I'm not even sure that's a criticism, he's a good propagandist. But there's an element of annoyance that necessarily goes with talking to people like that. More generally (and more polemically) I think there's something inherent with conservatism that almost necessitates a strategy when engaging other ideologies. Conservatives will very often present as capital L Liberals, supportive of "classical liberalism". But conservatism was distinct from classical liberalism at the time (tradition descending from Burke vs tradition descending from Smith if you're interested). Simplifying a little (but not grossly imo), liberalism was an effort to give legitimacy to a new system of governance. We have overturned the authoritarian rule that was before us, however we still plan to govern the shit out of you, so how are we different? Well, we deserve it and they didn't. So here's some increase in meritocracy and social mobility, you might think it's awesome. Also I'm a white male so this applies to white males only hey (is that too caricatural? Can you tell I'm not a fan of liberalism? xD). Meanwhile, people like Burke were saying: okay, this new thing is not ideal, but we can use what they're putting forward to maintain the hierarchies that we have and continue to have the upper hand on society. In my view this is a large part of why conservatives often appear hypocritical and difficult to engage from another ideology. A lot of their justifications for what they believe are rooted in liberal values, but they... just don't really mean it. And so you get stuff like: "It's not that I don't want gay people to be treated equally, I'm just very concerned about freedom of religion (a liberal principle)". And in the next conversation when talking about muslims, I will immediately drop this liberal principle and instead talk about, say, women's rights, have you seen how the most backward muslim countries treat women? (another liberal principle) And then there will be this other conversation about abortions and... You get the drift. So when liberals say that conservatives are often hypocritical, I can't say that it's wrong, neither today nor historically. To me an honest conservative would drop this whole liberal value stuff and just say that he wants to be treated better than people who are different from him. Similarly I understand how a liberal can appear hypocritical to a conservative, because traditionally liberals have wanted to maintain a hierarchy in society, and the meritocracy has never worked. So when considering this history, it's not unreasonable to perceive this attack on a privileged position as an attempt to replace the people on this privileged position. That's how liberalism was born, and that's coherent with capitalism. Tl;dr be democratic socialists, we're cool  I think I've told you this before, but one should not confuse conservatism's moderation, tension, and careful movement between competing principles as hypocrisy. Seeing it that way is, I think, one of the main reasons you so often fail to understand it. I might as well say that a generic leftism (pick your brand) is hard to argue with it as it arrogantly presupposes it has all the knowledge necessary to bring about utopia while ignoring the world as it exists. Therefore, it always presents an answer to a seemingly intractable and inherently ambiguous problem as clearly solvable. This is good. I want to add to this something that Nebuchad is glancing past quite a bit here: Show nested quote +So that's one side of the coin. The other: a lot of you guys are definitely asking for it. Danglars has admitted himself that he's there to work on his arguments against liberals. There is no hope of ever getting him to agree that you're right on anything, that literally goes against his project here. Pretending that he gets dismissed because of the liberal bias of this forum is comical. Raise your hand if you're open to being convinced that Trump is a necessary evil, and superior to a Clinton administration by reading people commenting on a website? I posit you have millions of examples that would have to be overcome to even get close to that position. Quite the heavy lift. But you can get arguments for why the opposite is, in fact, true exposed as logically flawed or founded in untruths. Similar for political positions I hold. Maybe you think the best-run nation is one with a somewhat intrusive government empowered to make many choices for its citizen's lives that increase health and safety. Do you think arguments you have on the internet will convince you that it's an unacceptable tradeoff with individual freedoms, whose preservation should be given very high weighting in balancing choices? Raise your hand if you think that's likely. However, maybe you become more sure in certain ways you're right about society and government, and less sure in others. That's what I talk about in refining arguments. You aren't likely to vote for Trump in 2020 because of the US Politics Megathread, but now you have a better understanding of why people do. Why your arguments don't carry the day nationally. What counterarguments are tougher or weaker. If increased knowledge of that doesn't refine your arguments (actual removal of the metaphorical slag from the whole, which can greatly change appearance and properties), then maybe this thread isn't the best place for you. I'm not really sure if this needs mentioning, but of course I'm open to changing my mind, and that's easier for things I have unformed opinions or no opinion on, than for things I've seen confirmed over five presidencies. I actually lean towards Nebuchad believing this is true at some level as well. Consider that a question like "How likely are you to vote for Trump in 2020" where "very likely" and "not likely at all" are something of character defects. A little unfair. Secondarily, I've pointed out how easily people dismiss evidence here when it's introduced by Republicans and is negative towards their political crowd. This would not be true if people showed they were weighing the evidence, and understood its implications, instead of lazy "just like Benghazi" and "haha guilty and incompetent." That's my observation of left-leaning treatment of facts, not a conclusion on whether people like my posts.
I learn quite a bit in this process. Ryzel, I ask you if you think it's likely from reading this thread to totally change your mind about Trump?
If no, do you think it's likely that you'll find some of the reasons to like or dislike him to be discarded on the weight of judgement and evidence?
Those are the questions you must answer before you slip in a "they're just working on their arguments." It's quite different.
+ Show Spoiler +Or, put another way, your second to last post started "if people are serious" and argued semantics and naive unacceptability. I think you seriously undermined your own attempts to prove you were yourself serious about the discussion before the post ended. So tell me if you'd like to be mentioned in future posts as the unserious guy, or whatever summary epithet someone decides to throw in.
|
She worked for a sane member of the Trumps. I imagine working for Donald is something else entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
