In the time it took you to make this snide comment on HN, you could have explained your quote which was evidently incomprehensible to all except yourself.
That doesn't look like something made in bad faith to me, given that we're seeing threats of precisely that from the usa president [1]. Unfortunately, it's hard to conclude that you're correct in your personal determination of bad faith, because you haven't explained that quote [0] which was evidently incomprehensible except to yourself.
Are you sure you want to talk about the topic? Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so. Why not just say what you mean, and we can all have a civil discussion? Everybody wins then, right? Not that I'm forcing you to discuss anything civilly if you're not into it.
That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation? Let's recap what kind of responses were made:
* "It's your job to come up with an alternative" (not helpful)
* "Just let them all stay" (not realistic)
* "Actually Republican want illegal immigration, not Democrats, so they can rile up their base" (retarded)
* Lots and lots and lots of ad hominem: "check your carbon monoxide monitor"
The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought and lacking in any civility. It's a collective tantrum full stop.
> Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so.
Don't gaslight.
I reiterate that it was a direct response to a bad faith comment. There is nothing unclear about it. He suggested an unrealistic course of action which while he would be personally happy with, goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable and hence fails the request for a "realistic alternative".
> We simply deport anyone who makes the argument he's making
The response is clear: that's unrealistic and not up to him. He understood exactly what it meant but didnt like his very own words used against him.
The problem people are raising is not "mass deportation." The problem is violation of due process rights.
This is not a viable solution because it is 1) blatantly illegal under the American Constitution and 2) undermines the very premise of the rule of law.
One reason it is clearly not a viable solution is because if it were, then it would also be a viable solution simply to deport aydyn and people who think like him/her. Doing so would only entail the same convenience-driven Constitutional violations that the current administration is undertaking. Neither is a viable solution.
Let's just get to the meat of the matter so you can pick between hypocrisy or ignorance.
Please answer these yes/no questions:
1. Under the US Constitution, does someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant have a right to due process?
2. Is it acceptable to violate the US Constitution when convenient?
> That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation?
It's been kind of a weird (non-sequitur perhaps?) request, for a couple of reasons:
First because the dismissive nature of some of your responses frames you as the judge of what is acceptable/realistic, which I think we can all agree here without any offense, you're not;
Second, because mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, is itself not an acceptable solution. Indeed, "do nothing" is both more acceptable (viewed more acceptably by others) and more realistic (doing nothing is easier than doing something). Thus, it is unhelpful to rule that out as an option while preserving the even-less-acceptable option of maintaining the status quo.
And let's be clear here: the relevant question is of acceptable solutions, not simply realistic ones. As we've unfortunately seen in human history, even killing millions is realistic, but obviously not acceptable.
> [Doing nothing] goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable
"The vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable. Why, then, must the response be more reasonable than the initial suggestion?
Maybe that's why all the replies expressed confusion at the quoting: it is missing that context, and the full context makes the quote cut against the position of pro-mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc.
> Don't gaslight
Your personal judgement that people who don't understand your out of context quotes are gaslighting, is rude. The more likely explanation, based on the evidence, is that a given message failed to provide sufficient context and/or explanation.
> The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought
This is even meaner. I am confident that you are capable of civil discussion focused on ideas, not on other HN posters. If you want to call your fellow posters thoughtless, you might seek greener pastures.
> "The vast majority of people" find mass deportation
The majority of Americans agree with mass deportation even if they don't agree with exactly how ICE is proceeding.
There's lots of room for discussion which obviously isn't happening here.
> Your personal judgement that people who don't understand your out of context quotes are gaslighting, is rude.
Given the context and aggressive sarcasm of the post, the vastly more likely explanation is the poster didn't agree with the point rather than not understanding it at all.
You understand now that it is simple direct response. Thus, if you want to call for intellectual honesty and civility, you can lead.
> This is even meaner. I am confident that you are capable of civil discussion focused on ideas, not on other HN posters.
I'm happy to have a civil conversation. I'm also happy to have an uncivil conversation. I'd ask you to be consistent when and with who that incivility started.
If anything, "the vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable than doing nothing. Please don't cut off my quotes mid-sentence when it omits critical context.
> Given the context and aggressive sarcasm of the post, the vastly more likely explanation is the poster didn't agree with the point rather than not understanding it at all.
Given that every person who responded in that thread expressed confusion at your quote (myself included), the more likely explanation, based on the evidence, is that a given message failed to provide sufficient context and/or explanation.
Now that we have the context explained in my previous post, we see why the quote was confusing: because it does not support the position you have been espousing. That is to say: to whatever extent that other poster 'doesn't get to decide what constitutes American interests', neither do you.
> if you want to call for intellectual honesty and civility, you can lead
I think I have been civil. If I've insulted you personally, I am sorry, and wouldn't mind you pointing it out.
> I'd ask you to be consistent when and with who that incivility started
That other poster isn't being nice either, but I don't like to comment purely to criticize tone. I prefer redirecting to substance when I can. That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context quote, were asked what you meant, and refused to explain.
Now that you have civilly explained what you meant (thank you), we can focus on substance, which is that if you don't provide an acceptable solution, then it's probably not reasonable to expect others to.
> If anything, "the vast majority of people" find mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc, to be even more unreasonable than doing nothing. Please don't cut off my quotes mid-sentence when it omits critical context.
It is not critical context, the root post asked for realistic alternatives.
> Given that every person who responded in that thread expressed confusion at your quote (myself included)
All two of you?
> That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote,
Yes, reasonable alternatives to mass deportation of millions of citizens and noncitizens to gulags, conflict zones, etc.
The response included options even more reasonable than that one, so no problem there.
> All two of you?
As opposed to all one of you? Why would your own comprehension of your own words somehow nullify other people saying they were incomprehensible? Of course your words weren't confusing to you, they came from your brain!
> Flatly untrue
Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously.
I noticed you totally excluded the substantive part of my reply where it's explained why everyone found your quoting confusing. I'm sure it's much easier to just ignore it and say 'nope'. Makes for a better conversation, right? Like this one? Anyways, here is the substance again, if you want to focus on it:
The quote, as used by you, does not support the position you have been espousing. That is to say: to whatever extent that other poster 'doesn't get to decide what constitutes American interests', neither do you. So why quote it in that context?
An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument.
> That said, the incivility started when you cited an out of context[sic] quote,
>> Flatly untrue
>>> Of course! It stands to reason that 2 people who tell you the same thing, one a 3rd-party observer, must both be wrong if you disagree with them, obviously.
For clarification (since you seem to need it a lot) I am responding to your claim that incivility started with me. That is flatly untrue, obviously.
Maybe, but that's what you meant when you said "realistic", right?
The holocaust and the holodomor were both, unfortunately "realistic". Surely you're interested in reasonable, acceptable, realistic options, not simply "realistic" ones, however unreasonable and unacceptable? Otherwise, you'll have to share why you're not interested in realistic, reasonable, acceptable options, which as we've seen, are superior to options which are simply "realistic".
> An appeal to the authority of two people with the same ideology and biases is not a convincing argument.
An appeal to the authority of one person with even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument.
Since we're on the topic of soliciting alternatives from others: You might suggest a realistic, reasonable, acceptable alternative to what that other poster suggested. This time, I'll play judge, instead of you.
> what you meant when you said "realistic", right?
No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic".
> even stronger ideology and biases is even less of a convincing argument.
I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
> No, apparently I must clarify that I meant "realistic" when I said "realistic".
You must, yet you still have not! Instead, you omitted everything of substance from my response and just focused on snideness here. Maybe reply to the part of the post that followed that sentence?
> I have not even given my perspective so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, that person is biased.
This goes even moreso when I say it:
Myself and other-poster have not even given our perspectives, so this just reveals your own ideological biases; the mere act of challenging your perspectives means that, to you, those people are biased.
Not sure why you took that hard left into accusing others of being biased, but we don't have to have a conversation like that. We can rise above it.
Unfortunately, your post contained nothing about the actual topic: you're just arguing. If you're interesting in having an interesting discussion, focus on substance in your response, rather than attacking me. For guidance there, check the parts of my previous reply which you omitted.
I am not the topic here, and I'm not interested in you making me it.
Ah we're dealing with a comprehension problem. Let me explain then.
The point of "deport people I disagree with" was to highlight it as an illegal solution, much like the "don't give due process" solution.
If we are to take your solution seriously (of simply ignoring our Constitution), then we have all sorts of "solutions" on the table, including ones like "deport people I disagree with." That is to imply that neither of these are actual solutions because both of them would require violating our Constitution.
I suppose I made an error expecting I was speaking to someone with the cognitive firepower required to understand analogies and implicature, so I hope this helps.
