War Room OT Discussion v4

[waiguoren]

in that same thread you made up a position and attributed it to me out of the blue.

If I recall correctly, in that thread I suggested that you support a pathway to legal status for the unauthorized individuals currently living in the USA. I wrote this because I'm fairly certain you have written this at least once over the years. Am I wrong?

 

[waiguoren]

What I specifically had in mind in using you as an example of someone willing to look ridiculous out of tribalism was your support of the anti-Trump FBI conspiracy theory. You also were pretty funny in the immigration thread (Dreamers are adults now so stop correctly saying they were brought over as kids! Some of them who have never committed crimes before could still commit crimes in the future!).

Anyways, I reject both statements.

I do not "support the anti-Trump FBI conspiracy theory". That's a strawman.

I certainly did not write "Dreamers are adults now so stop correctly saying they were brought over as kids! Some of them who have never committed crimes before could still commit crimes in the future!" That's a big strawman.

 

[Rational Poster]

Not sure where you see a strawman. Seems like you just randomly throw that accusation out sometimes. Also, your claim here is odd considering that in that same thread you made up a position and attributed it to me out of the blue.

If you make a point @waiguoren doesn't like obviously it's a strawman.

That's how strawmanning works.

 

[waiguoren]

If you make a point @waiguoren doesn't like obviously it's a strawman.

That's how strawmanning works.

Nah. If you mischaracterize my argument, it's a strawman. I expect a kid like you to do it (I probably did it to others when I was your age), but @Jack V Savage should have higher standards. He used to, but I think he's been getting flustered recently at all the WINNING going on in our great country.

 

[Rational Poster]

Nah. If you mischaracterize my argument, it's a strawman. I expect a kid like you to do it (I probably did it to others when I was your age), but @Jack V Savage should have higher standards. He used to, but I think he's been getting flustered recently at all the WINNING going on in our great country.

How old are you child?

Resorting to ad hominem so quickly. You must be like 12.

 

[waiguoren]

How old are you child?

Old enough to be your daddy

 

[Rational Poster]

Old enough to be your daddy

Dodge noted little boy.

 

[HomerThompson]

Nah. If you mischaracterize my argument, it's a strawman. I expect a kid like you to do it (I probably did it to others when I was your age), but @Jack V Savage should have higher standards. He used to, but I think he's been getting flustered recently at all the WINNING going on in our great country.

Someone quote this for Mr. 80th percentile here. He has me on ignore.

You're a dishonest, angle shooting pussy. You've made a bunch of trollish pro-Trump threads recently because you're a dishonest hack. You ducked my bet because you have no cajones. Good day to you, ma'am.

 

[HereticBD]

Old enough to be your daddy

@Jack V Savage is already his daddy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If I recall correctly, in that thread I suggested that you support a pathway to legal status for the unauthorized individuals currently living in the USA. I wrote this because I'm fairly certain you have written this at least once over the years. Am I wrong?

"In my estimation, Jorge Ramos's views on immigration cover the vast majority of leftists in the USA. On these very forums, you will find that posters such as @Jack V Savage support amnesty for the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the USA."

I've posted that I think that limited police resources are better spent catching criminals than looking for unauthorized immigrants. I've criticized the economic arguments against immigration--both legal and illegal (and this is another area I think you make a fool of yourself in--and everyone on both sides of the issue knows the real reason you alt-right types oppose immigration).

I'd be OK with some sort of pathway to citizenship for many who are here (law-abiding folks who are gainfully employed) illegally but not all and not a blanket amnesty or immediate citizenship. I don't think I've even posted on that, though. Hence my claim that you just made up a position and attributed it to me.

Anyways, I reject both statements.

I do not "support the anti-Trump FBI conspiracy theory". That's a strawman.

So you weren't suggesting a willingness (not backed up) to bet on the substance of Nunes' attempt to turn the investigation around on the FBI? You didn't claim that they'd find evidence to support the CT?

I certainly did not write "Dreamers are adults now so stop correctly saying they were brought over as kids! Some of them who have never committed crimes before could still commit crimes in the future!" That's a big strawman.

How do those differ substantively from the arguments you made? Your feeling is that people don't realize that some Dreamers who used to be kids are now adults and if they understood that, they might be more emotionally aligned with your side, right? And what is the point of bringing up two criminal former Dreamers (note that they lose their eligibility when they commit crimes)? Just to show that just because dirty non-whites haven't committed a crime yet doesn't mean that they still can't, right?

Nah. If you mischaracterize my argument, it's a strawman. I expect a kid like you to do it (I probably did it to others when I was your age), but @Jack V Savage should have higher standards. He used to, but I think he's been getting flustered recently at all the WINNING going on in our great country.

See, isn't this kind of thing beneath *you*? Surely you see yourself as a step above the geese/TCK/Heretic/Farmer/second sight/Logical Insanity types, don't you? But many of your posts are on that level.

 

[waiguoren]

"In my estimation, Jorge Ramos's views on immigration cover the vast majority of leftists in the USA. On these very forums, you will find that posters such as @Jack V Savage support amnesty for the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the USA."

I'd be OK with some sort of pathway to citizenship for many who are here (law-abiding folks who are gainfully employed) illegally but not all and not a blanket amnesty or immediate citizenship. I don't think I've even posted on that, though. Hence my claim that you just made up a position and attributed it to me.

This is fair. I should have written: "On these very forums, you will find that posters such as Jack V Savage support amnesty for nearly all the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the USA."

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is fair. I should have written: "On these very forums, you will find that posters such as Jack V Savage support amnesty for nearly all the 12 million illegal immigrants living in the USA."

Hmm. Isn't your view that a large percentage of them are criminals and not providing economic benefit?

 

[waiguoren]

I've posted that I think that limited police resources are better spent catching criminals than looking for unauthorized immigrants. I've criticized the economic arguments against immigration--both legal and illegal (and this is another area I think you make a fool of yourself in--and everyone on both sides of the issue knows the real reason you alt-right types oppose immigration).

Of you and me, only one of us blatantly labels the other with terms such as "alt right". I call you a liberal and a leftie because you have acknowledged yourself to be a liberal and part of the Left. I think your eagerness to label people indicates tribalism on your part.

I don't oppose immigration, by the way. That's strawman #3 of the day.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of you and me, only one of us blatantly labels the other with terms such as "alt right". I call you a liberal and a leftie because you have acknowledged yourself to be a liberal and part of the Left. I think your eagerness to label people indicates tribalism on your part.

I don't oppose immigration, by the way. That's strawman #3 of the day.

Is labeling inherently bad, in your view? I know where your arguments come from and have seen them before so I think it makes sense to credit the whole tradition. What's more, you've cited Miller as someone who represents your views (that America should be a white ethnostate rather than a liberal one) and Breitbart as an outlet for views you agree with, haven't you?

And you support Trump's efforts to reduce immigration, both legal and illegal, don't you?

 

[waiguoren]

So you weren't suggesting a willingness (not backed up) to bet on the substance of Nunes' attempt to turn the investigation around on the FBI? You didn't claim that they'd find evidence to support the CT?

This is yet another example of tribalism, in my opinion. I believe that in your mind, every issue has two sides---right and left. If I suggest that there could be any validity whatsoever to the claims made in the Nunes memo, I must be a CT nutter, in your opinion. In reality, I reject the vast majority of the views of Alex Jones + Sean Hannity nutter types.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is yet another example of tribalism, in my opinion. I believe that in your mind, every issue has two sides---right and left.

That is clearly false. Note, for example, that I don't consider myself to be on the right and yet I frequently disagree with leftists and left-wing positions. That would be impossible if your claim were right. And for another, one of my main meta issues about the WR is that partisanship rules everything. People take questions that should be related to objective fact as "how do you feel about Trump," for example.

If I suggest that there could be any validity whatsoever to the claims made in the Nunes memo, I must be a CT nutter, in your opinion. In reality, I reject the vast majority of the views of Alex Jones + Sean Hannity nutter types.

But Nunes has a history of blatant dishonesty and is highly interested in representing the fanatically pro-Trump FBI as being anti-Trump in order to discredit the investigation into Trump's campaign. Surely you know this. But you're acting as if there is legitimacy to it. Why? Only because your "team" needs for people to believe it so you guys act like you really do. Later, when it's discredited, the reaction will be along the lines of "LOL, got you libs!" It's just like former libertarians suddenly cheering on authoritarianism and gov't corruption. Or formerly religious people dismissing various forms of immoral behavior that they previously expressed outrage over. I believe that your problems with Hannity and Jones are only that they are too obvious and low-brow, and thus you're tarred with the association. The goals are the same, though.

 

[waiguoren]

Your feeling is that people don't realize that some Dreamers who used to be kids are now adults and if they understood that, they might be more emotionally aligned with your side, right?

Not exactly. I have noticed a lot of demagoguery from Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats on the issue of the DACA recipients. Even the term "Dreamer" is something straight out of a PR firm and suggests ulterior motives.

Pelosi and some of her colleagues have taken to referring to "these children" when referring to the cohort in question, and I believe this to be a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation for political gain.

I also don't necessarily want people to be "more emotionally aligned" with my side. I want them to see the truth of the matter before making judgments. The cohort in question is almost entirely Mexican (deporting them would mostly not entail sending them to a far-off land), has lower average schooling levels than the population at large (not important to me, but certainly important to others), and almost entirely consists of adults.

 

[waiguoren]

Hmm. Isn't your view that a large percentage of them are criminals and not providing economic benefit?

No.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not exactly. I have noticed a lot of demagoguery from Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats on the issue of the DACA recipients. Even the term "Dreamer" is something straight out of a PR firm and suggests ulterior motives.

What would you call them instead? "Persons directed affected by the DREAM Act"? Anyway, this seems like we agree. I think it is correct to say that I represented your position accurately but did not spin it the way you would prefer.

I also don't necessarily want people to be "more emotionally aligned" with my side. I want them to see the truth of the matter before making judgments. The cohort in question is almost entirely Mexican (deporting them would mostly not entail sending them to a far-off land), has lower average schooling levels than the population at large (not important to me, but certainly important to others), and almost entirely consists of adults.

What is the basis of the belief that they should be rounded up and deported? What benefit would that provide that would make up for the economic, social, and moral harm and tyrannical expansion of gov't power? Primarily, you're concerned about America becoming less white, yes?

 

[waiguoren]

That is clearly false. Note, for example, that I don't consider myself to be on the right and yet I frequently disagree with leftists and left-wing positions. That would be impossible if your claim were right.

No, it wouldn't. You can be a tribalist who has sympathies with a few of the views of the other side. The point here is that on most issues, including the Nunes memo, there is tons of daylight between e.g. "Nothingburger!" and "Worse than Watergate!", but you don't dig into that daylight nearly enough. You just assumed that someone who thought there might be some substance to the Nunes memo was a full-fledged conspiracy theorist.