[pritambaral]

Then stop acting like it.

They said, "People who support Trump". They never said, "People who disagree with me". Those are your own words. And there's a great deal of difference between those two clauses.

I understand you want to shield yourself from criticism, by pretending you're merely in the "people who disagree with" camp and not in the "people who support Trump" camp. But trying to do that while putting words in someone's mouth lowers the quality of discourse here. And then to try claiming moral superiority by citing "This is HN, not reddit" is just ... transparently pointless.

Also, you ruin your own argument by proving your parent correct.

[theonething]

> They said, "People who support Trump". They never said, "People who disagree with me". Those are your own words. And there's a great deal of difference between those two clauses.

They are closely related and I don't see as much difference as you do but okay, they are different clauses. I also believe saying someone is stupid for supporting Trump is wrong. You can disagree with a person's vote, try to point out why you think they are wrong, just ignore them but calling someone stupid has no benefit except maybe it makes the insulter feel good about their own superiority.

> lowers the quality of discourse here.

but calling me and over half the country stupid adds to the quality of discourse?

> "This is HN, not reddit" is just ... transparently pointless.

HN has clear guidelines about this [0] and people here generally adhere to them. By saying this is HN, I'm appealing to the higher standard espoused in these guidelines. Do you think those guidelines are pointless?

> I understand you want to shield yourself from criticism, by pretending you're merely in the "people who disagree with" camp

You understand incorrectly. If you look at my recent comment history, it's pretty easy to see I'm Republican and voted for Trump.

> Also, you ruin your own argument by proving your parent correct.

I don't understand your logic here. How did I prove the parent correct? Seems like just another personal insult on your part.

I look forward to your responses to the above.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be kind." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

[pritambaral]

> They are closely related and I don't see as much difference as you do but okay

They are nowhere close but of course you can't see that so okay.

> I also believe saying someone is stupid for supporting Trump is wrong.

Of course, Trump supporters are known for being poor employers of reason and introspection.

> try to point out why you think they are wrong

This list is so long that it's pointless to point this out in every conversation with a Trumper, but your parent did actually try.

> just ignore them

This is dangerous, to all humanity. At best, it's tolerance of the intolerant.

> but calling someone stupid has no benefit except maybe it makes the insulter feel good about their own superiority.

I strongly doubt your parent felt good about it. There's nothing good about calling a Trumper "stupid", because it does nothing to help the situation. Trumpers don't listen to reason; I'm sure your parent knows this. It's far more likely your parent spoke out of sheer frustration, which I fully understand, having had my own faith in humanity tested by this whole ordeal, and it hasn't even begun its "revenge run".

> but calling me and over half the country stupid adds to the quality of discourse?

1. Spoken by itself, probably not. But your parent didn't just call Trumpers stupid. They first explained their reasoning. Within a greater context where that's precisely the point being discussed: "How Trumpers are stupid."

2. More like "quarter of the country". Half your country didn't even vote.

> By saying this is HN, I'm appealing to the higher standard espoused in these guidelines.

If that's all you were doing, that'd be fine. But to do that while putting words in people's mouths? That's disingenuous, at best, and transparently so.

> Do you think those guidelines are pointless?

And there we go again with the putting words in people's mouths.

> it's pretty easy to see I'm Republican and voted for Trump.

I don't see how this, in any way whatsoever, proves I "understood incorrectly".

> How did I prove the parent correct?

I've already explained in this thread above. Twice. I don't see the point in trying a third time, especially when ... <see above>.

> Seems like just another personal insult on your part.

It wasn't. It was an appeal to do better, since, as you said, "This is HN". Maybe I understand why you feel that way, though. I am, after all, somebody that disagrees with you on sth, so of course I must be out to "get you". Rest assured, I am not out to "get you".

----

> [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html "Be kind." "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Since you quoted this, let me leave you with one thing to ponder on: Just how spectacularly poorly your candidate (i.e., Trump) does on these guidelines.

[theonething]

You don't see how "People who support Trump" and "People who disagree with me" are closely related? The former is a subset of the latter.

>> I also believe saying someone is stupid for supporting Trump is wrong.

> Of course, Trump supporters are known for being poor employers of reason and introspection.

To clarify, I don't think that anyone should should call anyone else stupid for any reason. It's just ad hominem.

I'll address your characterization of Trumpers as being poor employers of reason and introspection below.

> that's precisely the point being discussed: "How Trumpers are stupid."

Again, I have a problem with the ad hominem. Why not "wrong" or "misguided"? Why take it to the personal insult level? You mention about the reasoning for using "stupid" is sheer frustration. You also mention maintaining the quality of discourse here. "stupid" does not do that. Maybe it helps you vent your frustration, but kicking a dog does that for some people and we can agree that being frustrated doesn't justify that.

It just serves to demonize and dehumanize people on the other side.

>> Do you think those guidelines are pointless?

> And there we go again with the putting words in people's mouths.

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I asked a question. And the reason I asked it is you don't seem to have a problem with calling a certain class of people stupid which clearly violates the guidelines. So it's reasonable to question if you value those guidelines.

>> it's pretty easy to see I'm Republican and voted for Trump.

I don't see how this, in any way whatsoever, proves I "understood incorrectly".

This is your understanding: "I understand you want to shield yourself from criticism, by pretending you're merely in the "people who disagree with" camp"

That is incorrect. I do not want to shield myself from criticism by pretending I'm merely in the "people who disagree with" camp. As seen in my past comments, I do not pretend I'm not a Republican/Trump supporter.

>> How did I prove the parent correct?

>I've already explained in this thread above. Twice. I don't see the point in trying a third time, especially when ... <see above>.

I ask for clarification of something you said and this is your response? I proved the parent correct about what? Where have you explained this twice? You don't have to explain it again. Just copy and paste it. Doesn't have to be both times. Just one is fine.

When someone doesn't understand something, it's not always their fault. Communication is a two way street. Sometimes it is the communicator that is unclear in their messaging.

Now to address your comment about Trumpers having poor reasoning and instropective abilities I'll choose a few hot button topics in this election cycle and go through my reasoning on them.

- Immigration and border security

On day one of the Biden/Harris administration, they reversed most of the Trump era border policies. This resulted in an unprecented level of illegal border crossings. Some of these that crossed went on to rape and kill American girls/women , take over whole apartment complexes and some are terrorist bent on US destruction [0]. Furthore, these illegals have cost US taxpayers untold millions to suppor them.

After three and half years, right before the next election cycle Biden finally reinstated Trump era border restrictions and the flow of illegals stemmed. And Harris who years before said building a wall was stupid, in a recent interview suddenly says she is open to bulding the wall.

My questions are why did Biden/Harris reverts Trump border policies in the first place only to reinstate them three and a half years later when Harris was up for election?

To me, it's just unreasonable to open a countries borders like that and basically ignore immigration laws. Why let millions of immigrates into the country illegally like that? It's akin to saying "I don't need walls or doors for my house. It's ok that anyone can come in as they please. That's totally ok for me and my family"

There are legal paths to enter the US and become a resident. Those need to be followed an enforced.

So, am I stupid and lack reasoning skills for believing the above?

- June 6th Capital insurrection.

It was an insurrection against the governemnt. All the protesters who stormed the capitol should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The question is did Trump lead this insurrection? I don't think he directly lead it. That would require that he told them something to the effect "let's go to the capitol and take over". Did he cause it? I think there are valid arguments on both sides of that debate.

In any case, this was a really bad move by Trump and a huge blight on his record.

Was it enough to keep me from voting for him? Obviously not. To me, Trump is the lesser of two evils. I didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. I really wish he wouldn't have won so I could have a better choice.

But Harris's policies I'm deeply opposed to. In terms of character, I think she is fake and insincere flip flopper with no real convictions and thus can't give straightforward answers to questions and spews word salads instead. Do I like Trump's character? Mostly not. He is deeply flawed. There are some good qualities I see in him (that I know you'll disagree with me on.). He deeply wants to see the US succeed and thus has sincere passion and deep conviction. For example, he's the only candidate that will stand up to and call out China's trade bullshit, their unfair trade practices that have screwed over America for decades. The tariffs he threatens are for the purpose of forcing China to the negotiating table. The past decades of American presidents' hemming and hawing to China have done nothing to change their behavior.

So I choose based mostly on policy rather than character.

Since you mentioned introspection, I'll leave you this to reflect on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42062965

[0] https://www.meforum.org/middle-east-forum-online/counter-ter...