[wwweston]

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”)

[timr]

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.

[Folcon]

Hi timr

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

[albedoa]

> 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.

[timr]

> 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.

[hackyhacky]

> 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?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48253510

[timr]

> 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.

[timr]

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.

[Folcon]

Thanks for engaging with me positively

    > 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!

[wwweston]

> What "evasions"?

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.

[timr]

> 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.

[wwweston]

> 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.

[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-t...

[timr]

If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.

All the words you've spent here, and you still can't bring yourself to make a single argument against the thing you hate so much.

[wwweston]

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.

[Dylan16807]

The thing they hate so much is how you keep making non-sequitur arguments. They didn't say anything about policy, and they didn't call anyone names.

Why is this so hard?, as they say

[hackyhacky]

> 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.