|
|
Post by Hordini on Nov 7, 2024 14:52:40 GMT -5
I do generally ignore and just hit the report button when I think it's warranted. However, the issue with ignoring the bad faith arguments is that the objective isn't to convince the person you're arguing against, but rather the other people reading the arguments. Letting the bad-faith arguments stand uncontested lends validity to them. But it's exhausting to constantly refute them...thus the Gish-gallop style of debating and why bad-faith actors use it. I disagree that not contesting a bad faith argument necessarily lends validity to it. Sometimes that might be the case, but certainly not all the time, and some arguments don't need to be dignified with a response. It can be exhausting, and it's unnecessary, so no one here should feel compelled to do it. And luckily, I don't think we have a lot of people reading the arguments here. |
|
mdgv2
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 916
|
Post by mdgv2 on Nov 7, 2024 15:04:24 GMT -5
Think of it like a Pub or a Bar.
The nature of the beast is, sooner or later, something or someone is gonna kick off. With booze and politics, that’s kind of inevitable, even when your patrons are normally doing it all in moderation.
Whembly is akin to the already drunk guy that’s pissed himself, who is looking for a fight from the get go.
Example
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
Member is Online
|
Post by skyth on Nov 7, 2024 15:05:50 GMT -5
There's a difference between 'not good enough at arguing' and 'intentionally arguing in bad faith with the intent to derail the conversation'. At a certain point, in order to have a discussion you have to have all parties discussing things in good faith. Whembly has constantly demonstrated that he is unwilling to do that. Not to mention the constant posts that are nothing but personal attacks that derail the existing conversation. It's like having a screaming toddler inside a nice restaurant... I agree, but "bad faith" gets tossed around a lot here to dismiss arguments that some dislike or have an issue with. That is not the case with this one as has been repeatedly demonstrated and explained. Malus explained it much better than I would have been able to. |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Nov 7, 2024 15:13:06 GMT -5
But seemingly more who do. It's a binary system even if the result is 51/49. You're a nation of bigots now  Trump got record number of non-white voters. Strange to presume their votes are based on bigot principles.... Why would bigotry be limited to white people? |
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 15:15:42 GMT -5
Since my previous request seems to have gotten lost in the charming discourse: if Trump's border policy was what held down immigrant crossings at the border: a) why were Trump's numbers on the same level as Obama's during the last part of the latter administration? Shouldn't there have been a visible difference between the two rather than just a continuation of the same trend if Trump's policies made such a difference? b) why did the skyrocketing trend start in 2018, two years before Biden was even elected, if Trump's policies were "working"? Why should we attribute the continuing increase that began in 2018, with a dip in 2019 before continuing the sharp increase in 2020, to changes in policy rather than external factors? I dunno... an artifact of how that writer chose to display it? It seems like the data set that writer is presenting seems... incorrect. This seems more reasonable: cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Population-Grew-51-Million-Last-Two-YearsParticularly this graph: cis.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/pop-5-24-f3.jpgIF the image doesn't load, here's the break down in the "growth" of foreign-born population: Obama's 1st term: 59,000 per month Obama's 2nd term: 76,000 per month Trump's 1st term (pre-covid): 42,000 per month (because the border was restricted/shutdown for much of Trump's term post-covid) Biden's 1st term: As of March-2024, it was 174,000 per month Illegal Immigration. In our prior analysis we estimated that 58 percent of the increase in the total foreign-born population since President Biden took office was due to illegal immigration. There is nothing in the most recent data to change that perspective. If correct, then s ince January 2021 the illegal immigrant population has increased by 3.8 million. Further, of the 51.6 million immigrants living in the country in the March 2024 CPS, some 13.8 million are illegal immigrants. If adjusted for undercount, the total illegal immigrant population would be over 14 million in March 2024. Going to the source, we can go to US Border and Custom agency for more data: www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statisticsEnforcement FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 Do you not see the massive trendline here from 2017-2020 vs 2021-2024?? That's only for actual contact with CBP, and not including estimated "got aways" and the likes. |
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
Member is Online
|
Post by skyth on Nov 7, 2024 15:17:29 GMT -5
"The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views."
"Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations"
Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 15:18:57 GMT -5
Trump got record number of non-white voters. Strange to presume their votes are based on bigot principles.... Why would bigotry be limited to white people? But why go to "bigotry" in the first place? Can we at least acknowledge that there may be other rationales as to why Harris lost the election, other than bigotry? I have ideas... if you're interested. |
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 487
Member is Online
|
Post by skyth on Nov 7, 2024 15:19:09 GMT -5
"The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002[46] and 2009[47] on John Tanton, who founded CIS. Tanton is a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who opposed immigration on racial grounds, desired a white ethnic majority in the United States and advocated for eugenics.[48][12][49] The SPLC's 2009 report charged that "FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton" who they said had "deeply racist" views, and said that the group had "frequently manipulated data" in order to promote anti-immigration goals.[47]"
|
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 15:21:03 GMT -5
<s>"The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank. It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views." "Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations" Hmmm...</s> Nice try. |
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 15:21:44 GMT -5
"The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002[46] and 2009[47] on John Tanton, who founded CIS. Tanton is a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who opposed immigration on racial grounds, desired a white ethnic majority in the United States and advocated for eugenics.[48][12][49] The SPLC's 2009 report charged that "FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton" who they said had "deeply racist" views, and said that the group had "frequently manipulated data" in order to promote anti-immigration goals.[47]" SPLC is a hate organization who's reputations are in tatters. |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Nov 7, 2024 15:22:56 GMT -5
Do you not see the massive trendline here from 2017-2020 vs 2021-2024?? Can you demonstrate that it's actually due to Biden's policies, as opposed to something like Covid fucking the entire world over in new and exciting ways? Correlation =/= causation.
Also, please tell me you didn't use the CIS self-definition as proof that they're unbiased?
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 7, 2024 15:24:25 GMT -5
Hordini see, this is a perfect example of why everyone hates despic (aka when, I thought I made that obvious). His rebuttal to "your source is bigoted" was "NUH UH, THEY SAY THEY ARENT SO THEY CANT BE!" What does that add?
|
|
|
|
Post by dabbler on Nov 7, 2024 15:24:39 GMT -5
And this is why there's no point in engaging him. Someone reads the data he provides, finds a massive issue with it. He brushes it off and will use exactly that same data later. This is fine to do here and doesn't count as bad faith, so there's no point. Just don't engage with him
|
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Nov 7, 2024 15:26:49 GMT -5
"The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) published reports in 2002[46] and 2009[47] on John Tanton, who founded CIS. Tanton is a retired Michigan ophthalmologist who opposed immigration on racial grounds, desired a white ethnic majority in the United States and advocated for eugenics.[48][12][49] The SPLC's 2009 report charged that "FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton" who they said had "deeply racist" views, and said that the group had "frequently manipulated data" in order to promote anti-immigration goals.[47]" SPLC is a hate organization who's reputations are in tatters. Statista, then
What's causing the 2018 spike in apprehensions and why wasn't Trump doing any better than Obama? While we're at it, why does your source's data seem "more reasonable"? You literally rejected the data I linked without an explanation as to why so you could replace it with a think tank that has a vested interest in the question. Come on dude.
|
|
|
|
Post by whembly on Nov 7, 2024 15:36:58 GMT -5
adflegal.org/setting-the-record-straight/The Southern Poverty Law Center is a discredited and scandal-ridden group that one of its own employees described as “a highly profitable scam,” and which has been lambasted by progressives as “everything that’s wrong with liberalism.” In the mid-1980s, the SPLC made a conscious choice to become a fear mongering, money-raising machine, resulting in the resignation of its entire legal department in 1985. In time, the SPLC’s infamous “hate map” was born. The SPLC realized that the more “hate” they could gin up, the more money they could raise. Eventually, their definition of hate included huge swaths of well-respected, mainstream, conservative America. In truth, the only reason SPLC considers many of these groups to be “hate groups” is that they disagree with the SPLC on hot-button cultural issues. The SPLC’s problems run deeper than their extreme and intolerant ideology. Many former employees have exposed the SPLC’s internal culture as racist and sexist. Several leaders have been forced to resign in recent years, and even public relations experts brought in to repair the organization’s image have been mired in scandal. One former leadership official admitted that the group’s goal was not to productively engage with ideological opponents (the so-called “hate groups”), but to “ destroy” them. Our society vitally needs institutions that will foster real dialogue on important issues. We can do better than the SPLC. 10 Things You Should Know about the Southern Poverty Law CenterUnderstanding the SPLC’s hate list and its dangers requires understanding the SPLC, its history, and how it has changed from a civil rights organization into a politically partisan and fundraising driven organization. While the SPLC did good work decades ago fighting segregation in the South, it has become an unreliable, scandal-ridden, and far-left activist organization that attacks anyone who disagrees with its narrow political agenda. Here are 10 things you should know about the SPLC: SPLC is a far-left activist organization that only targets the right.Even left-of-center Politico has noted the longstanding criticism that SPLC is “becoming more of a partisan progressive hit operation than a civil rights watchdog.” Commentators across the ideological spectrum agree. Cornell law professor William Jacobsen says that “[t]ime and again, I see the SPLC using the reputation it gained decades ago fighting the Klan as a tool to bludgeon mainstream politically conservative opponents.” Kimberly Strassel calls SPLC a “far-left activist group” that “exists to smear conservatives” and that “tags you as a hater” if it “doesn’t agree with your views.” Shikha Dalmia laments that “the SPLC is not up to the task” of monitoring actual hate groups because “ t is too busy enforcing liberal orthodoxy against its intellectual opponents.”
SPLC's conception of "hate" includes broad swaths of mainstream, conservative America.
SPLC’s “Hatewatch” blog is a perfect example. SPLC says this blog “monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right” and the “activities and events of anti-LGBT organizations.” The so-called “radical right” and “anti-LGBT organizations” SPLC has identified include many beloved, respected, and mainstream conservative and religious organizations and individuals, such as Ben Carson, Heritage Foundation, Dennis Prager, PragerU, The Federalist Society, Franklin Graham, Catholic Medical Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, Heritage Action, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Liberty Counsel, Pacific Justice Institute, The Leadership Institute, First Liberty Institute, Ruth Institute, European Center for Law and Justice, Alaska Family Council, Florida Family Policy Council, Texas Values, and Homeschool Legal Defense Association, to name just a few.
Demonstrating the breadth and danger of SPLC’s conception of “hate,” SPLC labelled the Boston chapter of The Federalist Society “anti-LGBT” because it hosted then-United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions for a talk on “The Future of Religious Liberty.”
It’s simple – if you promote a viewpoint SPLC disagrees with, they label you a hater or extremist. SPLC does not want dialogue or debate. They just want to cancel you.
SPLC's lack of credibility imperils its business partners.
Jeff Bezos acknowledged to Congress that Amazon’s use of the SPLC “hate group” list to determine which nonprofits can participate in AmazonSmile is “an imperfect system.” He also stated that he “would like a better source if [he] can get it.” Following Mr. Bezos’ testimony, members of Congress and a prominent group of Orthodox Jewish rabbis both issued public letters calling upon Amazon to stop relying on the SPLC.
SPLC's hate group list is a fraudulent fundraising pool.
In an article titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center Is Everything that’s Wrong with Liberalism,” Nathan J. Robinson, the editor-in-chief of Current Affairs, carefully scrutinized SPLC’s “Hate Map” and concluded that it is an “outright fraud” and “a willful deception designed to scare older liberals into writing checks to the SPLC.” And former SPLC employee Bob Moser wrote that “it was hard, for many of us, not to feel like we’d become pawns in what was, in many respects, a highly profitable scam.”
SPLC suffers from a "system culture of sexism and racism."
In 2019, SPLC fired its co-founder and its long-time president resigned amid numerous employee reports that SPLC suffers from “a systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace,” as reported by CNN, the LA Times, the NY Times, NPR, and many other media outlets. One ex-SPLC staff member wrote at The Daily Beast that even the follow-up efforts to address this toxic culture were designed to “protect the reputation of the SPLC, and not to enact or recommend changes that would benefit staff—changes that were desperately needed.”.
Federal courts have said SPLC's "hate group" label is based entirely on it's subjective opinion.
A federal judge recently found that the SPLC hate list does not “depend upon objective data or evidence” and its application of the “hate group” designation is “entirely subjective.” And another federal judge ruled that SPLC’s “representation or description” of a nonprofit organization as a hate group “is not one ‘of fact.’”
SPLC's goal is to destroy it's avowed political enemies.
SPLC’s Senior Fellow Mark Potok, former editor-in-chief of SPLC’s Intelligence Report, said: “Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on…. I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.” SPLC has never renounced this statement.
SPLC has publicly disavowed several of it's erroneous "hate" or "extremist" labels, the most recent retraction costing them a $3.375 million settlement.
SPLC included Maajid Nawaz, a former Islamic extremist who has since devoted his life to opposing violence, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a renowned human rights activist who suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists, in its “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” Mr. Nawaz threatened to sue for defamation. In response, SPLC pulled the Guide. Ultimately, SPLC publicly apologized for labelling Mr. Nawaz an extremist and agreed to pay a $3.375 million settlement. SPLC also publicly apologized to Dr. Ben Carson, who was included in its “Extremist File” in 2014 for his view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
SPLC's "hate" label destroys civicl discourse and breeds contempt for those who different views.
Mark Pulliam observes that SPLC’s hate label results in “dissent [being] de-legitimatized, and political foes [being] demonized.” Megan McArdle criticizes SPLC for lumping “principled conservatives” with “bigots” and observes: “Given the increasing tendency of powerful tech companies to flex their muscle against hate groups, we may see more and more institutions unwittingly turned into critics or censors, not just of Nazi propaganda, but also of fairly mainstream ideas.” Karl Zinsmeister said, “Taking people and groups with political views different from your own and lumping them with villains and gangsters is the mark of a bullying organization that aims to intimidate and even criminalize philosophical opponents.” And Politico questions whether “t a time when the line between ‘hate group’ and mainstream politics is getting thinner and the need for productive civil discourse is growing more serious, fanning liberal fears, while a great opportunity for the SPLC, might be a problem for the nation.”
Sadly, SPLC's propaganda has inspired violence.
Floyd Corkins cited SPLC as motivation for his attempted mass murder at the Family Research Council (FRC) in 2012. He told investigators that he “had chosen the research council as his target after finding it listed as an anti-gay group on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center” and that he “planned to stride into the building and open fire on the people inside in an effort to kill as many as possible.” In addition, students cited SPLC as a reason they rioted and assaulted a female professor at Middlebury College in 2017.
Hmmmmm....
|
|
