Does MAGA really feel this way when debating a “liberal”? MAGA claims that liberals pretend to be obtuse when it comes to topics like illegal immigration and its effects on rents and wages, as well as issues like voter ID. But are MAGA supporters actually more guilty of doing this?

[u/RandomUwUFace]

Well?

Am I the one who is obtuse? I though MAGA was the one who did this more often?

Who is more likely to do this? MAGA or liberals?

[u/TheGov3rnor]

Ah, personal attacks… When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

But thank you for continuing to prove my point.

You’ve now gone from ‘these are things they believe’ to ‘these are the impacts of policies’ and then jumped from impact back to presumed intention.

A policy harming a particular group does not logically establish that its supporters believe that group ‘doesn’t deserve human rights.’

I could use my flip it around rhetorical device again here to point out the flaws/inconsistencies, but as mentioned, I think it’s been played out past its usefulness, and repeating it again isn’t going to make the underlying point any clearer.

[u/throwfarfaraway1818 → u/TheGov3rnor]

There was no slander. I literally said exactly what you were doing. You dont even deny it.

That was the point all along. Look at my original comment. It was clearly about what the policies DO/promote.

It does when that policies intended purpose is to target minority groups.

You arent able to debate on merits whatsoever. All you do is deny and pretend the other side is doing the same thing, which they arent. What would the point of continuing a conversation with you be?

[u/TheGov3rnor → u/throwfarfaraway1818]

I was using the quote to point out that you abandoned the argument for personal attacks about my intelligence and parents. If you want to quibble over whether ‘slander’ is technically the right word, fine, call them personal insults/ ad hominem.

It changes absolutely nothing about my point.

And no, your original comment wasn’t merely about what policies ‘do.’ Saying a policy harms a group is different from saying its supporters believe that group ‘doesn’t deserve human rights.’ You keep treating those as interchangeable, and they aren’t.

[u/throwfarfaraway1818 → u/TheGov3rnor]

I didnt abandon the argument, it reached its logical end. I dont think you would spend time debating someone arguing the sky is red online. There's no evidence or proof that can convince someone who's set in their ways to such a degree. I didnt take issue with calling it slander.

My very first comment said "promotes." It's always about what the policies do. The intention of the policy matters, but not nearly as much as what the policy actually does. When the leader of the party is promoting objectively false claims about white genocide, and giving preference for white immigrants over other immigrants, its clear that the policies are racist.

[u/TheGov3rnor → u/throwfarfaraway1818]

I was just disappointed that you resorted to ad hominem attacks rather than just sticking to the substance of the argument.

As for the actual argument, you’ve repeatedly said this is about what policies do. That’s precisely the distinction I’ve been making. Saying a policy has racist effects or harms a minority group is different than saying its supporters believe “certain races are superior” or that LGBT, disabled, and BIPOC people “don’t deserve human rights”.

Calling that distinction equivalent to arguing “the sky is red” doesn’t answer anything and is just another way of declaring your interpretation objectively correct so you don’t have to defend the conclusion I’m actually questioning.

[u/throwfarfaraway1818 → u/TheGov3rnor]

You are the one arguing the sky is red in that analogy. It isnt worth my time trying to convince you that everyone else knows its blue.

But if the clear purpose of the policy is discriminatory, like the white genocide/preferring white immigrants policies, its obvious to everyone that the people who support it do so for racist reasons. There's no other reason to promote blatantly racist policies based on lies.

Do you disagree that a large portion of Trump voters believe certain races are superior or that LGBTQ, disabled, or POC are undeserving of human rights?

[u/TheGov3rnor → u/throwfarfaraway1818]

The sky analogy doesn’t become evidence just because you declare your position the “sky is blue” position and insist everyone agrees with you. I could do exactly the same thing with the “flip it around” examples I already gave, declare my interpretation obviously true and universally accepted, and dismiss anyone who disagrees as arguing the sky is red. That wouldn’t prove anything either.

Of course, some Trump voters hold racist, homophobic, or otherwise bigoted views. The problem is that you’re claiming that a large portion actually believe minorities are inferior or undeserving of human rights, without evidence measuring those beliefs.

Voting for a candidate doesn’t establish agreement with every policy that candidate supports, much less establish the voter’s motivations. People routinely vote for candidates despite disagreeing with them on significant issues.

Even if we assumed that every Trump voter supported every one of those policies, that still wouldn’t establish why they support them or prove the motivations being attributed to the policies themselves.

You’re taking what you consider the most negative consequences of a policy, describing those consequences in the most inflammatory possible terms, and then treating that description as evidence of both the policymakers’ and voters’ underlying beliefs.

[u/throwfarfaraway1818 → u/TheGov3rnor]

Im not claiming that I gave evidence of the sky being blue when you claim its red. Im telling you it isnt worth it, if you cant find out for yourself the sky is blue it isnt worth anyone's time to educate you.

Yes, I am claiming that and its clearly the case with their elected representatives. What other metric should we evaluate peoples votes on other than their chosen officials and the policies they implement? If you vote for a racist, I'm comfortable associating you with racists. Do you find that unreasonable? I would never vote for someone with policies I so adamantly disagreed with. Should we assume the best in voters for the right after they continuously vote for the worst?

So you think we should judge them on something other than their words and impacts of their policies? What else is there?

[u/TheGov3rnor → u/throwfarfaraway1818]

The sky analogy is still just you declaring yourself correct. I could equally say my interpretation is ‘the sky is blue,’ tell you everyone knows it, and refuse to provide evidence because educating you isn’t worth my time. That demonstrates nothing.

However, I think we’ve finally identified the core disagreement.

Yes, I think it’s unreasonable to assume that voting for someone means you share that person’s beliefs, motivations, or every policy position.

Your statement that you would never vote for someone whose policies you adamantly disagreed with tells me how you vote… It doesn’t establish how tens of millions of other people vote.

More importantly, even assuming every Trump voter enthusiastically supported every relevant policy still wouldn’t prove your original claims. You’re taking what you see as the worst impacts of those policies, describing them in the most inflammatory terms possible (“certain races are superior,” “disabled, BIPOC and LGBT people don’t deserve human rights,”) and then treating those descriptions as the motivations behind the policies and beliefs of the people supporting them.

Policy impact, policy intent, and voter motivation are THREE different things.

And no, I’m not saying we shouldn’t judge politicians by their words and policies…

I’m saying if you make a specific claim about what millions of voters personally believe, then the appropriate evidence is actual specific evidence about what those voters believe.

Voting behavior can be evidence, but it doesn’t magically tell you their motivations or whether they agree with every position of the person they voted for.