Moderated Trump announces new concentration camps

[JoeMorgue]

Of course. Because I must be evil.

You know that kind of eye rolling, passive aggressive faux-outraged pearl clutching sounds a lot better when it's not coming from the "Kids in cages, no big deal" side of the argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

HEADLINE NEWS! AOC CLAIMS REFUGEES FORCED TO DRINK OUT OF TOILET! SECURITY FOOTAGE SHOWS IT WAS ACTUALLY THE BIDET. ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY RESIGNS IN SHAME! ALL DISCUSSION OF REFUGEE CAMP CONDITIONS NOW OVER, REPUBLICANS DECLARED THE WINNER.

People literally think that's what's gonna happen.

Literally no one thinks that.

And I'm quite well aware that this won't really change anything. Certainly posters here who uncritically believed AOC haven't given the matter a second thought.

But even though I'm in the minority here, I do think the truth still matters, and the difference between being forced to drink out of a toilet and choosing to do so because you aren't aware that other drinking options are actually readily available is a pretty damned big difference. Apparently fake but accurate is still the prevailing standard.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And I'm quite well aware that this won't really change anything. Certainly posters here who uncritically believed AOC haven't given the matter a second thought.

I'm record as not understanding for a split second why this one random junior Representative is suddenly the Democratic Pope to hear the media (and both sides of the media for a change which is odd) go on about her.

I don't like, dislike, love, or hate AOC. I'm confused as to why I even know her goddamn name.

But even though I'm in the minority here, I do think the truth still matters, and the difference between being forced to drink out of a toilet and choosing to do so because you aren't aware that other drinking options are actually readily available is a pretty damned big difference. Apparently fake but accurate is still the prevailing standard.

Don't do that. Don't hide stalling pedantics behind "But I'm just trying to be clear."

Someone is choking in our restaurant.

Someone jumped up and shouted "He's choking on his ribeye!" and has run over to give him the Heimlich.

You're holding that person back going "No wait! That's obviously a porterhouse!"

We can give the person the Heimlich while you identity the cut of beef and your response is a "But I'm right! The cut of beef is different!" and NOBODY IS BUYING THAT.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know that kind of eye rolling, passive aggressive faux-outraged pearl clutching sounds a lot better when it's not coming from the "Kids in cages, no big deal" side of the argument.

Now you're just vomiting whatever attack you can think of onto your keyboard, and evidently you can't think of much. Faux outrage? Setting aside the question of authenticity, the smilie for outrage is . Pearl clutching would be or similar. does not express outrage or pearl clutching, it expresses disdain.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't do that. Don't hide stalling pedantics behind "But I'm just trying to be clear."

Someone is choking in our restaurant.

Someone jumped up and shouted "He's choking on his ribeye!" and has run over to give him the Heimlich.

You're holding that person back going "No wait! That's obviously a porterhouse!"

We can give the person the Heimlich while you identity the cut of beef and your response is a "But I'm right! The cut of beef is different!" and NOBODY IS BUYING THAT.

Once again, argument by analogy fails.

First off, whether this person chose to drink from a toilet out of ignorance when they had better options or were forced to drink from a toilet isn't some pedantic point. It's a god damned big one. Forcing someone to drink from a toilet is deliberate and avoidable mistreatment. Them choosing to drink from a toilet out of their own ignorance may be regrettable but it is not mistreatment. The mistake is more akin to the difference between claiming patron A is choking and patron B is having a heart attack. This person may not have been mistreated at all.

Second, one of the main reasons this toilet claim got traction in the first place, a point AOC made explicitly, is that forcing someone to drink from the toilet is not treatment that can be explained by a lack of resources. Had it happened, it would have been a deliberate choice to mistreat them for the sake of mistreating them. If that's going on, then that's a different problem than mistreatment due to inadequate resources, and it's one that cannot be solved or even helped by the provision of more resources. So it matters, quite a lot, whether such deliberate mistreatment is occurring, and how common and severe it is. This isn't a pedantic point at all, it cuts to the heart of the matter. What's the real problem here? Is it that we haven't spent enough money on enough facilities and personnel to handle this properly? Or are the people we've charged with handling it bad people? Because these two problems require very different solutions.

But the truth doesn't really seem to matter to you. You just want something to bitch about, and either possibility will suit your purposes.

 

[Upchurch]

So it matters, quite a lot, whether such deliberate mistreatment is occurring, and how common and severe it is.

You do realize that the entire point of Trump’s child separation program was to deliberately mistreat migrants and refugees as a means of dissuading them from coming to the US in the first place, right? Jeff Sessions had a whole press conference about it and everything.

I’d say its safe to say it is happening, is absolutely common, and is quite severe. We’re too the point where the argument s becoming “Yeah, we’ll treat these humans like animals, but nobody would not provide basic necessities.” Because that is where we’d draw the line.

 

[plague311]

It's not a nitpick. Whether AOC's characterization or the alternative is correct makes a HUGE difference. And I'm not the one who advanced AOC's claim as relevant. Take that up with plague311. He doesn't think it matters if it's true or not, but pushed it anyways.

I didn't push ****. I said that it doesn't matter what we call the camps, people are being treated like **** there. I replied to a comment about the toilets, but that isn't the only thing happening that makes those places extremely ******. You then went on to say, "oh, they aren't FORCED to drink out of the toilet, they CHOOSE to drink out of the toilet, and that's cool." As if it's not the ******* job of the god damned ICE agents to make sure the people know they don't have to drink out of the toilet. Your argument to cover up your incredulity was actually more incredulous than your initial ******** argument.

It makes no difference at all whether AOC is being factual. As Joe said, take her out of the equation all together. Lets pretend she doesn't exist. The fact people are dying in ICE custody, the pictures from the lawsuit, the facts that we know so far are enough to know that people are being treated like ****.

You're the one standing here making seriously lame excuses as to what can be considered terrible treatment. You think the toilet is drinking the biggest problem, when it's one of a thousand. You just won't address the others because it shows how full of **** your argument is and that shows clear as day.

 

[wareyin]

Now you're just vomiting whatever attack you can think of onto your keyboard, and evidently you can't think of much. Faux outrage? Setting aside the question of authenticity, the smilie for outrage is . Pearl clutching would be or similar. does not express outrage or pearl clutching, it expresses disdain.

Is disdain for either the welfare of these children, or for the people who have concerns about their welfare a better look in your world than faux outrage?

 

[theprestige]

You just want something to bitch about, and either possibility will suit your purposes.

Hell, Joe. You're bitching about knowing who Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't push ****.

Sure you did.

I replied to a comment about the toilets

The post you responded to linked to a story that contained AOC's claim, but the post itself was about the term "concentration camp" and contained no mention of toilets specifically. You're the first one to mention drinking from toilets.

but that isn't the only thing happening that makes those places extremely ******. You then went on to say, "oh, they aren't FORCED to drink out of the toilet, they CHOOSE to drink out of the toilet, and that's cool."

I never said it was cool. But if you don't think it makes a difference, you're delusional.

As if it's not the ******* job of the god damned ICE agents to make sure the people know they don't have to drink out of the toilet.

There was a water faucet right there. It's not an unreasonable expectation that people wanting to drink would just use the water faucet. That expectation turned out to be wrong in one specific instance, but I don't think agents can be blamed for not foreseeing that.

It makes no difference at all whether AOC is being factual.

It never does, does it?

Does it matter if anyone is being factual?

As Joe said, take her out of the equation all together.

You chose to put her in, not me.

You think the toilet is drinking the biggest problem, when it's one of a thousand.

It's the problem you picked. Not me.

You just won't address the others because it shows how full of **** your argument is and that shows clear as day.

I don't think you even know what my argument is. And it's ironic that you're claiming I'm full of **** when you're the one who was spreading unreliable information. You can only attack me with straw men and outrage that I called you on getting something wrong, as if that's somehow a bad thing to do.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is disdain for either the welfare of these children, or for the people who have concerns about their welfare a better look in your world than faux outrage?

Improve your reading comprehension. Neither of those is the target of my disdain.

 

[wareyin]

Improve your reading comprehension. Neither of those is the target of my disdain.

How cute, the poster who can't clearly state his position attempts to insult others reading comprehension. Perhaps you need to work on your communication skills instead?

 

[Ziggurat]

How cute, the poster who can't clearly state his position attempts to insult others reading comprehension. Perhaps you need to work on your communication skills instead?

My position was pretty clear. But since you can't seem to improve your reading comprehension, I'll give you a hand. Just so we're all clear, this was the exchange in question:

I get the funny feeling that they're not the slightest bit interested in improving the conditions that the children are facing.

Of course. Because I must be evil.

What am I rolling my eyes at? The suffering of other people? The concern that other people have for the suffering of other people?

No. I'm rolling my eyes at the accusation that I'm indifferent to suffering.

Elementary reading comprehension would have made that plain, but evidently you aren't up to the task.

 

[wareyin]

My position was pretty clear. But since you can't seem to improve your reading comprehension, I'll give you a hand. Just so we're all clear, this was the exchange in question:



What am I rolling my eyes at? The suffering of other people? The concern that other people have for the suffering of other people?

No. I'm rolling my eyes at the accusation that I'm indifferent to suffering.

Elementary reading comprehension would have made that plain, but evidently you aren't up to the task.

Sorry, but that explanation doesn't fly. You clearly are indifferent to the suffering, if not happy about it, as evidenced by your stances in this thread. Your eyeroll over your own description of yourself as evil for those feelings was certainly not as clear a communication as how little concern you have over the suffering of children in concentration camps, sorry, detention centers, or happy bed-free involuntary summer camps, or whatever other smokescreen term you want to try to throw up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry, but that explanation doesn't fly. You clearly are indifferent to the suffering, if not happy about it, as evidenced by your stances in this thread.

In addition to having sub-par reading skills, you apparently believe you're a mind reader too.

 

[wareyin]

In addition to having sub-par reading skills, you apparently believe you're a mind reader too.

It's sad watching one of the posters who complains the most about personalization try to insult other posters. Sad in a pathetic way, to be clear.

No mind reading is necessary, merely reading your posts. It is possible that your communication skills are so poor that you consistently give your readers the wrong impression, though. Given how you double down when your stances are questioned, though, I think you mean exactly what your readers think you mean.

 

[Cabbage]

See, that is actually a good argument.

I agree. On the other hand, simply saying "End of Discussion" when a poster has the audacity to blame Trump is not a good argument. Indeed, it is merely whining.

See the difference?

You, too, seem to be actively looking for ways to end the discussion instead of continue it.

No, it's only you that is actively looking for an excuse to duck out.

If you're convinced that this is all about instinctively blaming Obama, then what's my incentive to keep discussing with you? Or is that not even a relevant question here?

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[William Parcher]

I wonder if they could get ice for their toilet water. Take a cup of your toilet water to the kitchen area and ask, "Hi, could I get some ice for my toilet water, please?"

Does anyone know if this would be possible?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I wonder if they could get ice for their toilet water. Take a cup of your toilet water to the kitchen area and ask, "Hi, could I get some ice for my toilet water, please?"

Does anyone know if this would be possible?

That's a kneeslapper. You should share that to the ICE Facebook Group.

 

[Minoosh]

Maybe. And maybe ICE was in bad shape when he got there, and we didn't know it because Obama was better at not drawing attention to it. "It's all Trump's fault somehow" seems like a good ending point to a discussion, not a good beginning. If we're already at that point in the conversation, that's my cue to disengage.

When a policy is changed suddenly and there are foreseeable consequences, they need to be planned for. If there's already a bad situation you don't jump in with a policy that's going to make it worse without a plan to mitigate those consequences. Trump has no patience for planning and that sets a tone.