being unable to hold the ideas of exceptions and rules in their minds simultaneously
It's not even exceptions to a rule, just any qualifiers at all.
I say "I don't want a shit sandwich" and they say "how can you be against sandwiches they're great".
Same thing with vaccines. I say traditional vaccines are okay but mRNA ones are dangerous shit and they say "how can you be anti-vax?? polio vaccine saved lives"
Same thing with immigration. I say legal immigrants are fine but illegal ones have to go home and they say "but immigrants are honest and hard working how can you be against them?"
For instance every single time NPR reports on the 'far right's' stance on illegal immigration they end up talking about legal immigrants - far right are stupid to be against illegal immigrants because immigrants are super great, citing a report on legal immigrants. At first I thought this was intentionally slight of hand, but now I think they've hired so many DEI morons they don't actually understand that legal and illegal immigrants are different things.
Yup. They take mental shortcuts, either out of laziness or because it's "inconvenient" to their goal.
Like just recently I saw a thread on resetera, and the number of people diving in and auto-believing some book claiming it was Joe Rogan's fault that Harris couldn't get on for an interview.
No one even questions the book's claim. They just insta-assume it's true and then spit out a bunch of baseless ad hominem bullshit about Joe Rogan. How he's a "racist", sexist, just about any and every nonsensical accusation they can come up with.
And these are the same idiots who wag their finger at anyone who dares to do their own research. Instead insisting that you solely put your hands in the hands of the so-called "experts". Because the so-called experts could "NEVER" be completely off their rockers or full of total bullshit.
My favorite example is regulatory capture. A leftist will eagerly believe that the government agencies meant to regulate corporations have been fully captured by those corporations, but try to tell a leftist that the institutions meant to discover and curate our information have been similarly captured by biased ideologues. You will receive no principled coherence in such an exchange.
I believe 100% it's unintentional for most people. Only the ones making money are doing it on purpose. Most PEOPLE in general don't have a linear thought process, their have an associative one. Stimulus response plus operant conditioning and that's the extent of most people's "reasoning"
Summed up, there are more stupid reasons to believe true things than good reasons. So just because somebody's conclusions are right doesn't make them not retarded.
Are you sure you aren’t the one being dishonest in this example? Maybe because you have been conditioned to argue by proxy in order to hide your actual opinions?
Globalists have spent decades meticulously removing all anti-immigration views from the Overton Window. Any opposition to immigration is now immediately framed as racist. The workaround for this state of affairs is an appeal to the rule of law; illegal immigration is bad because it is illegal!
Is murder bad because it is illegal? Does mass immigration, with all of its observable negative consequences for your people and your culture, magically become good if it is legal?
Who decides what is legal? A bunch of hostile foreigners in judge robes handing down edicts from their courtroom kingdoms? A government bureaucracy infiltrated by subversive Marxists who hate you and your nation?
Legal versus illegal immigration is a largely meaningless distinction. They both represent an existential threat to your peoples, your cultures, and your nations. Arguing by proxy is how you end up with grifters like Vivek weaseling their way into your movement in order to promote their own racial/ethnic tribes at the expense of yours - legally, of course.
I say I'm for reasonable amounts of legal immigration and not mass legal immigration and, in your case, they say "how are you for immigration are you dumb?!" It's like adjectives don't exist for them.
I can get them to explain back to me what a reasonable amount of immigration means and what mass immigration means. But they can't think with them side-by-side in their brain.
And I don't think they're pretending to not get it. It's that same kind of "how would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast" thing where they can't even understand the concept that an adjective can change the meaning of something.
But even if you had said “reasonable”, you still aren’t staring your opinion honestly. I’m assuming you oppose any immigration, legal or otherwise, that threatens to upset the native culture or demographics of the host nation, yes? So say that. Explicitly.
Instead, you deploy obscurant qualifiers like “reasonable”. Who defines what is reasonable? Everyone defines it for themselves. So you’ve advocated for what, precisely? An unfixed position that will garner a lot of support from people who imagine you agree with them. Maybe you should run for office.
It's not even exceptions to a rule, just any qualifiers at all.
I say "I don't want a shit sandwich" and they say "how can you be against sandwiches they're great".
Same thing with vaccines. I say traditional vaccines are okay but mRNA ones are dangerous shit and they say "how can you be anti-vax?? polio vaccine saved lives"
Same thing with immigration. I say legal immigrants are fine but illegal ones have to go home and they say "but immigrants are honest and hard working how can you be against them?"
For instance every single time NPR reports on the 'far right's' stance on illegal immigration they end up talking about legal immigrants - far right are stupid to be against illegal immigrants because immigrants are super great, citing a report on legal immigrants. At first I thought this was intentionally slight of hand, but now I think they've hired so many DEI morons they don't actually understand that legal and illegal immigrants are different things.
Yup. They take mental shortcuts, either out of laziness or because it's "inconvenient" to their goal.
Like just recently I saw a thread on resetera, and the number of people diving in and auto-believing some book claiming it was Joe Rogan's fault that Harris couldn't get on for an interview.
No one even questions the book's claim. They just insta-assume it's true and then spit out a bunch of baseless ad hominem bullshit about Joe Rogan. How he's a "racist", sexist, just about any and every nonsensical accusation they can come up with.
And these are the same idiots who wag their finger at anyone who dares to do their own research. Instead insisting that you solely put your hands in the hands of the so-called "experts". Because the so-called experts could "NEVER" be completely off their rockers or full of total bullshit.
My favorite example is regulatory capture. A leftist will eagerly believe that the government agencies meant to regulate corporations have been fully captured by those corporations, but try to tell a leftist that the institutions meant to discover and curate our information have been similarly captured by biased ideologues. You will receive no principled coherence in such an exchange.
I believe 100% it's unintentional for most people. Only the ones making money are doing it on purpose. Most PEOPLE in general don't have a linear thought process, their have an associative one. Stimulus response plus operant conditioning and that's the extent of most people's "reasoning"
Summed up, there are more stupid reasons to believe true things than good reasons. So just because somebody's conclusions are right doesn't make them not retarded.
Are you sure you aren’t the one being dishonest in this example? Maybe because you have been conditioned to argue by proxy in order to hide your actual opinions?
Globalists have spent decades meticulously removing all anti-immigration views from the Overton Window. Any opposition to immigration is now immediately framed as racist. The workaround for this state of affairs is an appeal to the rule of law; illegal immigration is bad because it is illegal!
Is murder bad because it is illegal? Does mass immigration, with all of its observable negative consequences for your people and your culture, magically become good if it is legal?
Who decides what is legal? A bunch of hostile foreigners in judge robes handing down edicts from their courtroom kingdoms? A government bureaucracy infiltrated by subversive Marxists who hate you and your nation?
Legal versus illegal immigration is a largely meaningless distinction. They both represent an existential threat to your peoples, your cultures, and your nations. Arguing by proxy is how you end up with grifters like Vivek weaseling their way into your movement in order to promote their own racial/ethnic tribes at the expense of yours - legally, of course.
Pretty much exactly what I'm talking about here.
I say I'm for reasonable amounts of legal immigration and not mass legal immigration and, in your case, they say "how are you for immigration are you dumb?!" It's like adjectives don't exist for them.
I can get them to explain back to me what a reasonable amount of immigration means and what mass immigration means. But they can't think with them side-by-side in their brain.
And I don't think they're pretending to not get it. It's that same kind of "how would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast" thing where they can't even understand the concept that an adjective can change the meaning of something.
That was you in your previous comment.
But even if you had said “reasonable”, you still aren’t staring your opinion honestly. I’m assuming you oppose any immigration, legal or otherwise, that threatens to upset the native culture or demographics of the host nation, yes? So say that. Explicitly.
Instead, you deploy obscurant qualifiers like “reasonable”. Who defines what is reasonable? Everyone defines it for themselves. So you’ve advocated for what, precisely? An unfixed position that will garner a lot of support from people who imagine you agree with them. Maybe you should run for office.
Here's the abstract for you: you're too dumb to understand what I wrote.
It's not your fault, probably, but that's just how it is. Get over it and move on.