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.
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.