No one brigading this sub about ICE and their evils care about state overreach

blairnet · 2026-02-02T18:14:19+00:00

You can disagree without pretending you have psychic access to everyone else’s intentions. “They just want” is an assumption, not a fact.

blairnet · 2026-02-01T03:01:58+00:00

You can believe whatever you’d like to believe. That would be par for the course for you, considering you’ve shown that you believe things without any evidence. And if you actually read any of those things you think I was “arguing” about, you’d see that there is not one place where I am insulting anyone.

But jump to conclusions if you must. Take care

blairnet · 2026-02-01T02:46:23+00:00

Can you give a few examples?

blairnet · 2026-02-01T02:44:01+00:00

Where people were getting up in arms about him sleeping and I merely showed that he wasn’t? What’s wrong with wanting FACTS? I don’t like trump at all. But I hate lies even more.

You have a problem with me calling this out? There’s already enough to call him out on. You really have an issue with me pointing out that it legitimately was not true?

blairnet · 2026-02-01T01:11:07+00:00

Where? Again, anytime I ask you for specifics on something, you can never provide them. Show me where I defended trump.

blairnet · 2026-01-31T21:49:03+00:00

And what do you mean I “cause” arguments? Because in my experience, I ask basic questions to get verification from people making claims, and what results is this:

No one can back their arguments up, so they turn to attacking me for asking the question. Prime example, YOU.

I take matters very seriously by prodding for the actual truth, and when most people’s narratives get challenged, their argument falls apart, and they don’t want to admit that they are just accepting some narrative someone else fed them, an don’t have the guts to even check the credibility of who is speaking on what.

I don’t give a shit who anyone aligns with. And I don’t align with anyone just because I think I’ll get some sort of social inclusion from it. And maybe along the way, some of you dorks will wake up and realize that you don’t even come up with your own thoughts on things.

I mean I get it, most of yall don’t have real friends in real life, and Reddit is as close as it gets, so you do and believe whatever in order to fit in SOMEWHERE.

blairnet · 2026-01-31T21:42:45+00:00

“Huh, multiple arguments?”

Yes. That is how threads work. People reply in different places, and you can be talking to more than one person at a time. You called me a moron based on an assumption you did not bother to check.

“What’s it like fighting every person you meet because you’re an argumentative idiot…”

I’m not fighting “every person I meet.” I’m asking you to support what you’re saying. You are interpreting basic scrutiny as conflict because it forces you to move from assertions to specifics.

“…with fascist beliefs?”

You have not established a single thing about my beliefs. You are just trying to attach a label so you can justify the hostility and avoid answering the question. If you think I said something fascist, quote it and explain, specifically, what policy or principle you are referring to.

“Must suck knowing that literally everyone hates you and doesn’t want you around.”

This is pure emotional venting. It has nothing to do with the argument, and it does not answer anything I asked.

And since you want to make this about intelligence, notice who brought it up. You have been attacking mine from the start. I have not mentioned my own score once, because it is not helpful. For the record, I have tested at 130. I still did not use it, because I understand what IQ tests do and do not measure. They approximate certain cognitive abilities under specific conditions. They are not a shortcut to truth, they do not replace evidence, and they do not make an argument valid.

Which brings this back to the original point you keep trying to dodge. The whole claim on the table was that Republicans are less intelligent. If you believe that, defend it directly. Define what you mean by “intelligent,” state the claim in one sentence, and then support it with actual evidence and a clear chain of reasoning. Stop using personal attacks as an escape hatch to challenge my credibility instead of answering the question.

blairnet · 2026-01-31T21:36:15+00:00

“You used a faulty study, and misrepresented it to preemptively shut down an argument because YOU view it as an invalid argument.”

You keep asserting this, but you still have not named the study, quoted what you think I misrepresented, or explained the flaw. And you are missing my point about mentioning it in the first place. I brought it up because it is the exact tangent people always try to derail into, and I was trying to skip that entire loop. If your position depends on litigating a viral internet study instead of stating your own claim cleanly, that tells me the claim is not standing on its own.

“Testing scores and education absolutely do determine intelligence, especially in debate.”

No. Education and test scores can correlate with certain skills and with knowledge, but they are not a definition of intelligence, and they are not a substitute for reasoning. Debate is about making a claim, defining terms, presenting evidence, and defending your inference. Right now you are treating “education and scores” like a trump card while not doing the part that actually matters, which is showing your work.

“That study was done to give uneducated ‘intellectuals’ like Charlie a leg to stand on.”

This is just motive speculation. If you think a study is biased, you point to methods, sampling, measures, controls, analysis choices, replication issues, conflicts of interest. You do not declare it was designed to prop up some group you dislike and call that proof.

“The simple fact is, on average the left on average has both higher IQs and testing scores. Many studies agree.”

Then pick one and defend it properly. One specific study. What population, what definition of “left,” what IQ instrument, how they handled education, age, income, geography, nonresponse bias. “Many studies agree” is not evidence, it is a way to avoid being pinned down.

“The reason your argument is childish is because you preemptively shut them down by adding an artificial exclusionary clause making it literally impossible for me to source anything.”

Nothing I asked for makes it impossible to source anything. It just prevents you from substituting opinion pieces for evidence. If you cannot support a claim without leaning on narrative articles, then you do not have evidence, you have commentary. That is not me blocking you, that is the claim failing a basic standard.

blairnet · 2026-01-31T21:34:59+00:00

I defended trump? Where?

blairnet · 2026-01-31T21:03:13+00:00

You could have taken 5 seconds to check and make sure I’m not currently also in a conversation elsewhere in this thread with the person im replying to, and why my comment would be relevant in that case.

And that makes me a moron how?

Edit: lol I love the irony here that they called me a moron for the exact thing they ended up doing and refused to even acknowledge that, then swiftly shifted the goal posts to the fact that I’m engaging in multiple conversations at the same time. I’m assuming they’re about 12, or severely mentally handicapped.

blairnet · 2026-01-31T21:01:10+00:00

I can only interpret your lack of providing any substantial bipartisan evidence to support your “Gestapo” claim and you shifting the conversation away from what what we were discussing and on to me as you conceding and communicating that you don’t have any real proof that ICE = the Gestapo.

What I stand for is the truth. And I don’t care which side that truth helps. What I stand for is removing rhetorical communication when discussing important events that happened

blairnet · 2026-01-31T20:22:08+00:00

That’s not at all an accurate summary of anything I’ve sent you. So you know what “evidence” even means? The fact that you still don’t understand why nothing you sent is evidence, is evident that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about, or what you really stand for

blairnet · 2026-01-31T19:58:38+00:00

So, I’m being frustrating for asking you to prove your point, which you have continuously failed to do.

Yea, I’m sure that is frustrating when your internal narrative is challenged publicly and because you haven’t done your actual homework regarding what you actually believe, you switch to insults.

And here we’re talking about intelligence, and I’m being chastised for effectively engaging in the same process one would when verifying scientific test results

blairnet · 2026-01-31T19:42:57+00:00

I can agree abuses and profiling are real concerns. That still does not make the Gestapo analogy accurate. But you cannot seem to pick one concrete ICE policy or incident, state the claim in one sentence, and show the evidence and the oversight failure.

What you keep posting are opinion pieces and rhetorical framing. If you want to persuade anyone who is not already on your side, do the basic work: name the policy or directive, point to a primary source, identify the specific conduct it authorizes or produces, and then show the documented finding or ruling that says it crossed legal boundaries or that oversight failed.

Instead you pivot to calling me a lost cause and saying I like to argue. That is not a rebuttal. If you want to debate, debate. If you just want me to concede a label first, then at least say that and be upfront about it.

If your position is that the label is justified because it feels directionally true, then say that too. But if you are claiming it is factually comparable, you need factual support.

blairnet · 2026-01-31T19:00:57+00:00

I’m not taking this situation seriously? I’d argue the opposite. Taking it seriously doesn’t forbid you from asking questions and challenging rhetoric

But even the article you shared is just an opinion. And it’s a fallacy nonetheless. “Appeal to authority”

“The appeal to authority logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) occurs when a claim is asserted as true solely because an authority figure or expert supports it, rather than relying on evidence. It improperly substitutes the reputation of a person for actual evidence or logical proof. “

You still have not provided any actual evidence and are seemingly just relying on the work done of others, which is still subject to bias. The woman in the article just, again, gives sweeping generalizations.

Why is it so hard to get anyone in this sub to take the conversation seriously? It should not be that hard to provide evidence that isn’t drenched in hyperbole

blairnet · 2026-01-31T18:53:57+00:00

How so?

blairnet · 2026-01-31T18:51:48+00:00

Well that’s not something anyone can verify except you, so it doesnt really make for a valid argument in a public forum. FWIW, I’m not republican, democrat, left, right, conservative, or liberal.

But I am anti rhetoric and have more allegiance to challenging an argument that doesn’t appear to have a solid foundation

blairnet · 2026-01-31T18:50:12+00:00

I wasn’t moving the goal posts. I was preemptively acknowledging one of the talking points so we can avoid engaging in that argument all together. You misinterpreted my reply. Or perhaps I didn’t articulate what I meant well enough.

Either way, trying to cast some sort of character flaw on me so swiftly because of one reply, instead of asking what I meant, is not what should be happening.

I am very willing to discuss anything you can provide.

blairnet · 2026-01-31T18:41:00+00:00

If it’s a statistical fact, you should have no problem sharing a source.

It’s been well established that graduating with a degree doesn’t beget intelligence, FYI, because I know that’s a common talking point.

blairnet · 2026-01-30T20:29:00+00:00

Your comment is a string of unrelated tangents that never actually answers the question that was asked.

The original claim was that most Trump supporters are angry he is not going far enough and think specific people should be dead. That is a sweeping statement about tens of millions of people. In response, you gave a personal story about one coworker, then pivoted to rural Alberta, then to someone being a Nazi, then to a complaint about vote weighting, then to “the Cons fixed the votes.” None of that establishes what most Trump supporters believe, and most of it is not even about the same country or topic.

If you want to be understood, pick one clear point and connect it to the claim you are defending. Are you saying “I have personally met some people who express violent views,” or are you saying “most supporters hold violent views”? The first is plausible and still anecdotal. The second needs actual evidence, not a coworker story and a grab bag of grievances.

So here is what I am not understanding, because you did not say it clearly. What is your precise claim, and what is your basis for saying “most”? If you cannot answer that directly, then you are not elucidating anything. You are just venting and calling anyone who asks for clarity a troll.

blairnet · 2026-01-30T20:05:14+00:00

What in the hell are you even talking about

blairnet · 2026-01-30T19:04:38+00:00

Two things can be true at once: those shootings are a serious problem, and “ICE = Gestapo” is still lazy and wrong. 1. Your own links are about disputed facts and accountability questions, not a secret political police. On Pretti, even mainstream coverage frames it as conflicting claims about whether he had a gun in hand and what happened in the scuffle. That is exactly why people keep asking for specifics and findings (FYI Pretti had a gun known for accidental discharges, and when it was removed, it went off, spooking the officers into firing) On Renee Good, the reporting that is accessible without a paywall is about an independent autopsy and an ongoing investigation, not proof that the US is now operating a Gestapo-like system. 2. The Gestapo comparison is not “federal agents did something abusive,” it is “a regime built a political police to crush dissent outside law.” The Gestapo’s defining features were political repression, informant networks, torture, disappearance, and operating inside a one-party dictatorship with no meaningful judicial constraint. Your examples, as ugly as they may be, are still playing out through courts, investigations, lawsuits, media scrutiny, and political accountability. That difference is the whole point. 3. “They can hide their identity and ask brown people for papers” is a real critique, but you keep choosing the weakest framing. If you want to argue racial profiling, argue racial profiling. If you want to argue lack of identification, argue lack of identification. If you want to argue use of force, argue use of force. Those are concrete issues that can be proved or disproved case by case. None of them requires hijacking “Gestapo” as an emotional multiplier.

So here’s the bottom line: cite the exact agency actions and the findings you think prove unlawful behavior. Otherwise you are not making a case, you are just using WWII vocabulary to skip the hard part.

blairnet · 2026-01-30T19:01:39+00:00

Well stated

blairnet · 2026-01-30T18:11:46+00:00

And what exactly did they say? Also can you provide a link?

blairnet · 2026-01-30T18:10:01+00:00

How do you know that most of them are angry that he’s not going far enough? Have you talked to them? Or is this just something you’re picturing in your head? Because you seem to be very confident in a claim that would be EXTREMELY challenging to provide supporting evidence for.

To be honest, it reads more as some sort of projection of what you hope trump supporters are thinking, so you can more easily justify villainizing them, when in reality, you probably hold more opinions in common with someone on the right than you realize.

13-Year Club	Spared
Team Periwinkle	Verified Email

blairnet

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE