So all counties with strong border policies are racist? That’s preposterous. Australia has some of the strictest border policies (drastically more strict than us). Do you believe they’re just racist policies too?
Australian here, I would absolutely characterize the support for and rationale behind our policies as having a significant component of racism (and in the case of our detention centers, a violation of international human rights agreements that we have signed).
You're talking about the same country that had the "White Australia Policy" within living memory. "Are Australian immigration policies motivated by racism?" is unfortunately not a preposterous question at all.
Australia, a white settler colony in the southern hemisphere, racist? Yeah, I dont find that hard to believe at all. Why would you use that as an example?
>So all counties with strong border policies are racist?
Please inform me how the US under democrats has NOT had "strong border policy"? Do you know what Obama did more than any president before him? He rounded up immigrants, placed them in front of judges to give them due process, and shipped them out of the country if they did not have a legal right to be here.
The Biden administration proudly reversed course from Obama's stance on immigration. I never said anything about democrats vs republicans. Each administration seems to take immigration differently with no connection to party lines (best I can tell).
> So all counties with strong border policies are racist?
I never said that, but that's quite the strawman.
It would have been possible to reform the system, without deporting anyone the wrong color to a damn megaprison in a foreign country, or arresting people right at their court hearings, most who are here legally.
The way things are going, the protests are more than warranted, more than justified. As far as I'm concerned, anyone still defending a clear authoritarian is a traitor.
Doesn't seem like a straw man to me. It's an extension of the unsupported claim that the cause for the action is racism. False equivalence perhaps. But I think the problem is that "The cause for the action is racism" doesn't actually contain an argument at all. It's just an unfounded opinion.
And then "Anything else is denial" shows a myopic, closed minded viewpoint, suggesting any further discussion would be pointless. As is most internet chatter on this type of matter.
I think we have a different interpretation of what a straw man fallacy is.
The person I was replying to refuted an argument that GP did not make. And one that was arguably weaker and more difficult to defend.
That’s my understanding of what the strawman fallacy is. What’s yours?
> But I think the problem is that "The cause for the action is racism" doesn't actually contain an argument at all.
Yeah this is an oversimplification and not really an actionable one. But there’s an argument buried in there and it’s not wrong. The current administration plays on existing racist and xenophobic undertones to drum up support. It’s all fear based rhetoric.
