Katie Miller made a veiled threat to deport a political commentator during a heated debate about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani on Thursday.
The wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller appeared on a panel of commentators on “Piers Morgan Uncensored.” While arguing with The Young Turks co-creator Cenk Uygur, the debate quickly turned ugly. The shouting match devolved into Miller questioning the validity of Uygur’s U.S. citizenship application.
Miller accused Uygur of “racist, bigoted rhetoric” around Israel and Uygur countered that Miller was a habitual liar. When Cenk floated the idea that Israel got a “pass” on committing genocide against Palestinians, Miller wondered if the Trump administration might need to take a closer look at his recently granted citizenship.
Miller cut in. “You better check your citizenship application and make sure everything is correct,” she said. “Because you’ll be just like Ilhan Omar.”
You have immediately lost the debate when you attack a person instead of their argument.
Liberals and leftists may believe this, but the sad reality of our species is that we’re not a logical creature, and at the end of the day, we care far, far more about interpersonal perceptions and feelings than we do about consistency or logical, fair argument.
And this is really serious, we have to understand this better. We have a minority of the population running roughshod over entire nations and constitutions and even the social contract because the only way we know how to engage with them and fight them is with consistent, good-faith debate, meanwhile on their end, they care far more about aesthetics, appearances, skin color and accent, superficial attitude and beliefs than they do being called out for inconsistency.
This is the Kayfabe Crew, they willingly and knowingly will believe things they know to be untrue because it’s more important to them how they feel than what they know. They have made this choice and our inability to engage them on this level has created walls that will keep us from having success.
Let us all remember and mourn the days that Tim Waltz was calling them “weird” and making more political waves for it than years of statistics and data and debate, before being muzzled by the democratic party for not being a boring shade of inoffensive grey.
Racists tend to see an attack on their racist arguments as an attack on themselves since their racism is intertwined with their identity.
Ad hominem.
It was not an ad hominem it was a threat (i really wish i was comfortable calling strangers shit for brains, because this would be the place to do it)
Too many people online love to use “ad hominem” as a defense when someone uses language like: “you’re stupid and here is why…”
Not saying that’s what’s done here. It’s not. I just feel like the only time I see people use “logical fallacies” like this is incorrectly.
Ad hominem is NOT when someone insults someone they are arguing with. It’s when they use the insult or personal attack as a REASON for why something is wrong.
The extreme example being: “Hitler says being a vegetarian is good. But Hitler was a fucking Nazi.”
It’s implying the character flaws of the individual are associated with the subject of debate. It’s often used in tandem with the Strawman Fallacy to both create doubt in the character of your opponent as well as mischaracterize what your opponent is arguing so it is easily defeated.
She constantly strawmans here by invoking any criticism towards Israel as being instead on “Jews”. Which, maybe worked two years ago. But Zionist are sniffing their own farts at this point. The only people that believe that anymore are other Zionist.
Definition is: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
I am not an English professor.
The argument was: “When Cenk floated the idea that Israel got a “pass” on committing genocide against Palestinians, Miller wondered if the Trump administration might need to take a closer look at his recently granted citizenship.”
The argument being that the administration was turning a blind eye or even complicit in the genocide. The response was a threat but also a personal attack as in their opinion or argument was invalid because of their ethnicity, citizenship, etc. To me, that is a reaction that was directed against the person instead of the position they were maintaining.
“Ad hominem is NOT when someone insults someone they are arguing with. It’s when they use the insult or personal attack as a REASON for why something is wrong.”
I still think the reaction of threatening someone based on ethnicity/citizenship was their REASON why this person’s argument is invalid. But I am assuming that is what they were implying with the threat.
I assume that the threat of deportation was the answer to the argument, as it implies that argument is invalid due to the actual person presenting the argument and not an actual answer or debate. But I do see how it’s more a subtle interpretation. They don’t actually say it, they just imply that the argument is wrong based on a personal attack.
I think what you’re saying is it should have been more like Miller responded with a direct personal attack as the reason for why the argument was wrong. But for me it seems like that was implied as the reason.
Maybe it’s a stretch ¯_(ツ)_/¯
You are fighting the good fight.
ad nauseum
Admantium
I worry that’s not true for these people. #winning