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.”
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)_/¯