The only thing I've targeted as wrong is how you argue. That's what I hate, and with amply described reasons.

I've spent a lot of words on it under the charitable assumption that you were truthful in your desire for better discussion. At this point, you've persuaded me that was overly charitable.

Instead it appears you're determined to maintain a fictional posture implying bad behavior in others whether or not it exists so you can claim whatever fruits of grievance you're here to harvest.

If the time comes when I care about defending or attacking the memo, I'll do so effectively. I haven't taken a position on the memo. I've only asked you to sustain positions you've taken or honestly retreat from them. And not pretend other people are taking positions that they aren't, which is apparently a big ask.

The thing they hate so much is how you keep making non-sequitur arguments. They didn't say anything about policy, and they didn't call anyone names.

Why is this so hard?, as they say

> If you think the policy is wrong, make an argument why. Don't just call people names.

You are operating under the misapprehension that pointing out bad-faith arguments is "call[ing] people names." No. We should not engage with bad-faith arguments because the other side has already abandoned rational debate. That's what "bad-faith" means. I'm not going to waste my time, or yours, rehashing tired old pro- and anti-immigrant arguments.

I think the policy is wrong, and allegedly so do you, but that's not relevant, because the validity of the policy is not the problem here. The fact that the government has abandoned the pretense of rational policy in favor of feeding raw meat to its rabid audience in favor of openly racist policies is much more problematic. Saying, "Aktshually, immigrants on average contribute to the GDP!" is going to change exactly no one's mind.