this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
325 points (96.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
1939 readers
336 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why couldn't they forgive student loans? Explain to the rest of Lemmy what happened so we know you have a basic understanding of civics before we proceed with a full back and forth discussion. I'm done arguing with people who operate in buzzwords and have no clue what they are talking about. First demonstrate you understand the basics and what PPP loans even are.
I've rarely seen such a textbook example of a gish gallop.
You don't even know the right debate bro terms. Did I overwhelm you with arguments by asking that you show us you understand what you are talking about? Oh my god. Im so sorry that was so overwhelming for you.
Yes, congratulations, that is what the term means. And that's exactly what you're doing. You post a whole bunch of one line comments and expect anyone who challenges them to write up a whole effortpost on each. The amount of effort it takes to just spew a bunch of bullshit is much less than the amount of effort required to refute each point of bullshit.
I'm sorry if asking you to explain the fundamentals of something before continuing a conversation is too overwhelming for you. It's clear you don't know what PPP loans are because you already jumped to comparing them to student debt - that was my first clue.
You don't know what you're talking about but you are very comfortable repeating buzzwords and catchphrases.
Why should I argue with someone who clearly has no idea what they are talking about? It's pretty clear you don't because if you did you could have proved it a long time ago.
Wow, I just want to say you're operating so clearly in good faith that I don't know which of your good faith behaviors to praise first.
As I already pointed out, you spewed out a bunch of low effort bullshit that would take much more effort to refute, which is again, a textbook example of a gish gallop. You then demanded to control the terms of the debate by subjecting me to some sort of test of knowledge which I obviously refused to engage in, since that's a ridiculous thing to do. Then, you took a word from the definition of gish gallop and completely removed it of context, and accused me of saying I was "overwhelmed" by your test of knowledge, which I never said. You then interpreted my refusal to engage with your terms as an admission of ignorance. So that's at least four points of bad faith, just right off the bat.
You don't get to randomly subject me to tests any more than I get to randomly subject you to tests. That's not how conversation or debate works. If you're afraid of engaging me on even terms and want to pull a bunch of bullshit, you do you, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation, which are the things I pointed out.
If asking you to explain a simple fundamental thing for you is too overwhelming then too bad. I'm not arguing quantum physics with someone that can't do arithmetic. You can't talk US legislation and policy like it's a soccer game. I'm more than convinced now than ever you don't know what you're talking about and Im glad I didn't waste any more time going down a rabbit hole only to learn later you are out of your depth.
And I'm asking you to explain a much simpler, much more fundamental thing, and you can't. I strongly recommend investing in some diapers.
Lol you filtered me out because I showed I wasn't going to put up with your bullshit, bad faith tactics. You won't submit to my test of knowledge so I won't submit to yours. I of course understand what the president's role is and isn't when it comes to legislation, just as you (presumably) know the answer to my question, but I'm not going to play your game for the exact same reasons you won't play mine. Because one side doesn't just get to dictate all the terms of debate.
Still doesn't change the facts of the matter, which are that everything I said is correct.
The fact that you lumped in PPP loans with student loans showed me you don't understand a) basic econ b) policy and legislation. I figured that out pretty quick and wanted to give you a chance. You spent more time arguing why you should argue than simplify answering the question. Because of course, you don't know what you're talking about. I'm good thanks
Right back at you.
Remember what I said: diapers.
Here is a comprehensive list of logical fallacies:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
I recommend you start with "gish gallop". I hope it's not too many statements and overwhelming for you.
I didn't ask you to give me a list of logical fallacies, I asked you to explain the difference between peepee and poopoo. Why wouldn't you do that unless you just don't know the answer? Care to explain?
Pee is liquid and is excreted from from the urethra and poo poo is feces excreted from the anus. Done.
Now can you explain why PPP loans were forgiven? What is the context and legislative background behind PPP loans? How are they related/similar to student loans? Why was major student loan relief stalled legislatively? Show us you understand anything about what you're talking about? Give one specific example.
Sorry. Too many many overwhelming questions to your buzzword statement? I hope i'm not gish galloping ad hom slippery slope false equivocating here. Feel free to answer just one question with specific example and source.
Take all the time you need.
I can't believe you actually did it 🤣 You really couldn't admit that both of our questions were unfair, huh?
PPP loans were loans given out in response to COVID that were intended to help prevent small businesses survive. In reality, they were handed out left and right with little oversight.
They were part of the CARES Act passed under the Trump administration.
They're not related to student loans except insofar as they're both government loans (though student loans are generally managed through third parties). The White House seemed to think it was a fair comparison, though.
There were several different pieces of legislation regarding student loans, so you'll have to be more specific about which effort you're talking about.
It's now 4 AM and while I may make questionable choices regarding my sleep schedule and internet arguments, I do need to get some sleep.
If you have any further questions, then be prepared to answer more of mine in exchange.
Let me remind you: you made the claim that because the government forgave some PPP loans the government can also and should forgive student debt. Which is a nonsense vague talking point repeated all the time and with no substance.
It betrays a complete misunderstanding of many key parts that go into how, why, and when student loans operate and can be discharged and how little they bear in relation to PPP loans. Nonetheless, this talking point was picked up and is still being spread like gospel or some clever gotcha.
I've answered your poop and pee question. I will answer any question you want.
Now can you explain why and how student loans can be forgiven in the same way that PPP loans were? Be specific.
Thank you for asking a question that's directly relevant and not just some bullshit "test of knowledge."
I'd like to remind you once again that my "vague talking point repeated all the time with no substance," was made by the White House.
As for "how, why, and when student loans can be discharged," those things are all determined by laws passed by Congress. Such as the law Biden voted for which made student loans ineligible for forgiveness through bankruptcy.
Apart from having been a member of Congress for decades and actively making the problem worse, you probably intend to roll out the talking point that the smol bean most powerful man on earth is part of the executive branch and thus has no control over legislation other than the veto. I recall this was one of your "test" questions from earlier. What this neglects is that the president is influential within the party and can and does frequently work with the legislature on bills. There's a reason why we call it "Obamacare," even though Obama didn't formally vote on it because he wasn't a member of Congress.
What did the democrats get in exchange for PPP loan forgiveness? Maybe they should've negotiated harder to include changes to how student loans work as part of that deal. But then, many Democrats as well as Republicans had PPP loans that got forgiven, so I suppose they got something out of the deal.
Correct. Biden has advocated and advanced numerous bills related to this. It's quite the list. I'm not going to go over it because I already know the next talking point or buzzphrase.
Correct
Yes. Maybe the coulda/shoulda/woulda. Policy negotiations aren't easy, esp when dems held only slim majorities in both houses. This here is the crux of discourse on social media.
WELL THEY FORGAVE PPP LOANS I DONT SO WHATS THE BIG DEAL??
It's all conjecture intended to equivocate between the two parties and dilute the discourse. That's all it is because it is completely devoid of the specifics in each legislation. It's all feelings. When people are ready to open up the bills and talk policy, lets go. Lets have that discussion. But for as long as people post this asinine nonsense "WELL THEY FORGAVE PPP...." we'll be stuck in the realm of buzzwords forever. And both sides are the same, amirite?
You're the one who brought up student loan forgiveness as something that differentiates the democrats. Personally, I wouldn't go around bragging about something they failed to deliver on.
I have made my point to my satisfaction. You can go off about whatever vague excuses you want. What I see is that they delivered on loan forgiveness to business owners and investors (and themselves) but not to students. You've yet to offer any sort of actual explanation or excuse beyond talking vaguely about how "legislation is hard."
You wanna talk about the specifics of the legislation, go for it, I'm game. But it's not my job to bring up excuses for the people I'm criticizing, it's yours.
My issue is very clear: everyone is comfortable levying criticism in broad generalities. Everyone's very comfortable painting broad strokes and talking in generalities.
No one wants to bring the receipts and talk specifics. That's why even here, when I push back and ask for specifics you fold. We haven't even started the discussion about student loans. We're still nitpicking over feelings and vibes and we presentation at this point.
Then start it.
This whole time all you've been doing is posturing. You keep talking about the idea of specifics without actually talking about them. You're trying to pass yourself off as the mature, rational authority and "adult in the room" but you can't actually back any of it up with evidence.
From the start, you did that power play of interrogating me with random questions to test whether I was "qualified" to your satisfaction to have a discussion. Had I just gone along with it, you would've tricked me into acknowledging you as an authority. Now, you're just trying to act as an authority anyway. I have no interest in that kind of bullshit, you don't get to pretend to have made a point by playing around with social dynamics, without ever actually making one.
The fact that you're playing these games tells me that you can't actually back up anything you're saying.
Nah. I used to respond to these idiotic buzz phrases with detailed and sourced responses. After a while I realized I was either talking to people that had no clue what or how US government works or they were actively engaged in spreading misinformation.
I no longer expend my energy in this manner as it's clear that people that wake these types of declarations:
Are way. Way. Way so far off from policy and any conversation grounded in reality that it doesn't matter what I say or show.
Really if you make a big claim like that, you should be prepared to explain and defend yourself. Call it a " power play" or gish gallop (it's not) but own it all the way. Walk us from point A to B. Own it.
I already explained both of those things.
You gish galloped by throwing down a bunch of one line responses, and then expecting anyone challenging them to put a disproportionate amount of effort into refuting them.
The power play is just transparent. You treated the conversation as an examination or interrogation, with you as the examiner or judge. You were explicitly asking me things not because they were relevant, but to test my knowledge to see if I was qualified to have a conversation with. That's a rhetorical tactic to establish dominance and control over the conversation. Of course, you never had to prove your knowledge or qualifications, but I do, because you're the one in charge - or so you tried to frame it.
I never had any issue answering questions that were directly relevant, or with answering your questions after you answered mine, because then there was no assumption of power or authority. I don't like such games, but I know how to recognize them and play against them.
I note that you still haven't provided a single specific, a single indication that you know anything about what you're talking about. It's clear that you have neither the interest or ability to address any of my actual points. All you have is calling my qualifications into question and trying to to throw around authority that you do not have.
You love that gish gallop fallacy for some reason. Another thing you guys love is debate bro terms so you can weasel out of answering anything.
Answer the fucking question.
I don't know what to tell you. You made the silly claim that PPP loans and student debt are equally discharged then when someone pushed back you started crying about gish galloping and "oh no, don't interrogate me bro, you're dominating the conversation". Like holy shit man.
You made the claim. Own it all the way. Walk us from point a to b. How are ppp and student loans the same?
I never claimed anything you're saying. It doesn't matter how much you repeat it, it doesn't make it true. Show me where I said that both loans are "equally discharged," you literally made that up whole cloth.
If you're going to keep playing these games, we're done here.
So what was the point of bringing up student loans when talking about PPP loans being forgiven????
Other guy is being a bit of a dick, tbh, but you do realize that the PPP loans weren't just "passed with little oversight", right? Democrats tried to get oversight and Republicans fought tooth and nail to strip as much oversight as possible. There's a reason that Republicans disproportionately scammed PPP loans after they were finally passed in an extremely urgent situation where some sort of relief absolutely needed to go out.
At the end of the day, legislation is compromise but one party has unraveling and selling off of the state as their goal, which makes the feasible compromise point a bit hard to create effective legislation. As a result, this means there are no effective or honest Republicans, but there are at least some effective or honest democrats. It's a sucky situation that is hard to crawl out of.
The Republicans have been more successful in pursuing their policy agenda and moving discourse to the right in part because of their stubbornness and intransigence. Democrats are always the ones that move further and further right to meet the Republicans where they're at, and because the Republicans know they'll do it, they keep moving right themselves. So we reach a point where the party that passes as "left" in this country is actively trying to pass tighter restrictions on immigration, is championing our outrageous military spending and arming a genocide, and is bragging about increasing gas production while placing tariffs on EVs. The strategy of the Republican base of playing hardball and laying down strict red lines on things like abortion or gun control has proven more effective than the strategy of the Democratic base of "lesser-evilism."
Granted, part of it is that the stuff the Republicans want is generally not directly opposed to corporate interests, so their politicians can give in to their base without upsetting their donors. Democrats have to play a game of not disrupting the profits of their donors while trying to appease the base.
I agree that relief was needed, but PPP loans were basically handouts to people who were already well off. Should've just been another stimulus check.