Re: oh, it's called a sweeping generalization retard ...

On Aug 1, 2026 at 2:40:32 PM EDT, "Wilson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 8/1/2026 2:10 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Aug 2026 13:40:13 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2026 1:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> u literally justify overriding free market principles with closed
>>>> borders because u profit from it!
>>>> 
>>>> seriously, capitalists have no principles. it's all up for grabs when
>>>> there is profit to be made!
>>>> 
>>>> it's fucking incredible you cried about how capitalism depends on people
>>>> acting ethically ... while here you are in just a thread over shitting
>>>> on basic principles of voluntary association because YOU benefit from
>>>> doing so!
>>>> 
>>>> god ur such a delusionally confused basket case wilson and ur wholly
>>>> incapable of realizing it because the level of cognitive dissonance in
>>>> just how much a shithead u've been for long would be too much for ur
>>>> underdeveloped mind to handle,
>>> 
>>> My business actually profits more from open borders and no tariffs.
>>> 
>>> Open borders means more customers. Over 20% of my customers are immigrants.
>>> 
>>> No tariffs means lower prices for my products.
>>> 
>>> I support restricted immigration and some tariffs because I think it
>>> benefits the young and low pay workers. And in the end that will benefit
>>> the country at large even if it works against my short-term interests.
>>> 
>>> As to free association, that's been illegal in this country for 50 some
>>> years. I'd support bringing it back as it empowers the individual
>>> against the bureaucratic machine state.
>> 
>> That sounds yummy.  But it does not square with what you have been
>> saying here for the last ten years that I have been noticing.
> 
> I've never once said that my opposition to mass immigration was because
> it benefits me. Same with tariffs. That was solely your interpretation.
> 
> It seems to me like you're hearing what you want to hear because it fits
> your ideological biases. And because it's easier to deal with people
> when you categorize them into boxes that have been predefined.
> 
> "Boom, into that box you go Wilson. And never shall you be allowed to
> escape!"

True. This is why your view, if you want to be understood, when conversing
with certain people, I think needs to be pretty well spelled out. maybe over
and over again.