Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   The BBQ Pit (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   When humanitarian behavior is criminalized... (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=877052)

asahi 06-12-2019 07:31 AM

When humanitarian behavior is criminalized...
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...rants-n1016646

Quote:

Defense attorneys argued that Scott Daniel Warren, a 36-year-old college geography instructor, was simply being kind by providing two migrants with water, food and lodging when he was arrested in early 2018. He faced up to 20 years in prison.

But prosecutors maintained the men were not in distress and Warren conspired to transport and harbor them at a property used for providing aid to migrants in an Arizona town near the U.S.-Mexico border.
Feds may try to prosecute him again.

It gets better.

Quote:

In West Texas, a county attorney was detained earlier this year after stopping her car on a dark highway to pick up three young migrants who flagged her down. Teresa Todd was held briefly, and federal agents searched her cellphone.
People who think that comparisons of this administration and its adherents to Nazi Germany are hyperbole are dangerously naive.

yojimbo 06-12-2019 08:03 AM

Europe is having the same kinda issues.

This is an activist but she is looking at a lot of time for pulling people out of the water.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-prison-saving

manson1972 06-12-2019 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21693816)
People who think that comparisons of this administration and its adherents to Nazi Germany are hyperbole are dangerously naive.

Were the laws that these people are accused of breaking passed during this administration?

E-DUB 06-12-2019 10:09 AM

.............only criminals will be humanitarians?

WillFarnaby 06-12-2019 10:16 AM

There should be opportunity for a grand compromise. Migrants are granted admittance once they have secured private funding and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments.

wguy123 06-12-2019 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yojimbo (Post 21693839)
Europe is having the same kinda issues.

This is an activist but she is looking at a lot of time for pulling people out of the water.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-prison-saving

I listen to the NY Time's "The Daily" podcast and this week they are going to different EU countries to talk about the surge of the far-right in politics. Today's episode is in Italy and at the end, they talk about how a girl gave a thumbs up to the news that a migrant boat sank and over a hundred died. We are at a sad state of affairs when people are happy to hear of large groups of humans dying.

manson1972 06-12-2019 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21694075)
and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments.

What does this mean?

Just Asking Questions 06-12-2019 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21694197)
What does this mean?

And what does it have to do with the case at hand?

Euphonious Polemic 06-12-2019 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21694197)
What does this mean?

This means "punish immigrant's children for having the moral failing of being born to an immigrant."

El_Kabong 06-12-2019 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manson1972 (Post 21693959)
Were the laws that these people are accused of breaking passed during this administration?

Don't know. Let's say they were enacted previously. Were they prosecuted as zealously by previous administrations?

manson1972 06-12-2019 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Kabong (Post 21694347)
Don't know. Let's say they were enacted previously. Were they prosecuted as zealously by previous administrations?

Not sure. I would hope that a person who thinks they ARE being prosecuted by this administration more zealously than previous administrations would have that information on hand.

Typo Negative 06-12-2019 01:32 PM

I guess the OP did not consider that Scott Daniel Warren may be lying and was trying to harbor them.

I ain't saying either way, but this:
Quote:

The undocumented men said they researched the best methods for crossing the border and had received the address of “the Barn” as a place they could receive food and water, according to the complaint.

“After finding their way to ‘the Barn,’ Warren met them outside and gave them food and water for approximately three days,” according to the complaint.
seems to counter the defense argument somewhat.

I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him.

Kobal2 06-12-2019 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-DUB (Post 21694059)
.............only criminals will be humanitarians?


Damn you ! That was MY line !

Pleonast 06-12-2019 03:08 PM

Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travellers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced.

Broomstick 06-12-2019 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21694075)
There should be opportunity for a grand compromise. Migrants are granted admittance once they have secured private funding and they and their descendants are prevented from securing transfer payments.

Why are their descendants to be second-class citizens based on what their forebears did or didn't do? Do you advocate any other categories of people being punished for the wrong doings of a separate group of people?

Do you not see that this is morally wrong?

Broomstick 06-12-2019 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21694522)
I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him.

Wow.

I mean, I have effectively unlimited water from my tap at home, not to mention a variety of other beverages, and usually have enough food on hand to feed surprise guests for a day or two. Do I deserve to be prosecuted, too? Are we going to limit how much food people keep in their homes now?

Typo Negative 06-12-2019 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleonast (Post 21694711)
Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travellers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced.

We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.

If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.

Typo Negative 06-12-2019 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 21694731)
Wow.

I mean, I have effectively unlimited water from my tap at home, not to mention a variety of other beverages, and usually have enough food on hand to feed surprise guests for a day or two. Do I deserve to be prosecuted, too? Are we going to limit how much food people keep in their homes now?

Strawman.

If I read the article correctly, they didn't come to his home. He took the supplies to them. And where he took the supplies was a known hub where illegals went for supplies.

WillFarnaby 06-12-2019 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 21694727)
Why are their descendants to be second-class citizens based on what their forebears did or didn't do? Do you advocate any other categories of people being punished for the wrong doings of a separate group of people?

Do you not see that this is morally wrong?

Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?

asahi 06-12-2019 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21694522)
I guess the OP did not consider that Scott Daniel Warren may be lying and was trying to harbor them.

I ain't saying either way, but this:
seems to counter the defense argument somewhat.

I dunno. Maybe the Feds are lying. Wouldn't be the first time. But it does seem a little odd that the man just happened to show up at a place where illegals went for assistance and just happened to have 3 days worth of food and water for 2 men with him.

The feds are technically within the boundaries of the law, but it's a ridiculous application of the law, and it's not really in the same spirit of simply protecting borders or controlling immigration. Prosecuting people like Warren is in the spirit of authoritarianism and racism.

Saintly Loser 06-12-2019 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21694932)
Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?

If someone, by virtue of the circumstances of their parents' (or grandparents', etc) arrival in this country, is deprived of a right that you possess, yes, that's being punished.

And, by the way, are you not a descendant of migrants? I know I am.

Broomstick 06-12-2019 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21694932)
Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?

If the only reason a person otherwise qualified to receive payments is not receiving payments is because of something his/her parent(s) or grandparent(s) did yes, that is being punished. It is unjust.

kaylasdad99 06-12-2019 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21694740)
Strawman.

If I read the article correctly, they didn't come to his home. He took the supplies to them. And where he took the supplies was a known hub where illegals went for supplies.


Please keep in mind that people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.

Also that people who bear the proud title of Doper are held to a higher standard than most.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-12-2019 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 (Post 21695024)
Please keep in mind that people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.

Please keep in mind that you’re wrong.

manson1972 06-12-2019 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillFarnaby (Post 21694932)
Punishment? Anyone deprived of transfer payments is being punished?

Can you explain what you mean by "transfer payments"?

DrFidelius 06-12-2019 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21694737)
We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.



If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.



The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.

Pretty darn heavy penalties for assisting in a misdemeanor.

BigT 06-12-2019 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21694737)
If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.

You're acting delusional here. First off, I am not authorized or even capable of determining whether someone is legally present in this country or not. And if someone is dying of starvation or thirst, I would have to be a sociopath to even think about those things.

Second, there is no moral or legal obligation to report everyone you suspect may be breaking the law. I am not ICE. It is their job to find these people. I am not morally required to in any way to help them.

Third, the only people who are pushing "illegals" as a problem are the fascistic right that wants to blame problems on them. Immigration, legal or not, only helps our country. There's a reason not even Ronald Reagan, patron of modern conservatives, was for kicking them out. He gave them amnesty. He championed worker visas.

Even if these people were somehow the enemy, offering your enemy food and water is the right thing to do. Only a sociopath worries about allegiances when it comes to helping the sick and dying.

Hell, THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS THREAD. If you can't figure that out, then you need to shut up about morality, as you have the same morality as Trump.

And do, for the love of all that is good, shut off the Fox News and letting you brain be reprogrammed. You never used to act like this.

Typo Negative 06-12-2019 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695135)
You're acting delusional here. First off, I am not authorized or even capable of determining whether someone is legally present in this country or not. And if someone is dying of starvation or thirst, I would have to be a sociopath to even think about those things.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the link says the prosecution's position is that they were not dying of starvation or thirst.

Quote:

But prosecutors maintained the men were not in distress and Warren conspired to transport and harbor them at a property used for providing aid to migrants in an Arizona town near the U.S.-Mexico border.
My whole point, and some seems to have missed it, is that the matter not nearly as black and white as made out in the OP.

BigT 06-12-2019 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695036)
Please keep in mind that you’re wrong.

The term is listed as derogatory in any dictionary. It is deliberately dehumanizing, by removing any indication the individuals references are human. That is why it was coined.

And this is being directed towards people who are merely doing what they feel they need to survive, and have harmed no one. (No, not even our economy, since they actually help keep it functioning. Since they can't take in any services, they are only a net gain.)

It is punching down, at people worse off than the people who say it, and who haven't in any way harmed them.

Decent people don't do that. Decent people don't come in and try to figure out a way the guy giving aid to the dying was actually the bad guy.

And decent people don't come in and defend those people, either.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-12-2019 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695169)
The term is listed as derogatory in any dictionary.

In any dictionary? Really?

Are you putting, like, any work at all into this? Right there in the first sentence, you’re already staking out an “in any dictionary” position — as if your go-to move, when trying to get taken seriously, is to lead off with that?

BigT 06-12-2019 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21695150)
Not to beat a dead horse, but the link says the prosecution's position is that they were not dying of starvation or thirst.


My whole point, and some seems to have missed it, is that the matter not nearly as black and white as made out in the OP.

No. I specifically quoted what you said. You argued that the guy could not be moral because he gave food and drink to suspected illegal immigrants, but did not call ICE on them. You even went on a rant about how horrible "illegals" are, using a slur to attack them.

You may want to pretend you didn't say that garbage I quoted (and an additional post where you added more garbage). But you did say it, and it completely recolors everything.

We now know your true motivation was the hatred of "illegals," and not anything about the law. Same as when someone talks about women "asking for it" after saying that the accused rapist is "innocent until proven guilty."

You can't go back to that neutral stance once you reveal your true nature.

manson1972 06-12-2019 08:34 PM

Sorry man, but I don't see where he ranted about how horrible "illegals" are. Can you point it out?

asahi 06-12-2019 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695135)
You're acting delusional here. First off, I am not authorized or even capable of determining whether someone is legally present in this country or not. And if someone is dying of starvation or thirst, I would have to be a sociopath to even think about those things.

Oh, but our good friend Typo Negative can tell just by looking at them. Shit, if a brown guy speaking Spanish asks for money to go buy a bottle of water within 200 miles of the Mexican border, you should know that he's probably an "illegal" and not a human. :rolleyes:

Typo Negative...tests Cunt-o positive.

Little Nemo 06-12-2019 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic (Post 21694221)
This means "punish immigrant's children for having the moral failing of being born to an immigrant."

I don't think it's fair to judge all of the children of immigrants by the moral failings of Donald Trump.

BigT 06-12-2019 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695178)
In any dictionary? Really?

Are you putting, like, any work at all into this? Right there in the first sentence, you’re already staking out an “in any dictionary” position — as if your go-to move, when trying to get taken seriously, is to lead off with that?

I see you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post. Only a moron would rebut only the weakest argument if he could rebut all of them, so, unless you are a moron, I know you can't rebut the rest of my post.

You also didn't actually refute my claim. Asking whether I put "work" into something doesn't refute anything I said. Of course I'm not going to spend much time on it. I googled the term, saw that the results I got all referred to them as derogatory, and moved on.

You are of course aware that it is a derogatory term. That is why you play this game. That is also the reason you don't actually defend or repudiated what your fellow conservative on this matter said.

Broomstick 06-12-2019 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695178)
In any dictionary? Really?

I just googled some dictionaries. All of them I've looked at so far list "person in a country illegally" as an alternate definition of the term, and ALL of them I've looked at so far note that the term is derogatory. There might be some dictionaries out there that don't make that notation (actually, I have a tree-book dictionary from 1978 that does not have that alternate definition) but for anything post 2010 and/or on line it would seem that yes, BigT and others have the right of it.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-12-2019 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695247)
I see you have conveniently ignored the rest of my post. Only a moron would rebut only the weakest argument if he could rebut all of them, so, unless you are a moron, I know you can't rebut the rest of my post.

The first sentence was so silly that it seemed ridiculous to give you the benefit of the doubt as to — well, anything that followed, really.

Quote:

You also didn't actually refute my claim. Asking whether I put "work" into something doesn't refute anything I said. Of course I'm not going to spend much time on it. I googled the term, saw that the results I got all referred to them as derogatory, and moved on.
Then say that. Just say the first two or three results you got referred to it that way. Heck, maybe do your absolutist bit of saying any ‘decent’ dictionary would refer to it that way. Or anything like that, instead of leading off with the laughable.

Why get it wrong right at the start? How does that make any sense to you?

Monty 06-12-2019 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695169)
The term is listed as derogatory in any dictionary. It is deliberately dehumanizing, by removing any indication the individuals references are human. That is why it was coined.


I just checked three online dictionaries, one of which is Merriam-Webster. Yep, they all agree illegal as a noun is derogatory.

Besides behing dehumanizing, the term is a way to use negative language to generate hate against a particular group far out of proportion to their supposed crime. Those who use it to generate such hatred are manipulating other people. Try some critical thinking, TOWP.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-12-2019 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty (Post 21695384)
I just checked three online dictionaries, one of which is Merriam-Webster. Yep, they all agree illegal as a noun is derogatory.

And if I find one that doesn’t so classify it? Two? Three?

Near as I can tell, the original assertion is wrong at “one” — but since I honestly have no idea how anyone could get it so wrong in the first place, I honestly don’t know how many cites would be appropriate in the face of so much folly.

Quote:

Besides behing dehumanizing, the term is a way to use negative language to generate hate against a particular group far out of proportion to their supposed crime. Those who use it to generate such hatred are manipulating other people. Try some critical thinking, TOWP.
What kicked off this whole digression? Someone responding to the use of ‘illegal’ as a noun by declaring that “people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.” What was that meant to do? Why announce that the poster who just did so lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency?

Why, it seems — dehumanizing? Seems like a — manipulative? — assertion that such people, no matter what else they do or say, flatly lack a human quality.

After all, why the heck else put that out there?

BigT 06-12-2019 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695257)
The first sentence was so silly that it seemed ridiculous to give you the benefit of the doubt as to — well, anything that followed, really.



Then say that. Just say the first two or three results you got referred to it that way. Heck, maybe do your absolutist bit of saying any ‘decent’ dictionary would refer to it that way. Or anything like that, instead of leading off with the laughable.

Why get it wrong right at the start? How does that make any sense to you?

I didn't. I used a figure of speech.

You chose to interpret it literally to give yourself a way out of have to actually counter anything I said. You decided to be dishonest in your argument.

Again, YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY COUNTERARGUMENT. Even after I prodded you to do so with a second post. So it's clear that you don't have a counterargument.

And now you're desperately trying to steer everything away from the one thing you should have done if I was actually wrong.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-12-2019 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695471)
I didn't. I used a figure of speech.

You chose to interpret it literally to give yourself a way out of have to actually counter anything I said.

Well, I look at it another way: my point is that your post, as written, shouldn’t be taken seriously — because, as worded, it’s merely incorrect. It starts off ludicrously wrong; I saw no reason to think it gets any better; I find what you note here to be a perfectly sufficient ‘counterargument’: how can I improve on the writer pointing out that, no, it doesn’t literally mean what it stated?

Quote:

And now you're desperately trying to steer everything away from the one thing you should have done if I was actually wrong.
...you were. You were, actually, wrong.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-12-2019 11:34 PM

I can’t help but wonder what the next ‘figure of speech, not literal’ dodge is going to be. The guy who stated “that people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun” — what, is he going to awkwardly explain that, er, well, no, of course some people who so aspire do use that noun, gosh, it wasn’t meant literally, there’s at least one exception, clearly, clearly, heh, heh?

BigT 06-13-2019 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695421)
Why, it seems — dehumanizing? Seems like a — manipulative? — assertion that such people, no matter what else they do or say, flatly lack a human quality.

After all, why the heck else put that out there?

Sigh. This isn't Alice in Wonderland. You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean. kaylasdad was not manipulative--he didn't trick anyone or coerce them into doing anything. It's simple logic. Decent people do not use 'illegals' as a noun Typo Negative used 'illegals' as a noun. Therefore Typo Negative is not a decent person.

This is, of course, understatement. He far worse than just indecent. But he is not ever referred to as less than human. So he was not dehumanized, either.

The purpose is obvious: to call out the guy for his bigoted little tirade, where he was so unhinged he used a slur. He is, at the very least, "not a decent person." I admire kaylasdad's restraint.

kaylasdad99 06-13-2019 12:40 AM

Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore (and thus never read your “retort” until now).It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-13-2019 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695547)
Sigh. This isn't Alice in Wonderland. You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean. kaylasdad was not manipulative--he didn't trick anyone or coerce them into doing anything. It's simple logic. Decent people do not use 'illegals' as a noun Typo Negative used 'illegals' as a noun. Therefore Typo Negative is not a decent person.

This is, of course, understatement. He far worse than just indecent. But he is not ever referred to as less than human. So he was not dehumanized, either.

You’re leaving out a word, there; the phrase was “human decency”. The point was to emphasize that someone who uses that word as a noun doesn’t merely lack decency, but lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency.

(You know, if he meant that literally — which, if he’s anything like you, ain’t at all a safe conclusion; it’s still possible he might try the same backpedal.)

Quote:

The purpose is obvious: to call out the guy for his bigoted little tirade, where he was so unhinged he used a slur. He is, at the very least, "not a decent person." I admire kaylasdad's restraint.
You’re stopping short: you say the goal is to call him out; why? What’s he trying to accomplish by ‘calling him out’ when stating that he lacks human decency?

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-13-2019 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 (Post 21695554)
Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore. It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.

Uh, okay. I sure do hope someone manages to relay to you that your flatly-stated claim remains factually incorrect; if you really do have some kind of fondness for high standards, maybe ‘accuracy’ can find its way into your posts.

Broomstick 06-13-2019 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695421)
And if I find one that doesn’t so classify it? Two? Three?

It would still be a minority interpretation of a common English world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695421)
I honestly don’t know how many cites would be appropriate in the face of so much folly.

Or you could just admit you were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695421)
What kicked off this whole digression? Someone responding to the use of ‘illegal’ as a noun by declaring that “people who aspire to human decency do not use "illegal" as a noun.” What was that meant to do? Why announce that the poster who just did so lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency?

Because referring to fellow human beings as being "illegals" is derogatory and dehumanizing and is a favorite tactic of those who want to scapegoat/demonize a group of people, treat them as second-class human beings, or worse.

Broomstick 06-13-2019 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695556)
You’re leaving out a word, there; the phrase was “human decency”. The point was to emphasize that someone who uses that word as a noun doesn’t merely lack decency, but lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency.

Well...no, people who refer to other human beings as "illegals" are not decent humans. It's despicable, really. It's a slur. The rest of what you're doing is hairsplitting and special pleading.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-13-2019 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 21695636)
It would still be a minority interpretation of a common English world.

Quote:

Or you could just admit you were wrong.
But that’s my point: if a minority of dictionaries list it that way, then I wasn’t wrong; the poster who stated that it’s listed as derogatory in any dictionary was wrong, and should’ve made some other claim instead.

If a guy says something that’s incorrect, and I reply that the statement is incorrect, and you feel like jumping in to ask me to admit that I was wrong, you should maybe stop to note that, no, my correct reply isn’t the problem; the incorrect statement was the problem, not the response that points it out.

Quote:

Because referring to fellow human beings as being "illegals" is derogatory and dehumanizing and is a favorite tactic of those who want to scapegoat/demonize a group of people, treat them as second-class human beings, or worse.
Quote:

Well...no, people who refer to other human beings as "illegals" are not decent humans.
It’s an interesting — and derogatory? — claim that you’re putting out there; I take it you mean I’m not a decent human, because no matter what else I do I refer to such people as ‘illegals’ instead of ‘illegal aliens’ or ‘people who are here illegally’ or whichever term you prefer? If so, then: if you had to guess, what percent of this country would you figure “are not decent humans”?

Filbert 06-13-2019 07:12 AM

This is some quality sov cit level arguing right there. The hypothetical existence of a dictionary that doesn't call a dehumanising slur a slur would be in no way relevant to the facts that a) it is one, and b) you were using it as one.

Everyone else isn't using a gold-fringed dictionary magically making this drivel have a point; if you think it's fine to use a slur to describe people, own it.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-13-2019 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Filbert (Post 21695708)
This is some quality sov cit level arguing right there. The hypothetical existence of a dictionary that doesn't call a dehumanising slur a slur

Hypothetical? Broomstick, who doesn’t seem to be at all on my side here, didn’t merely grant that there might be some dictionaries out there that don't make that notation, but immediately went on to mention one that doesn’t.

Quote:

if you think it's fine to use a slur to describe people, own it.
Is it a slur to describe people as “felons” instead of phrasing it in some other way? Is it a slur to accurately describe people as “trespassers” or “perjurers” — or as “arsonists” or “burglars” or whatever, on through the alphabet — instead of wording it some other way? In a sense, you could say it is; and yet, yes, all of that strikes me as fine. So fine, in fact, that I’m not sure that’s what it means to use a slur.

Would you say ‘illegals’ is a slur the way ‘felons’ and ‘trespassers’ and ‘perjurers’ and the rest are? Or are you saying it’s a slur in a way they’re not?

asahi 06-13-2019 08:15 AM

You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.

The word "fag" once meant cigarette - still does in some parts of the world. Most know it's a slur, and it doesn't matter whether a majority of dictionaries describe it that way or not. Most adults who care enough to discuss the politics of gays and lesbians know it's something that gays and lesbians take offense to when used by non-gays and non-lesbians. The other day Septimus used the word "tranny" to refer to transgendered people. He used it because at one time, it wasn't considered offensive. Not realizing it was no longer p.c., he used it and was warned for it. (FTR, Septimus apologized and said he wasn't aware it was no longer an acceptable term, and I believe him - he's a good poster).

The same is true of "illegal." You can say that so-and-so is an "illegal immigrant" or that "illegal immigrants" put a strain on the resources of some local communities. But the term "illegals," like many other slurs, is offensive because of its casual usage. It's used casually to describe a group of people. The term also reinforces the idea that they are "the other," and that they're low class. Even if someone is 100% factually correct in pointing out that they don't have legal status, it's dehumanizing to label them in that way because it so often ignores the understandable reasons many have for skipping the immigration process. Many "illegals" are, in fact, decent people who just want a better life for themselves and their families. People can disagree with their decision and their justifications for crossing the border illegally - that doesn't make someone a racist or a bigot. But one could argue throwing them into some broad category or class of people and debasing them with a term that reinforces their low status is bigoted behavior. At the very least, it's insensitive. Dictionaries aren't required to prove that point.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-13-2019 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21695749)
You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.

But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?

If so, then, sure, I guess I’m fine with using such slurs. If your two-part test is the one we’re to apply, then as far as I know I’m already making regular use of slurs. Heck, maybe I can meet something with umbrage and jab an accusatory finger at a slurrer, if they so describe me and I then, uh, “take umbrage”?

Mr Shine 06-13-2019 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 (Post 21695554)
Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore (and thus never read your “retort” until now).It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.

If dopers were held to a higher standard, you for one would not be here. You are an annoying turd and your drive-by "witticisms" and pontifications are appreciated by nobody.

asahi 06-13-2019 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695765)
But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?

Yes, I suppose it can if the word becomes frequently associated with reference to specific types of people. Take the word "thug," for example. A generation or two ago, a thug referred to a violent person or a criminal generally. However, in today's context, particularly when speaking in reference to a black person, it can just as easily be understood to refer to a violent black criminal, or a more socially acceptable way of using the n-word.

The real point you're refusing to acknowledge is that words have denotative meanings and connotative meanings. Words are attempts to describe thoughts and ideas. In communication, it's thoughts and ideas first, and words second, not the other way around. Words frequently fail to describe ideas, feelings, and thoughts with precision, which is why how words are intended and also interpreted depends a LOT on the context. Words can have more than one definition, and Webster's isn't necessarily the last word on what a word means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695765)
If so, then, sure, I guess I’m fine with using such slurs. If your two-part test is the one we’re to apply, then as far as I know I’m already making regular use of slurs. Heck, maybe I can meet something with umbrage and jab an accusatory finger at a slurrer, if they so describe me and I then, uh, “take umbrage”?

That's right, show everyone reading this that rather than showing a willingness to try to understand why people might be offended, you just don't give a shit. Racism isn't your problem, I guess.

iiandyiiii 06-13-2019 12:53 PM

Illegal is regularly used against people based on skin color, country of origin, accent/language, and more features that have nothing to do with immigration status (in my personal experience, at least half the time the users of the word "illegal" couldn't possibly have knowledge of the immigration status of those they are targeting with the word). It's become a slur because it's used like a slur and received like a slur. Maybe the first people who used the n-word didn't intend it as a slur. Maybe some of them kept using it with a non-slur intention. But it doesn't matter -- once tons of people are using it as a slur, and receiving it as a slur, then it's a slur. Which is the case for "illegal" as a noun.

Gatopescado 06-13-2019 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695547)
You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean.

This is hilarious in 2019.

Ravenman 06-13-2019 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695765)
But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?

I can't find any evidence that those words are defined as being slurs, disparaging, or offensive.

So should I take your questions as essentially asking why the word "cunt" is offensive but the word "apple" is not? Are you this stupid?

kaylasdad99 06-13-2019 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Shine (Post 21695945)
If dopers were held to a higher standard, you for one would not be here. You are an annoying turd and your drive-by "witticisms" and pontifications are appreciated by nobody.

o_o

>_<

o_0

kaylasdad99 06-13-2019 01:57 PM

:(

I appreciate them.

:p

Typo Negative 06-13-2019 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21695749)
You're just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That's really all it takes.

This way too vague to have any meaning at all. Doper is a word to describe a group of people. It can describe several groups depending on the context.

But fine, I will concede the point if it will get the discussion back on point. In all future posts I will not use the term, but will type out the full 'illegal aliens'.

Broomstick 06-13-2019 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695671)
But that’s my point: if a minority of dictionaries list it that way, then I wasn’t wrong; the poster who stated that it’s listed as derogatory in any dictionary was wrong, and should’ve made some other claim instead.

I also pointed out that dictionary was over 40 years old and thus is not current. I'm sure if you looked in a dictionary from, say 1850 the term n***** would not be listed as offensive as it is now, and "negro" would be deemed polite although at best it's borderline these days.

Hence my reference to "hairsplitting".

Quote:

It’s an interesting — and derogatory? — claim that you’re putting out there; I
take it you mean I’m not a decent human, because no matter what else I do I refer to such people as ‘illegals’ instead of ‘illegal aliens’ or ‘people who are here illegally’ or whichever term you prefer?
Remember this phrase: "people are not illegal". In other words, "legal" is an adjective, not a noun. "Illegal aliens" and "people who are here illegally" are both more acceptable that using "illegal" as a noun.

Quote:

If so, then: if you had to guess, what percent of this country would you figure “are not decent humans”?
Seat of my pants? Around 40% these days. That's a wild ass guess, I have no statistics or cites to back it up with, it's purely opinion.

Broomstick 06-13-2019 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21695716)
Hypothetical? Broomstick, who doesn’t seem to be at all on my side here, didn’t merely grant that there might be some dictionaries out there that don't make that notation, but immediately went on to mention one that doesn’t.

Again, an OLD dictionary. One that is also missing terms like "microcomputer" and "cellphone" and so on. It's nowhere near current.

Quote:

Is it a slur to describe people as “felons” instead of phrasing it in some other way? Is it a slur to accurately describe people as “trespassers” or “perjurers” — or as “arsonists” or “burglars” or whatever, on through the alphabet — instead of wording it some other way? In a sense, you could say it is; and yet, yes, all of that strikes me as fine. So fine, in fact, that I’m not sure that’s what it means to use a slur.

Would you say ‘illegals’ is a slur the way ‘felons’ and ‘trespassers’ and ‘perjurers’ and the rest are? Or are you saying it’s a slur in a way they’re not?
A major difference between felons (and the rest of the folks you mention) and people crossing the international border without following preferred procedures is that the felons have been tried in a court of law . People wandering over the border? Who knows? Are they people with legitimate claim to asylum or refugee status? Did they get drunk and wander across the line by accident? (Believe it or not, it IS possible to cross such a border by accident)

That's why terms like "undocumented" are less inflammatory. It indicates a non-standard entry without passing judgement on it prior to a formal hearing which may or may not bring to light more information. Due process - something we're all supposed to have in the country.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-13-2019 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 21696986)
Again, an OLD dictionary. One that is also missing terms like "microcomputer" and "cellphone" and so on. It's nowhere near current.

If I a cite a sufficiently current one — what then? Would one suffice to show BigT was wrong, or will it get handwaved away as some unique outlier until I provide a second? Or will that still not be enough to show BigT’s “any” comment was wrong? What, exactly, would it take to show that BigT was wrong?

Quote:

A major difference between felons (and the rest of the folks you mention) and people crossing the international border without following preferred procedures is that the felons have been tried in a court of law .
That line there about “the rest of the folks you mention” — is that true? Because, to pick just one: the part where I mentioned “trespassers” brings to mind how people sure do seem toss that word around, descriptively or conversationally or whatever, even before the folks in question have been tried in a court of law; the term just gets put out there, unremarkably but doing useful work, every so often, right?

Quote:

That's why terms like "undocumented" are less inflammatory. It indicates a non-standard entry without passing judgement on it prior to a formal hearing which may or may not bring to light more information.
But what if they are documented? What if the — illegal aliens? Is that what we’re to go with, referring to them as both illegal and as aliens, because like the man said it may facilitate discussion and thus be worth the shrug even if I keep seeing it as a distinction without a difference — so, okay, what if the illegal aliens in question happen to be here illegally as a mere matter of documented fact? Isn’t what’s relevant the illegality, regardless of if it happens to be documented?

Broomstick 06-13-2019 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21697059)
If I a cite a sufficiently current one — what then? Would one suffice to show BigT was wrong, or will it get handwaved away as some unique outlier until I provide a second? Or will that still not be enough to show BigT’s “any” comment was wrong? What, exactly, would it take to show that BigT was wrong?

I think your grasping at straws there. I would be VERY surprised if any English dictionary published in North America in the past 20 years would NOT mention the use of "illegal" as a noun/person to be derogatory.

It's a very common term, used of the term, and view of that term.

Quote:

That line there about “the rest of the folks you mention” — is that true? Because, to pick just one: the part where I mentioned “trespassers” brings to mind how people sure do seem toss that word around, descriptively or conversationally or whatever, even before the folks in question have been tried in a court of law; the term just gets put out there, unremarkably but doing useful work, every so often, right?
There is a definite legal definition of "trespassing" as well as legal penalties for same. You can be legally convicted of trespassing. Otherwise - well, maybe you are and maybe you aren't.

Quote:

But what if they are documented? What if the — illegal aliens? Is that what we’re to go with, referring to them as both illegal and as aliens, because like the man said it may facilitate discussion and thus be worth the shrug even if I keep seeing it as a distinction without a difference — so, okay, what if the illegal aliens in question happen to be here illegally as a mere matter of documented fact? Isn’t what’s relevant the illegality, regardless of if it happens to be documented?
The "documents" referred to here are those permitting one to legally enter a country and you damn well know it. It's not about "documenting a person's presence" in the US.

A person can legally enter the US for a variety of reasons using a variety of documents to do so - passports, visas, enhanced driver's license, "green card", etc. So a person might be allowed to enter on vacation, or allowed to live here but not work here, or allowed to live AND work here, might be here as a legal refugee, might be here without permission or document permitting entry... You can't tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn't. The vast majority of people are NOT the border police and have no business trying to determine if someone is or isn't in the US legally.

If you have certain legal documents are a legal immigrant or legal alien. Again, that might be anything from permission to be here on vacation to some sort of visa or permission to live here permanently and work here as well. If you do not posses any such document you are an illegal immigrant or illegal alien. If so, you are SUPPOSED TO get a hearing where you can plead your case. Maybe you were on a boat on Lake Huron and got blown to the wrong side of the border (that actually does happen - also in Lake Superior, the Detroit River, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario...). Maybe you were snowshoeing along the Montana/Canadian border in January and got lost. Maybe you arrived somehow or other from, say, Somalia and claim you face certain death if forced to return... which, if you can substantiate that might get you a claim of asylum in which case, even if you entered the US without permission you will be given permission to stay at which point you move from "illegal immigrant" to "legal immigrant" without penalty, perhaps one day moving to "citizen". You might enter as a legal refugee.

Or maybe you have no permission to enter at all, snuck in, have no right to be here, maybe you have nefarious ideas of what to do here - but that's not for the average person in the street to determine, any more than the average person in the street is allowed to sit as a judge in a felony trial.

In other words, there are a variety of legal documents and permissions by which you are allowed to stay in the US. Possession of those is what is meant by "documented". A hearing in front of judge is how the determination is SUPPOSED TO be made as to whether or not someone has legal permission to be here or not.

not what you'd expect 06-13-2019 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 (Post 21696463)
:(

I appreciate them.

:p

So do I and I would bet most dopers appreciate you as well.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-13-2019 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 21697076)
I think your grasping at straws there. I would be VERY surprised if any English dictionary published in North America in the past 20 years would NOT mention the use of "illegal" as a noun/person to be derogatory.

I’m not asking whether it would surprise you; I’m asking whether it would show that BigT was wrong. (But, for clarity: would online sources suffice?)

Quote:

There is a definite legal definition of "trespassing" as well as legal penalties for same. You can be legally convicted of trespassing. Otherwise - well, maybe you are and maybe you aren't.
But what I’m asking is: do people make routine and unremarkable use of the term “trespassers” even when describing folks who haven’t been legally convicted of it?

Quote:

The "documents" referred to here are those permitting one to legally enter a country and you damn well know it. It's not about "documenting a person's presence" in the US.

A person can legally enter the US for a variety of reasons using a variety of documents to do so - passports, visas, enhanced driver's license, "green card", etc. So a person might be allowed to enter on vacation, or allowed to live here but not work here, or allowed to live AND work here, might be here as a legal refugee, might be here without permission or document permitting entry... You can't tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn't. The vast majority of people are NOT the border police and have no business trying to determine if someone is or isn't in the US legally.
How does that not cut both ways? You say that I can’t tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn’t; wouldn’t I likewise have trouble trying to tell by looking at someone what the story is when it comes to documents?

Monty 06-14-2019 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 (Post 21695554)
Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore


Good call. I have joined your club. I shan't be seeing TOWP's nonsense any longer.

Der Trihs 06-14-2019 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21694737)
We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.

If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

And would be an evil person. ICE are the American Brownshirts, and should never under any circumstances be called, aided or respected in any way. When the law is evil, obeying the law is evil. Cooperating with monsters is a monstrous act.

Broomstick 06-14-2019 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21697111)
I’m not asking whether it would surprise you; I’m asking whether it would show that BigT was wrong. (But, for clarity: would online sources suffice?)

You're shifting goalposts and you think you're witty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21697111)
But what I’m asking is: do people make routine and unremarkable use of the term “trespassers” even when describing folks who haven’t been legally convicted of it?

No, I don't actually hear that term very much. Where do you live that you do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21697111)
How does that not cut both ways? You say that I can’t tell by looking at someone what their legal status is or isn’t; wouldn’t I likewise have trouble trying to tell by looking at someone what the story is when it comes to documents?

Why the hell are you stopping random people and asking to see their residency/citizenship documents? No, you CAN'T tell by "looking at someone" if they're here legally or not, or even whether their a citizen or not.

It's no harder to spot genuine/fake residency documents than genuine/fake driver's licenses or other forms of ID or Official Government Document. People who hire employees at a company routinely have to ask for ID that proves a person has permission to work in the US. This isn't rocket science. If anything, the official documents for legal immigrants are more consistent and therefore easier to deal with than what's commonly used for native born US citizens which is the birth certificate - which varies widely depending on location and when a person was born. I expect at some point they're going to tell all of us old farts who have actually hung onto our very first iteration of it that our 20th Century version doesn't meet modern standards and we have to get an updated copy with all sorts of fancy anti-fraud measure in it but that hasn't happened yet.

Broomstick 06-14-2019 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typo Negative (Post 21694737)
We are not really talking about the moral behavior. Lets be clear on that.

If the man had given the immigrants food and water...AND called ICE...then he would be on the right side of the law.

The behavior that is forbidden is being part of a network that helps immigrants skirt immigration law.

How do I know whether a group of random people are "skirting the law" or just some tourists that got lost?

Hell, I wouldn't even know how to contact ICE myself. I almost asked "are they in the phone book?" but then I remembered we don't have phone books these days any more than we have rotary dial phones. I do know how to hand someone a sandwich and a bottle of water if they need it, and how to call 911 if emergency aid is required. With most Americans the first action upon encountering someone in distress is "can I help you?" rather than calling ICE. At least for know.

What next, we're going to ask anyone from south of the border to sew a little green leaf on their shirts?

Chisquirrel 06-14-2019 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21697059)
If I a cite a sufficiently current one — what then? Would one suffice to show BigT was wrong, or will it get handwaved away as some unique outlier until I provide a second? Or will that still not be enough to show BigT’s “any” comment was wrong? What, exactly, would it take to show that BigT was wrong?

How about you actually cite one, instead of ranting on and on about how BigT is wrong, even though you refuse to actual prove your point?


So I'll do it. The vast majority of current dictionaries dealing with the general English language define illegal as a derogatory slur. SMDB Squirrels define you as a ranting, lazy pedant.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-14-2019 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 21697412)
You're shifting goalposts and you think you're witty.

No, it’s that I’ve got online ones at the ready, and if they can suffice I’d be glad to cite them; but if that would count as shifting goalposts, then I’d rather find out beforehand and supply a dead-tree cite instead. I’m looking for clarification because I’m looking to avoid a goalpost shift.

Quote:

No, I don't actually hear that term very much. Where do you live that you do?
Seriously? I just searched it on Google News, and saw “trespassers” get featured prominently but routinely in articles from all over the country — often mundanely getting the idea across right there in the headline, whether it was a story out of Pennsylvania or Minnesota or Virginia or New Mexico or whatever.

Quote:

Why the hell are you stopping random people and asking to see their residency/citizenship documents? No, you CAN'T tell by "looking at someone" if they're here legally or not, or even whether their a citizen or not.
That’s not my point. You said “terms like "undocumented" are less inflammatory. It indicates a non-standard entry without passing judgement on it prior to a formal hearing which may or may not bring to light more information.” You add that I “CAN'T tell by "looking at someone" if they're here legally or not”; my point is, I likewise can’t tell by "looking at someone" if they’re undocumented or not.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-14-2019 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 21697420)
How about you actually cite one, instead of ranting on and on about how BigT is wrong, even though you refuse to actual prove your point?

::shrugs:: Okay, let’s start with one.

[googles]

How about Macmillan? Their online dictionary, which of course labels a number of other words as “offensive”, mentions nothing of the sort when indicating that this noun means an illegal immigrant.

Quote:

So I'll do it. The vast majority of current dictionaries dealing with the general English language define illegal as a derogatory slur.
So take it up with BigT, who should’ve done what you just did by sensibly referring to “the vast majority of current dictionaries” or some such instead of just leading off with an “any”. I’m not saying I dispute your sensible remark here; why didn’t you sensibly dispute BigT’s remark there?

iiandyiiii 06-14-2019 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21697434)
::shrugs:: Okay, let’s start with one.

[googles]

How about Macmillan? Their online dictionary, which of course labels a number of other words as “offensive”, mentions nothing of the sort when indicating that this noun means an illegal immigrant.



So take it up with BigT, who should’ve done what you just did by sensibly referring to “the vast majority of current dictionaries” or some such instead of just leading off with an “any”. I’m not saying I dispute your sensible remark here; why didn’t you sensibly dispute BigT’s remark there?

Merriam Webster calls it "sometimes disparaging and offensive". If you want to hang your hat on "not all dictionaries call it offensive all the time", then feel free. But it's a slur the way you're using it, and there are non-slur ways to say the same thing. Using it knowing this just means that you're okay with using (and rationalizing) ethnic slurs.

I've had the exact same conversation with people about "wetback" and worse racial slurs. Some people just really, really want to use ethnic/racial slurs, and will search for any justification they can scrabble for. I'm not sure why you'd want to join their ranks, but you are free to do so.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-14-2019 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21697454)
Merriam Webster calls it "sometimes disparaging and offensive". If you want to hang your hat on "not all dictionaries call it offensive all the time", then feel free. But it's a slur the way you're using it, and there are non-slur ways to say the same thing. Using it knowing this just means that you're okay with using (and rationalizing) ethnic slurs.

Why throw in “ethnic” at the end? You’re already railing against me for what you say is a slur — and without a word of criticism for BigT for inaccurately hanging a hat on dictionaries in the first place — and you have to add in the bit about “ethnic”, too? If I do wind up shrugging with a switch to “illegal aliens”, would that get me a free pass from you on both the ‘slur’ front and the ‘ethnic’ front?

iiandyiiii 06-14-2019 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21697462)
Why throw in “ethnic” at the end? You’re already railing against me for what you say is a slur — and without a word of criticism for BigT for inaccurately hanging a hat on dictionaries in the first place — and you have to add in the bit about “ethnic”, too? If I do wind up shrugging with a switch to “illegal aliens”, would that get me a free pass from you on both the ‘slur’ front and the ‘ethnic’ front?

Because it's used as an ethnic slur. It may be used as other slurs as well, but most of how I've heard it has been against brown-skinned people with Latin American accents (and by those with no knowledge of the target's immigration status). Maybe the origin of "wetback" comes from people swimming the Rio Grande, but it morphed into a generic ethnic slur against Latin American people (and especially those of Mexican descent).

Yes, I'm not aware of "illegal alien" being used or commonly understood as a slur, so I wouldn't be critical of that phrase.

Language is complicated, but not so complicated that it's very difficult to avoid using ethnic slurs.

kaylasdad99 06-14-2019 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broomstick (Post 21697414)
How do I know whether a group of random people are "skirting the law" or just some tourists that got lost?

Hell, I wouldn't even know how to contact ICE myself. I almost asked "are they in the phone book?" but then I remembered we don't have phone books these days any more than we have rotary dial phones. I do know how to hand someone a sandwich and a bottle of water if they need it, and how to call 911 if emergency aid is required. With most Americans the first action upon encountering someone in distress is "can I help you?" rather than calling ICE. At least for know.

What next, we're going to ask anyone from south of the border to sew a little green leaf on their shirts?

ASK?

You poor country mouse...

Chisquirrel 06-15-2019 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21697434)
::shrugs:: Okay, let’s start with one.

[googles]

How about Macmillan? Their online dictionary, which of course labels a number of other words as “offensive”, mentions nothing of the sort when indicating that this noun means an illegal immigrant.

Finally! Was that so fucking hard? You're still a ranting pedant, however.

The Other Waldo Pepper 06-15-2019 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel (Post 21698912)
Finally! Was that so fucking hard?

Naw, I’d googled it before I first posted my reply to BigT; found three perfectly good hits right off the bat, and figured that they’d still be there the next time I googled, and, sure enough, they were.

Quote:

You're still a ranting pedant, however.
Well, this is still the SDMB, right? Don’t folks here tend — strive, even — to point out the precise and exact truth in reply to a question or an incorrect claim?

Woofdogs 06-15-2019 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleonast (Post 21694711)
Every time someone talks about voting Christian values, I point to stuff like this. Jesus was very clear about how to treat those in need, especially travelers.

Laws that forbid moral behavior should never be enforced.

I absolutely agree with you and I have often advanced this very argument. The answer I always get is "Yes, BUT...."

Anyone can call themselves a Christian, but if you don't follow Christ's precepts to the very best of your ability then you are NOT a Christian, say what you will.

CoastalMaineiac 06-15-2019 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 21695135)
Even if these people were somehow the enemy, offering your enemy food and water is the right thing to do. Only a sociopath worries about allegiances when it comes to helping the sick and dying.

Indeed! If one sees a fellow human being in distress—especially in extreme climates, like the middle of a desert—one offers such assistance as one is able to offer. Failure to do so makes one a rather shitty human being.

I guess we're not supposed to offer help unless it's to the right kinds of people these days. But I've never made a habit of conducting background checks on people before offering to help, so how am I supposed to know who is worthy of being treated as a human being and who am I supposed to treat like dirt?

Like, if I go ice fishing on Long Lake in the dead of winter, and see a Canadian fall through some thin ice, am I to inquire of his immigration status before I try to pull him out of the water and take him someplace to get warm? After all, Canadians are notorious visa overstayers (cite). Or perhaps all would be forgiven, since a typical French Canadian would have the "correct" skin color.

DrFidelius 06-16-2019 07:37 AM

Next up:
Were the authorities too soft on people who violated the Fugitive Slave Act through their so-called "Underground Railroad" known safe spaces.

GreenHell 06-17-2019 05:59 AM

After taking my oath of service, in which I gave my solemn word to fight, die, or even kill to protect the values espoused in the U.S. Constitution and the citizens of this nation, I was educated on a moral responsibility to render needed medical care to all those in need, regardless of uniform or flag. Meaning our troops, enemy troops, non-uniformed combatants, civilians, terrorists, and mercenaries alike. It would scarcely cross my mind that rending medical or nutritive aid to any person would be criminal. Of course, my opinion of the culture and leadership of this country has been significantly degraded in the years since then.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.