Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:17 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I guess I've seen you type "that's not an accurate representation of my argument" so many times, I snapped. Sorry about that, old bean.
No problem!
  #202  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:19 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
But maybe the second issue is a feature not a bug for you, as it requires good people to make a stark choice: no detention at all or the current system.
Those are the only two choices?
  #203  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:21 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Food supplier for Government detention centers-Lucrative
Food supplier for concentration camps-Potential Career Killer

The same goes for construction companies, guard companies, soldiers and(if they have a shred of decency left in their bodies) lawyers.
I'm curious: In your opinion, how can these facilities be fixed in order for you to stop calling them concentration camps?
  #204  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:25 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Those are the only two choices?
Once you take "fix the concentration camps" out, yes. I mean you explicitly said "They are concentration camps that need to be torn down." What are the other choices we have if we accept that the US is running concentration camps?

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-21-2019 at 01:25 PM.
  #205  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:32 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,071
Beds. Blankets. Heat. Medical Care. Toothpaste. Toothbrush. Soap. Due process. Exercise. Let independent investigators in. Turn the fucking lights down at night to allow proper sleep. School for the children. Proper nutrition. Lessening of the constant demonization of those detained.
These steps would be a start in the right direction, but to actually fix this inhuman mess of a situation you have to be willing to examine the reason the are there in the first place.
  #206  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:38 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Once you take "fix the concentration camps" out, yes. I mean you explicitly said "They are concentration camps that need to be torn down." What are the other choices we have if we accept that the US is running concentration camps?
Build detention centers that are designed to temporarily hold those that pose a danger until they can be properly processed. What we have now cannot in my personal opinion be changed into anything close to what human decency demands.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 06-21-2019 at 01:38 PM.
  #207  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:46 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Beds. Blankets. Heat. Medical Care. Toothpaste. Toothbrush. Soap. Due process. Exercise. Let independent investigators in. Turn the fucking lights down at night to allow proper sleep. School for the children. Proper nutrition. Lessening of the constant demonization of those detained.
By the definition in the first link in the first post of this thread, if you did all this, they would still be "concentration camps"
  #208  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:48 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
AFAIK, that is exactly how these buildings were designed -- they just aren't being used that way.
  #209  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:51 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
By the definition in the first link in the first post of this thread, if you did all this, they would still be "concentration camps"
Did you forget the final sentence in that post?
Quote:
These steps would be a start in the right direction, but to actually fix this inhuman mess of a situation you have to be willing to examine the reason the are there in the first place.
  #210  
Old 06-21-2019, 01:54 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
So, there is nothing that can be done to these facilities that would cause you to no longer deem them "concentration camps"?
  #211  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:08 PM
betonbill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 44
I'll take George Takei's word for it (Twitter account). He calls them concentration camps and he should know, since he spent WWII detained in a camp. Furthermore, he states that the conditions he was held in were in many ways better than the current ones.

As far as food goes, why not contract it out to McDonald's? Sounds like they would do a far better job for less money than what is currently being offered. Two bologna sandwiches over four days? Still frozen food or rice? Sounds like an extreme season of Survivor to me.
  #212  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:15 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
So, there is nothing that can be done to these facilities that would cause you to no longer deem them "concentration camps"?
What the fuck would convince you that they are what they are, and that their purpose isn't benign? Our own government is claiming that soap, toothbrushes, beds and blankets aren't necessary for the health and safety of children, that schooling isn't necessary for children, that turning the lights down at night isn't necessary for the health and safety of children, that proper nutrition isn't necessary for the health and safety of children. I am under no obligation to accept the spinned terminology of those that would treat children this way, any more then I would accept the term "discipline" from those who beat spouses, and I certainly wouldn't bother to discuss exactly how hard and where a person can be hit and still fall under the definition of "discipline" especially when the hitting is still going on. Stop this shit before more families are destroyed and more children die, and then we can have a leisurely discussion about what to call these hellholes, o.k.?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 06-21-2019 at 02:16 PM.
  #213  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:20 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...the bunch of people who stop listening to your arguments were never listening to our arguments anyway.



Can you quantify any of this? How do you know that using the word "concentration camp" has not been persuasive? Why are you continuing to argue about the language when I explicitly invited you to talk about the policies that motivated them in the first place?

I'm not stopping you talking about the policies instead of the language. You are the one who is not talking about them.
As far as quantifying the persuasiveness of the term, I could invite you to look at the responses AOC has received, and, you know, most of this thread. Even people who basically agree with you are in here trying to convince you that the term does more harm than good.

But the "they were never listening anyway" comment is kind of hard for me to understand. I mean, don't you want them to? Do you honestly think EVERY person out there already knows all there is to know about this issue? There's nobody who maybe hasn't paid much attention or who might have been getting spoon-fed the other side's talking points? Sure, there certainly are minds completely closed that were never going to listen, but do you think handing those same people an easy way to dismiss you and all your arguments is a wise course of action?

But hey, if you are truly not interested in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you, I will simply leave you to preaching to the choir, shaking your fists at the heavens, or whatever other metaphor you'd like to employ.

Finally, yes I am the one very emphatically and purposefully NOT having an immigration policy debate here. I'm not even remotely interested in having that off-topic discussion. I was offering my opinion on both the substance of the OP, (the effect on Trump's re-election) and the language employed by the OP (and subsequently debated strenuously.)

Last edited by CAH66; 06-21-2019 at 02:20 PM.
  #214  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:29 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
What the fuck would convince you that they are what they are, and that their purpose isn't benign? Our own government is claiming that soap, toothbrushes, beds and blankets aren't necessary for the health and safety of children, that schooling isn't necessary for children, that turning the lights down at night isn't necessary for the health and safety of children, that proper nutrition isn't necessary for the health and safety of children. I am under no obligation to accept the spinned terminology of those that would treat children this way, any more then I would accept the term "discipline" from those who beat spouses, and I certainly wouldn't bother to discuss exactly how hard and where a person can be hit and still fall under the definition of "discipline" especially when the hitting is still going on. Stop this shit before more families are destroyed and more children die, and then we can have a leisurely discussion about what to call these hellholes, o.k.?
I've already listed what would convince me.

But, let's pretend I agree with you. My next question would be (and is) "What can we do with these facilities to stop them be concentration camps"

List the things that need to be done and that if these things were done, you'd stop calling them concentration camps. You've listed a few, sure. But if everything you have already listed was done, these places would still be "concentration camps" as defined by the historians in the first link in this thread.

There doesn't seem to be any way to build a facility that doesn't fall under the definition of "concentration camp" that you guys are using.
  #215  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
You know what, I've come around a bit. I personally think it's better soft peddled as "these are becoming concentration camps" but I no longer think the comparison is out of line. The piling evidence of the disregard for the basic humanity of asylum seekers and immigrants can't be brushed away with budget excuses.
  #216  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:41 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
There doesn't seem to be any way to build a facility that doesn't fall under the definition of "concentration camp" that you guys are using.
Not to speak for them but part of the problem is that it's what they are holding all these people for. Asylum seekers have a legal right to make their petition. There is plenty of evidence that someone following that legal path will show up for court. If nervous at all, we have solid ankle bracelet technology. So, holding all these people in jail seems mighty suspicious. And we aren't talking about a kerfuffle in the Saudi family where we can hold all the suspects in a five star hotel. When you decide you are going to imprison thousand and thousands of people, the conditions are always going to be kinda shitty.
  #217  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:52 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Not to speak for them but part of the problem is that it's what they are holding all these people for. Asylum seekers have a legal right to make their petition. There is plenty of evidence that someone following that legal path will show up for court. If nervous at all, we have solid ankle bracelet technology. So, holding all these people in jail seems mighty suspicious. And we aren't talking about a kerfuffle in the Saudi family where we can hold all the suspects in a five star hotel. When you decide you are going to imprison thousand and thousands of people, the conditions are always going to be kinda shitty.
I'm sure. I'd be fine with tearing it all down and utilizing the system I and others mentioned before: Thanks for applying, here's your court date, here's some numbers of lawyers and charity groups in Mexico to help you, come back on your court date.

There'd be no need for these facilities.
  #218  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:56 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,521
But border crossings are about 1/4 what they were in 2000 when they topped 1.5 million, Manson. Why the sudden shift in policy? What is the actual problem? I doubt you think they are all a bunch of diseased, gang banging rapists asking for asylum.
  #219  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:57 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
They are concentration camps that need to be torn down. Letting them be called anything else allows those that support them to say that the problem isn't as bad as it really is, which isn't what you want, is it? This isn't a time to softpedal what is going on. This isn't a time to make what is actually happening to men, women and children seem less dire than it actually is.
Close the concentration camps.
Ah...I see the disconnect now. Thanks for this post, it helps to see where you are coming from. So, you think that all the holding camps (detention centers, Nazi Concentration Camps(tm...arr), whatever) need to go away. And then what? This doesn't seem like a very good idea, since we still have, you know, thousands of people a day flooding into the US from Central America. What do you propose we do with those people? Even if we want to let them all in, they STILL need to be processed. They need to be vetted, checked for disease, probably given some sort of orientation. Kind of what every other country that is taking in masses of people do all the time. I recall some people calling the current German processing centers for the flood of refugees they were getting from the ME as 'Concentration Camps' too, yet they still had to do it because....reality.

Myself, I think we need to fix the short term issue, not try and do away with it then...something vague. We need those centers. We need them staffed better, funded better, with better facilities and a more streamline processing system. Not like we've never done this sort of thing before...in the past we could take this volume of people (and, guess what? We had processing centers for them to do all that stuff I mentioned). The issue is we are unprepared and no one is discussing the reality of what is needed, logistically, to do this properly. Instead, we are fighting about terms and trying to score points. As you continue to do, instead of talk about real solutions. Because after these sort of band-aid fixes go in (which are going to cost billions btw), we need to address the root cause for all of this and start dealing with the real issue here. This could be a great opportunity for the US, and instead we are fucking up...as usual. And fighting about stupid, silly shit instead of working on solutions.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #220  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:08 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
But border crossings are about 1/4 what they were in 2000 when they topped 1.5 million, Manson. Why the sudden shift in policy? What is the actual problem? I doubt you think they are all a bunch of diseased, gang banging rapists asking for asylum.
Because the administration and the people who voted for him hate poor brown people. I thought that was obvious?
  #221  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
NM, re read

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-21-2019 at 03:12 PM.
  #222  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:11 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Right, but I am speaking to your specific comment that "There doesn't seem to be any way to build a facility that doesn't fall under the definition of "concentration camp" that you guys are using." I'm saying, it's not just the facilities, it's how they're being used. No matter how nice the facilities, shouldn't there be a point where you think "why are we holding all these people in jail?" So you're fine with release with a court date but how not fine are you with holding asylum seekers in jail?
I don't think we should hold asylum seekers in jail. I've never thought that.
  #223  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Right, the reason I retracted that is because I hadn't noticed that you expect asylum seekers to wait on the Mexico side. So you're just abdicating responsibility. No, we shouldn't hold them; that's Mexico's problem.

Last edited by CarnalK; 06-21-2019 at 03:23 PM.
  #224  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:27 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Right, the reason I retracted that is because I hadn't noticed that you expect asylum seekers to wait on the Mexico side. So you're just abdicating responsibility. No, we shouldn't hold them; that's Mexico's problem.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the US had a responsibility to take care of people seeking asylum. Is that common? When someone overseas requests asylum, do we immediately fly them over to the US and take care of them?
  #225  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:36 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
It's not about making me feel better. Know what I want? For someone to actually do something, instead of playing word games.
The grain of truth to the claim you made about the democrats is, well, exactly what I quoted in that Vox article: the words we use matter. They matter for how the debate plays out. They matter for how people see these camps. They matter for whether people consider them worth paying attention to to begin with. Hell, they matter for getting the democrats to pay attention, because, as I keep pointing out, a lot of them just aren't paying attention. Warren is - although to my knowledge she hasn't called them concentration camps, I'd be remiss to discount her consistent activism on this issue. AOC is. Beyond them...

A short, somewhat angry detour, if you would.

SPOILER:
There really aren't that many cases where "do the right thing" and "take partisan advantage of a crisis" are synonymous. "My opponents are doing something truly heinous with the explicit stated purpose of making people suffer" is one of those times. With that in mind, what even the fuck is Nancy Pelosi thinking? No, seriously, what even the fuck? In terms of game theory, it's a terrible idea - Republicans are going to play the "dems are overreacting" card no matter what (and, indeed, no matter how right democrats turn out to be). In terms of actual policy, it's disgusting and insulting.

So yes, I'm a little disappointed with most of the democrats in congress, in the same way a car one drops into the grand canyon is "a little scratched-up".


The fact that historians are coming out and saying, "Yes, these are concentration camps, yes, we know about the comparison to Hitler, yes, we're going to say it anyways" should make us very, very worried. It should be enough to shake things awake.

Here's a short list of things that we shouldn't worry about:
  • Republicans calling us hysterical. As said in my little detour: they're gonna do that no matter what. Hell, a frequent pattern is that the left says, "Trump is going to do this bad thing for reasons X, Y, and Z", the right says, "Pfft, hysterical liberals, at it again," and then Trump, like clockwork, does the bad thing. (At which point republicans then say, "It's not really the bad thing you predicted, it's something different, you're still being hysterical.") Republicans constantly and consistently scream about "Trump Derangement Syndrome" as a catchall defense for literally any claim the left makes, and even if they didn't, it would be a bad reason for us to hold back when the facts are on our side.
  • Seeming pedantic. The accusation of pedantry is transparently bullshit here. You all have seen it throughout the thread - "Why are you so insistent on calling them concentration camps" is easily countered by pointing out any given bit of the material conditions on the ground and asking, "What would you have us call them, and why are you trying to minimize this?" This is not a losing argument. The words we use matter. "transitory detention camps" makes it sound like the administration is keeping a bunch of immigrants in temporary holding cells (implied here: safe, sanitary conditions) while they're processed. "concentration camp" makes it sound like people crammed in wall to wall in unsafe, unsanitary conditions, dying of medical neglect, with no expectation of due process or Habeus Corpus. That matters, because the latter is a hell of a lot closer to the truth than the former, and people instinctively grok that.
  • "They're not concentration camps though". They are. Barring some wave of historians coming forward and saying, "no, that's not appropriate", there really is very close to a unified front among the relevant experts: what we have here are concentration camps. They are not yet extermination camps, and hopefully it will never come to that.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-21-2019 at 03:37 PM.
  #226  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the US had a responsibility to take care of people seeking asylum. Is that common? When someone overseas requests asylum, do we immediately fly them over to the US and take care of them?
If someone from Belarus flew into New York and claimed asylum, what do you think would happen? Do you think he'd be given paperwork and put on the next plane back? Do you think he would be put in a holding area until his asylum status came through?
  #227  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:41 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,861
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sorry, I wasn't aware that the US had a responsibility to take care of people seeking asylum. Is that common? When someone overseas requests asylum, do we immediately fly them over to the US and take care of them?
By that argument why should Mexico be responsible for them? Most of these people aren't from Mexico, they're from other countries and just passing through Mexico.
  #228  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:57 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Why yes, it is more important to use the correct terms to discuss human rights abuses, because euphemistic language is one of the key tools used by those who would abuse others to mask the depths of the harm being done, thank you for grasping the gist of what the historian I quoted said, octopus. Not sure why you find it funny. That's explicitly not me asking for an explanation, mind you, I think we just find very different things funny. I like Bo Burnham, you like kids in cages, nothing wrong with that.



Let's not let them control the conversation. Accurately describing the abuses in question are "humpty-dumptyism" to him. What more need be said?
Instead of being outraged at states, cities, and nutty politicians encouraging this flood of immigration with endorsement of de facto open border policies you all are outraged at the admittedly rough response. What did you think would happen when the numbers got very large? Permanent demographic change or a backlash? Well the west is providing a backlash.

Last edited by octopus; 06-21-2019 at 03:57 PM.
  #229  
Old 06-21-2019, 03:59 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Instead of being outraged at states, cities, and nutty politicians encouraging this flood of immigration with endorsement of de facto open border policies you all are outraged at the admittedly rough response. What did you think would happen when the numbers got very large? Permanent demographic change or a backlash? Well the west is providing a backlash.
Anyone else hearing an exasperated Oliver Hardy saying "Now look what you made me do!"?
  #230  
Old 06-21-2019, 05:33 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
By that argument why should Mexico be responsible for them? Most of these people aren't from Mexico, they're from other countries and just passing through Mexico.
Luckily, I never said Mexico should be responsible for them.
  #231  
Old 06-21-2019, 05:37 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
If someone from Belarus flew into New York and claimed asylum, what do you think would happen? Do you think he'd be given paperwork and put on the next plane back? Do you think he would be put in a holding area until his asylum status came through?
If they are flying into New York from Belarus, they already have a visa to be in the US.
  #232  
Old 06-21-2019, 05:42 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,861
Actually, people DO manage to stow away on airplanes even in this day and age of security theater. So no, not always.
  #233  
Old 06-21-2019, 05:44 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
The, um, international linguistic experts have been weighing in on this as an exact definition of 'Concentration Camps'? Just for shits and giggles, I looked up the definition:
...that isn't the definition. Its a definition. There are plenty of others.

And that definition absolutely fits what is happening in the camps.

"a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz."

I've bolded the qualifiers it appears that you missed. "Forced labor" or "mass executions" are not explicit parts of the definition. And while it is "strongly associated" with Nazi Germany, it isn't an essential part of the definition. So what we are left with is:

"a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities"

How does that definition not explicitly cover what is happening in the camps?

Quote:
Yeah, your experts really need to work on this. I'm looking over several definitions of the term and, you know, none of they really fit.
The one that you cited absolutely fits. It isn't the experts that need to work on this.

Quote:
All of them mention the basic points above.
All of the ones that I looked at have exactly the same qualifiers as the definition you cited.

Quote:
So...yeah, it's political. There aren't any people " who are qualified to speak on the matter have been calling them concentration camps" because that isn't even a thing.
LOL.

This thread has cited holocaust experts and Japanese-Americans who were interned by the American government who have been saying that yes, "this is a thing." This isn't political. Only one politician has spoken out on this.

Quote:
Sure it is, chief.
I'm glad you agree.

Quote:
He...heheheh.....BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA! Seriously? You thought I was using an exact term? Perhaps you thought I got that from the counter linguistic group to the experts you think are weighing in on this saying these are definitely Concentration Camps? Good grief. Yeah man...I made that up. I took a real thing (i.e. detention camps') and put 'transitory' in front of it because, you know, they ARE transitory. We aren't putting these people in these camps on a permanent basis...kind of what makes them NOT Concentration Camps (well, one of a host of things).
Yes it matters.

Because like it or not you are guilty of the "linguistic trick" that you are claiming the people using concentration camp are guilty of. Calling them "transitory detention camps" is exactly the same thing as China rebranding Muslim concentration camps as either "re-education camps" or "transformation camps". And Chinese authorities use exactly the same justification as you do. They literally are "re-educating people." They are "transforming people." Just like this. The Chinese authorities aren't putting people in the camps on a permanent basis. They even let them go home once a week.

Its deliberate spin to make the camps sound "not so bad." Its propaganda. Its Orwellian.

Quote:
They are there merely until we can ship them back to their home countries. I seem to recall the average is around 90 days.
What you recall is irrelevant. And what you recall is pretty meaningless. It may well have been 90 days many years ago. But the system right now is so utterly broken that they were separating parent and child with no system in place to put them together again after the "process" was over. I don't trust the system, and neither should you.

Quote:
Well, what exactly are you asking me to cite here? I didn't say the conditions were good or that families weren't being 'seperated'(sic) or that the process for seeking asylum had bee changed. You made all that up, so I don't feel compelled to defend any of that horseshit.
Asking you questions is not "making all that up."

You asserted:

"See, folks go into them...and get processed pretty much as quickly as they can and sent back where they came from. And then, in many cases, try to come back again, and are detained again."

My questions were:

"Are you just regurgitating government propaganda or can you back any of this up? How quickly are they being processed, and what are the conditions they are being held in? Are families still being seperated? Has the process to seek asylum changed?"

How quickly they are processed and the conditions they are being held in are absolutely relevant to your assertion. Here's a story about a professor who accidentally stumbled across "migrants who said they’d been held outdoors for weeks as temperatures rose to nearly 100 degrees."

“They told me they’ve been incarcerated outside for a month, that they haven’t washed or been able to change the clothes they were detained in the entire time, and that they’re being poorly fed and treated in general.”

When you say they are "processed quickly": is it still "quick" if they are being held in an outdoor pen for 30 days without the ability to have a wash or change their clothes? Is this the process you were thinking of or maybe the process has changed and you just didn't know it? My questions were absolutely fucking relevant to what you asserted.

Quote:
Are you what you quoted there was that there have been repeat people caught (i.e. they were caught, sent back, and caught trying again). Do you want me to cite that? I'm happy to though you can easily google that yourself, and you can even use not government sources if you like.
It would be actually great if you could cite exactly what is going on at the borders right now. But you won't be able too. Because despite your assertions we really don't know what is happening. We don't know where all the camps are. We only see what is happening in the camps in carefully orchestrated visits and even those visits reveal horror stories.

So yes, please, cite away.


Quote:
I read the cites. I'm unconvinced, especially since most of the ones I've seen have a pretty obvious political ax to grind.
Which ones in particular?

Quote:
It is, I concede debatable. But I think it's wrong to go there. It detracts from actual concentration camps in the past and dilutes the meaning...and, really, as I've said, it's more about scoring points than anything. One could talk about the horrible conditions in the detention camps on the border without using the deliberately charged language.
People have been FUCKING SCREAMING about the horrible conditions in the detention camps on the border for the last fucking year. Nobody was fucking listening to them. Nothing has changed in the border camps this week. The only thing that changed this week was the language used to describe them.

Quote:
Also, I don't see AOC or anyone else actually doing squat about it.
AOC has done more to bring attention to the issue than anyone else on the Dems side. In a single tweet she bought this issue back into the limelight.

Quote:
I did a quick search, and I don't see any large appropriations being requested to alleviate the issue.
Money isn't needed to fix the problem.

Quote:
Basically, the issue isn't that the US is evil,
Let me stop you right there.

Stephen Miller is fucking evil. He's a white supremacist who hates brown and black people and almost everything that is happening right now can be laid directly at his feet.

Quote:
it's that there have been a flood of refugees from central America (not Mexico) that have overwhelmed the system.
Holy fuck. Do you actually believe this?

There was a system in place to "deal with the flood." It was imperfect. Executive orders in 2017 changed everything. Incarcerations went up. John Kelly was directed to stop "catch and release." New detention centers were built.

This wasn't an accident. This was deliberate.

Quote:
We literally are having logistics issues feeding, housing and processing so many people trying to flood into the US. Money, facilities, personnel need to be expanded...rapidly. Show me someone doing that and focused on that, instead of focused on fucking work games and scoring who is the Nazi points and I'll take things more seriously.
Border crossings are at a record low. " Illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border are at their lowest levels in nearly 50 years." You don't need more facilities. You simply need to revert to what was being done before the Trump administration changed everything.

This is a manufactured crisis. The cruelty is the point.

Quote:
No chief, I won't. For one thing, it's clear you haven't got a fucking clue WHERE I stand on this. Just reading your post is bemusing to me as you have no idea.
I actually do have an idea. But you've made it clear you don't have a fucking clue how much things have changed over the last couple of years, so I can only suggest you start paying closer attention.

Quote:
For another, no one is covering themselves with glory here. The Dems in the obvious attempt to play with words and score points aren't...they are, IMHO, hurting the cause and worsening the situation, not helping.

The Pubs, of course, are fucking clueless idiots and aren't doing shit about it. And, so, nothing is being done on the scale it needs to. Both sides are fucking up...as usual.
Here's the actual real problem.

The boiling frog.


The America you think you are living in and the America you are actually living in right now are two different things. I implore you to look more closely at what is going on at the borders. Because what you imagine is going on and what is actually going on are completely different things.
  #234  
Old 06-21-2019, 05:47 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Actually, people DO manage to stow away on airplanes even in this day and age of security theater. So no, not always.
Ok. If someone stows away on an airplane and makes it to the US, I concede that we should take care of that person until his/her application is approved or denied. We should provide that person with $5000 a month in tax-free income during that period.

  #235  
Old 06-21-2019, 05:49 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Strange, since I pulled that definition from the link that iiandyiiii provided in post #91.
...that wasn't a "definition." That was a discussion on wiki on how "the term "concentration camp" today is sometimes conflated with the concept of "extermination camp" . Congrats on completely missing the point of what was on the link.
  #236  
Old 06-21-2019, 05:52 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Money isn't needed to fix the problem.
What do you mean by this? Of course money is needed. Can't get toiletries, food, and additional space without money.
  #237  
Old 06-21-2019, 05:54 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...that wasn't a "definition." That was a discussion on wiki on how "the term "concentration camp" today is sometimes conflated with the concept of "extermination camp"
No it wasn't. Perhaps you should read it again?
  #238  
Old 06-21-2019, 06:12 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
What do you mean by this? Of course money is needed. Can't get toiletries, food, and additional space without money.
...of course money is needed. But money won't fix the problem. The current administration argued in court that "shorter-term immigration detention did not require soap or toothbrushes." Money won't provide something the administration asserts that it doesn't need to provide.

Quote:
No it wasn't. Perhaps you should read it again?
Perhaps you should read it again?
  #239  
Old 06-21-2019, 06:16 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...of course money is needed. But money won't fix the problem. The current administration argued in court that "shorter-term immigration detention did not require soap or toothbrushes." Money won't provide something the administration asserts that it doesn't need to provide
Then, in your opinion, what WILL fix the problem? What concrete, measurable actions do you think can be taken in order to fix the problem? Actions that don't require money.
  #240  
Old 06-21-2019, 06:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
If they are flying into New York from Belarus, they already have a visa to be in the US.
You don'tseem to realize that numerous countries don't require a visa to visit the United States.
  #241  
Old 06-21-2019, 06:52 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You don'tseem to realize that numerous countries don't require a visa to visit the United States.
So what? The specified country was Belarus.

*sigh

In the more general case, if they are on a plane to the US, they already have permission to be in the US.

(stowaways aside)
  #242  
Old 06-21-2019, 06:57 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAH66 View Post
As far as quantifying the persuasiveness of the term, I could invite you to look at the responses AOC has received, and, you know, most of this thread. Even people who basically agree with you are in here trying to convince you that the term does more harm than good.
...so maybe six people on this messageboard disagree? What does that tell us?

Quote:
But the "they were never listening anyway" comment is kind of hard for me to understand. I mean, don't you want them to? Do you honestly think EVERY person out there already knows all there is to know about this issue? There's nobody who maybe hasn't paid much attention or who might have been getting spoon-fed the other side's talking points? Sure, there certainly are minds completely closed that were never going to listen, but do you think handing those same people an easy way to dismiss you and all your arguments is a wise course of action?
Its not a matter of "what I want to do."

Over the last 15 years society has evolved to the point where most of us personally curate our news and information. This is what Donald Trump sees on his twitter feed. He see's people that agrees with him. People that he agrees with.

And to a degree this is something that nearly all of us do. I don't watch Fox news. I don't follow people I hate on twitter or facebook. My worldview is shaped by the people I do follow and the news that I do read.

What that means is that when AOC or Donald Trump says something, how people will receive that message will be filtered by whatever channels a person is following. What AOC says is filtered through Sean Hannity. So no: they "aren't listening anyway." You can moderate your tone: you can try to appeal to them, but that does two things: it weakens you message and your position, and the 'gatekeepers' won't let your message get through to them anyway.

The best way to reach these people is by osmosis. So you don't moderate your tone, moderate your message. You get your message out to the people within your circles of influence. Then you let those people dilute that message so that more people understand it, and come to embrace it. That is exactly what is happening in this thread.

Quote:
But hey, if you are truly not interested in convincing anyone who doesn't already agree with you, I will simply leave you to preaching to the choir, shaking your fists at the heavens, or whatever other metaphor you'd like to employ.
In case you actually hadn't noticed: there are people who have participated in this thread who have changed their minds.

Quote:
Finally, yes I am the one very emphatically and purposefully NOT having an immigration policy debate here. I'm not even remotely interested in having that off-topic discussion. I was offering my opinion on both the substance of the OP, (the effect on Trump's re-election) and the language employed by the OP (and subsequently debated strenuously.)
You are complaining about a problem that you continue to contribute too.
  #243  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:01 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I don't watch Fox news. I don't follow people I hate on twitter or facebook. My worldview is shaped by the people I do follow and the news that I do read.
Perhaps you should? I mean, isn't this the definition of "living in a bubble"?
  #244  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:02 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Then, in your opinion, what WILL fix the problem? What concrete, measurable actions do you think can be taken in order to fix the problem? Actions that don't require money.
...my comment was specific to the assertions that there have been no "large appropriations" to "deal with the horrible conditions." I'm not asserting that "actions won't require money." I'm stating that "large appropriations" are not a metric that shows us that anything has been done.

As for what the fix is?

You can't fix anything unless you can acknowledge that there is something that needs to be fixed. So the first step needs to be to bring the subject into the spotlight, to challenge the administration's propaganda campaign. To stop things getting even worse.

The Trump administration can't be taken in good faith. So this is a battle that must be played out on multiple fronts. Lawsuits. Impeachment. Hearings. Taking to the streets. Quality investigative reporting. Are you looking for a simple fix for a complex problem? I'm afraid that I don't have enough time in my day to even address that. I'll do what I can from my little island on the other side of the world: and that is to call out obvious propaganda as propaganda.
  #245  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:10 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Perhaps you should? I mean, isn't this the definition of "living in a bubble"?
...I do read and listen to people that I disagree with say. I just don't follow them on social media. I don't need my feed clogged with opinions that I consider to be racist, misogynistic, and hateful. I watch relevant snippets of Fox news when I need too. I consider Chris Wallace to be an exceptional journalist even though I disagree with his personal politics, and I don't hesitate to watch his interviews when they pop up on youtube. But I don't sit myself down and watch Fox news as part of my regular TV viewing.

I take significant action to "break out of my bubble" whilst doing my best to not hurt my mental health. My point isn't that "I'm not in a bubble." I fairly acknowledge that I am. My point is that we are all in a bubble, and its a bubble of our own creation. Understanding that is my point.
  #246  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:13 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...my comment was specific to the assertions that there have been no "large appropriations" to "deal with the horrible conditions." I'm not asserting that "actions won't require money." I'm stating that "large appropriations" are not a metric that shows us that anything has been done.

As for what the fix is?

You can't fix anything unless you can acknowledge that there is something that needs to be fixed. So the first step needs to be to bring the subject into the spotlight, to challenge the administration's propaganda campaign. To stop things getting even worse.

The Trump administration can't be taken in good faith. So this is a battle that must be played out on multiple fronts. Lawsuits. Impeachment. Hearings. Taking to the streets. Quality investigative reporting. Are you looking for a simple fix for a complex problem? I'm afraid that I don't have enough time in my day to even address that. I'll do what I can from my little island on the other side of the world: and that is to call out obvious propaganda as propaganda.
Sorry but your direct quote was "Money isn't needed to fix the problem"

These issues HAVE been acknowledged. How can we "stop things from getting worse"?

How are lawsuits, impeachment, and hearings going to help people suffering right this very minute? How is the months-long impeachment process going to "stop things from getting worse"? How are years of hearings going to "stop things from getting worse"?

It seems like you have no ideas, actions, or plans that will fix the issue. You have "some things that might happen in some future, maybe".

That's a load of crap. What do you have right here and right now that you think we should start doing immediately to alleviate the problems that do not require money?

If you have nothing, than just say that - "I think conditions there are horrible, inhumane, and need to change, but I can't think of anything that will fix the issues"

Then we can all just agree with you.
  #247  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:17 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I do read and listen to people that I disagree with say.
Well, you said you don't watch Fox News, so maybe you should. It's the epitome of conservative thought. Knowing that is a good thing. I mock them daily.
  #248  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:26 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Sorry but your direct quote was "Money isn't needed to fix the problem"
...sorry but I've clarified my direct quote. Is there anything about my clarification that you need clarification on?

Quote:
These issues HAVE been acknowledged. How can we "stop things from getting worse"?
No they haven't. Read the fucking thread.

Quote:
How are lawsuits, impeachment, and hearings going to help people suffering right this very minute?
They aren't.

Quote:
How is the months-long impeachment process going to "stop things from getting worse"? How are years of hearings going to "stop things from getting worse"?
Because impeachment is the legislative tool that congress has to levels charges against a government official. The process of bringing the administration to account has to start somewhere.

Quote:
It seems like you have no ideas, actions, or plans that will fix the issue. You have "some things that might happen in some future, maybe".

That's a load of crap. What do you have right here and right now that you think we should start doing immediately to alleviate the problems that do not require money?

If you have nothing, than just say that - "I think conditions there are horrible, inhumane, and need to change, but I can't think of anything that will fix the issues"

Then we can all just agree with you.
Holy fucking strawman batman. You didn't ask for "an immediate fix." I posted ideas, actions and plans to address the issue. But you want me to provide an immediate "fix" for a problem that at its heart is the belief in white supremacy?

You want an immediate fix? Fire Stephen Miller.

Quote:
Well, you said you don't watch Fox News, so maybe you should. It's the epitome of conservative thought. Knowing that is a good thing. I mock them daily.
I suppose this explains why your debate style appears to be "arguing for the sake of arguing." Perhaps you need to stop watching Fox News.
  #249  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:36 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
No they haven't. Read the fucking thread
I have. I don't see anyone saying there isn't a problem. Can you point out any posts that say that?

Quote:
You want an immediate fix? Fire Stephen Miller
Firing Stephen Miller will improve the conditions at these places? I don't see how?

Quote:
I suppose this explains why your debate style appears to be "arguing for the sake of arguing." Perhaps you need to stop watching Fox News.
I don't see how "Asking someone who is complaining about something to give solutions to a problem that are concrete and measurable instead of vague processes that take years to resolve" is "arguing for the sake of arguing"

I'll make it easy for you: what do you think should be done in the next 7 days, 30 days, 6 months, 1 year to alleviate the suffering in the facilities? I'll make you a nice table, just fill it in with your ideas:
  • 7 days -
  • 30 days -
  • 6 months -
  • 1 year -
  #250  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:57 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I have. I don't see anyone saying there isn't a problem. Can you point out any posts that say that?
...people, including you, are failing to acknowledge the scale of the problem.

Quote:
Firing Stephen Miller will improve the conditions at these places? I don't see how?
Then perhaps you need to do some more research on how we actually got to where we are.

Quote:
I don't see how "Asking someone who is complaining about something to give solutions to a problem that are concrete and measurable instead of vague processes that take years to resolve" is "arguing for the sake of arguing"
Because the Trump administration are the only people with the power to resolve this in any measurable or concrete way. The only way for people outside of the administration to make change is to use the system to hold the administration to account.

Quote:
I'll make it easy for you: what do you think should be done in the next 7 days, 30 days, 6 months, 1 year to alleviate the suffering in the facilities? I'll make you a nice table, just fill it in with your ideas:
  • 7 days -
  • 30 days -
  • 6 months -
  • 1 year -
I'm not your fucking monkey and I'm not going to be held to a higher standard than you expect of your elected officials. Why aren't you holding congress to account? Why aren't you demanding that they give you these answers, why aren't you picking up the phone and demanding they meet your timelines?

The simple fix for a rational administration: re implement catch and release. Let them go. Close most of the camps and bring the remaining ones up to a defined, minimum standard and open them up to oversight. Done and dusted in 30 days. But this isn't a rational administration. So what answer are you really after?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 AM.

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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017