Huh? I’m not interested in talking to people who knowingly use hateful language. How is that a tactic?
Why is “illegals” okay for people that you think it’s accurate for (but not others), but “wetback” is not okay for people dripping water from swimming a river? What’s the difference?
If somebody blandly uses the term “wetback” to describe some guy who literally has a wet back – and you note that said term typically gets used not to literally refer to folks with literal wet backs, but to figuratively imply ‘here illegally’ – they can say “oh, gosh, I didn’t know that; mea culpa; I didn’t mean to figuratively imply the other thing; I was just going for the literal meaning.”
By contrast, if I blandly use the term “illegal” – and you point out that said term is typically used to refer to folks who are, literally, here illegally – I’m going to blink and say, “uh, yeah; that literal meaning is what I was trying to convey; I wasn’t going for a figurative meaning, I was in fact going for the literal one; and, hey, thanks for confirming that said literal meaning is coming across.”
Doesn’t matter the intent, slurs are slurs. “Accuracy” doesn’t come into play with slurs, even if the words had or have non - slur uses in other contexts.
So you’re fine with using slurs. That’s what I’m getting from this. You try to rationalize and justify, but it’s still just because you want to use this slur. I think that’s just as shitty as trying to insist it’s okay to call people wetback, or jungle bunny, or chink, or a dozen other slurs.
I guess we’re done here. IMO, there’s no justification for using slurs. Doesn’t matter if you think it’s “accurate” any more than when Clothahump says his usage of wetback is accurate. You know that lots of people see “illegals”, when used as a noun to describe people, as a slur, but you’re still fine with it.
Go ahead and be shitty if you want. I prefer not to use hateful language. It’s pretty damn easy, too.
I’m not talking about “other contexts”. There may well be folks who accurately say ‘wetbacks’ when referring to people who actually have wet backs – but who, despite trying to point at that literal context, figuratively convey something else entirely. I’m not playing some kind of equivocation game; I’m doing the opposite.
I’m not saying “no, see, in another context it’d mean something else.” I’m flatly saying “yes, the illegality is exactly what I wanted to convey.”
It doesn’t matter what you want to convey when you use slurs. Doesn’t matter for wetback, doesn’t matter for chink, and doesn’t matter here. It’s still a slur, no matter what you wanted to convey.
Surely? Ask octopus et al if they’d trade Drumpf for any of the (D) candidates, or if they’d prefer a Pelosi-Schumer Congress instead of the Ryan-Hannity Congress.
***In fact, a majority of Republicans would cheerfully vote to re-elect the guy even now. *** This simple fact makes the idea of intelligent discourse with Republicans laughable.
Look, if someone wanted to convey that The Guy Over There Has A Wet Back, but instead thereby conveyed Not The Literal Meaning But The Figure Of Speech, then, sure, I get that it makes sense to explain to him that, hey, it doesn’t matter what, precisely, you wanted to convey; you’re getting something else across.
But I’m not trying to convey The Folks Who Have Glowing Toes, or something, and then getting all upset when you say that actually implies Something Else; rather, I’m trying to convey Hey, I Mean This Specific Set Of People – and, near as I can tell, it gets across: Oh, You Mean The Folks Who Are, Literally, Here Illegally.
It is, as I keep saying, like when I use the term “convicted felons”: I mean to convey that the crime in question was a felony and that a criminal conviction ensued – and you say that’s not a slur, just like how that term gets across exactly what I wanted: Oh, You Mean The Folks Who Are, Literally, Convicted Felons. It’s like when I say “pineapple”: it’s not that I’m trying to convey the surface meaning while futilely hoping people don’t think I’m implying something else; it’s that, as if by magic, they get that I said “pineapple” because Oh, You Literally Mean ‘Pineapple’.
This isn’t your contrived “jungle bunny” example – where a guy maybe means to convey X, or only pretends to mean to convey X, but either way only manages to convey Y; I say X when I mean to convey X, and – does anyone hear Y?
Take you: you lob the word ‘shitty’ in my direction a lot – and that’s fine. I won’t compare you to someone who sends honeyed words my way but clearly wants shittiness to get inferred; you’re not, like, playing some game where you pretend you’re paying me a compliment based around the beneficial properties of manure; you have something in mind, and you say it, and it gets across.
Because of course it does. It’s like claiming that what someone is doing is illegal: it doesn’t have to mean something else, it simply – is.
Whatever you’re responding to, it has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. Slurs are slurs, whatever your intent. Whatever you’re trying to convey, it doesn’t matter when you choose to use a slur.
Said it over and over again, but it doesn’t matter. I think it’s shitty to do so, and I’ve said why. There’s no justification or rationalization for using slurs, whatever the slur is.
Go ahead and do shitty things, not the end of the world. Just remember that you’re using a word - an adjective that has been twisted into a noun slur - that has made little kids feel bad about who they are, and some of those kids, or others, may hear you next time you use that slur.
You must not watch much adult comedy or listen to practically any rap.
That said, language control and demonizing those who use particular language is an Orwellian tactic that is shamefully used by far too many.
So-called Drumpf? He identifies as a Trump. That should be respected.
Would I trade for a political landscape that would fill the courts with liberal judges? No. Nor would most on the right. Trump’s biggest impact is going to be shaping the judiciary.
I’m a big fan of comedy and hip hop. Doesn’t have anything to do with my points.
And I’m sorry that you feel the need to control my language, but I’m going to call out behavior I see as shitty when I see it. If that makes you feel like becoming an Orwellian, that’s your issue, not mine. People are free to be shitty, and I’m free to call them shitty. You’re free to make silly claims about Orwell too, if you want; that’s your business.
But your whole position in this thread begs the central question: who gets to define what a slur is?
Sure, there are some things where we can just about all agree that it’s a slur. But there are gray areas here, and I’d be interested to know how it is that you come to a conclusion that a particular word qualifies to be included in this category of language. Is it sufficient for somebody to say that it offends them? Does it require a particular critical mass of people? Is it simply a word that you decide is a slur, based on your own sense of what is right and wrong?
It’s also not particularly clear to me, from your discussions in this thread, whether you attach the label slur only to the use of “illegal” as a noun, or whether you would also attach it to the adjective-noun combination “illegal immigrant.” Because some of the analysis I have seen of this issue on the internet draws a distinction between these two uses, arguing that “illegal” is a slur, but" illegal immigrant" is not as problematic.
There are, of course, those who believe that “illegal immigrant” is also something of a slur, although there are differences of opinion over this. Some defend the term, arguing that it is a reasonable descriptor, while others argue that it still places an unacceptably negative connotation upon the people it is used to refer to.
I understand this argument, and in some respects I sympathize with it, but, as I said earlier in the thread, I’m not really sure it’s the hill that I would want to die on in this debate. I don’t think that everyone who uses the term “illegal immigrant” is doing so in a pejorative sense, or with an intent to injure or insult, and I think that accusing anyone who uses it of having uttered a slur is, at the very least, being rather hyperbolic. I think that many see it as a reasonably valid blanket descriptor of people who are in the country without legal authorization to be here, whether they entered without any authorization whatsoever, or came legally but overstayed their legal term of admission.
Personally, I tend to use “undocumented immigrant” or “unauthorized immigrant.”
Still, i find your rather dogmatic insistence on defining what is a slur to be rather unproductive. Even more strange is your apparent belief that all things that you decide are slurs are, in some sense, equally offensive. If you can’t see the difference between calling someone a wetback and calling them an illegal, or an illegal immigrant, then you’re not as perceptive or as sophisticated a thinker as I always assumed you were.
Of all the things you might say about this sociopathic child-raping buffoon, you’re concerned that I disrespected his name.
I think you’ve proven the point I made in the post to which you respond.
I’m talking about illegal as a noun. In my understanding, the adjective form used with immigrant is not a slur (slurs are defined by usage, like any word, and in my understanding the noun usage is usually used and perceived as a slur, unlike the adjective), though some find it obnoxious or imprecise.
As for the rest, there’s a lot of nuance here, and I’m fine with the idea that some slurs may be worse than others. That doesn’t really conflict with anything I’ve said. I just think it’s shitty to use slurs to describe people. Maybe it’s more of less shitty depending on the slur; I don’t know.
I know you read better than that. Stop being silly. And yes comedy and hip hop have a lot to do with your “points.” For one the fact that you are being intellectually inconsistent and you hold people, depending on your whim, to different standards.
Stop being silly? After you. Feel free to stop with the silly Orwell nonsense, when all I’m doing is saying something is shitty.
As for different standards: yes, using colloquial slang (which sometimes sound similar to slurs but are used entirely differently) should be held to a different standard, as should satire, when compared to the serious description and categorization of people using slurs.
Conservatives and liberals both run their mouths about a constitution that’s been obsolete since 1830 and needs to either be totally thrown out and redone, or at least rewritten and amended for modernity. Leftists actually acknowledge the latter.
Conservatives love to talk up “Judeo-Christian values” as they tell the less fortunate to just die for lack of health care and starve in the streets. Liberals handle this situation with kid gloves. Leftists call them out as they need to be.
Conservatives think that criticizing a country for being a dystopian hell that needs fixing is being “unpatriotic”. Liberals call them out but still fall for the “America is so awesome” line. Leftists cut the bullshit and tell it like it is - that America is a shithole to be condemned until there’s sustainability and justice for all and the country is worthy of pride.
Conservatives tend to be neofeudalists. Liberals tend to be neofeudalists with a friendly smile. Leftists realize that it’s not 1230 anymore and that feudalism of any sort is bullshit.
Conservatives believe that dark people are cool so long as we don’t rock the boat and ask politely as we get gunned down by a cop for jaywalking. Liberals run their mouths but don’t stand up for racial equality as much as they need to. Leftists are 100% behind true justice.
Conservatives believe opportunity is only for the privileged. Liberals believe opportunity is only for the privileged, and for the underprivileged - so long as cameras are rolling. Leftists are for equality of opportunity, period, cameras or not. (No one is talking about “equality of outcome”.)
Conservatives believe that letting people spew anything, no matter how hateful and uncontributory, is a-okay. Liberals believe the same damn thing but justify it as “countering speech with speech”. Leftists are all about an open, positive discourse that is respectful of everyone’s human rights, no mess allowed.
Conservatives believe that society is a bad thing. Liberals run their mouths about society, but ain’t for it in practice. Leftists are all about society, seeing as how we’re, y’know, social animals.
There, fixed it.
I hate to have to deliver such a low blow, but you’re drifting into BigT territory with this attitude that you have the standing to declare which words are or aren’t permissible, and that anyone who feels disagrees is ipso-facto some variant of asshole. You’re also into BigT territory with your stated intention to attack (i.e., "call out) anyone who uses words you have presumed to declare are ‘slurs’ and declare them to be shitty people or accuse them of using shitty words.
It’s been my experience by far that when people use the term ‘illegals’, they use it in a conversational way as the subject being addressed (i.e., “The country needs to address the problem of illegal immigrants” or “Vote for me and I’ll do something about the illegal immigrant problem”, or, “There are too many illegal immigrants in this country”, or even “Hell no, I don’t think illegal immigrants should get welfare benefits”. Same with ‘illegals’, which is just shorthand for illegal immigrant. In none of these cases is the term being used as a ‘slur’.
Now you may prefer terms like “undocumented immigrant” but to me that just raises the question, why are they undocumented? And the answer of course is that in virtually all cases, they’ve decided to break the law by coming here or staying here illegally, so we’re right back to illegals as a descriptor because ‘undocumented’ draws attention to that very fact.
Now you may not like it, and you may decide to follow through with you plan to point out as ‘shitty’ everyone you see use the term, but trying to boss people around and insist they use certain words simply because you’ve decided on your own that the alternative is a slur is shitty behavior as well, and you’re likely to be told so in no uncertain terms.
Anyone who thinks this country is a ‘dystopian hell’ should travel back in time a bit and spend some time in one of the countries taken over by communism, or as I like to call it, liberalism writ large. That there’s some dystopia for ya! Liberal ideas and liberal goals have created more death and misery over the last hundred years than any other ideology or form of government, and they’ve failed so badly every single time that governments based on them eventually gravitated back to some form of capitalism and greater freedom for their prisoner…uh, citizens.
The idea that this country is some sort of dystopian hell would be laughable if it weren’t so eye-rollingly ridiculous.
Probably not, when trolling asshats such as **Clothahump **find obvious caricatures of both sides that would require several gallons of special Kool-Aid to believe, and spread them around as “debates” as though they had any intention other than pissing people off…
And this is actually the norm for a lot of “news” sources.
I’m amazed that this thread got to 400 posts in one week, but that’s kind of an answer in and of itself. We have one thing in common: we all hate assholes who just want to see the world burn and hide behind the dried up horseshit in the OP. It’s the standard Fox News tactic for introducing something that’s completely false and repugnant and shrugging … “What? We’re not saying this, we’re just saying people are asking questions.”