Well, look, there’s a poster in this very thread who described me as “a coward”. It seems it would’ve been just as easy to use the “cowardly” adjective – but, for some reason, oh, gosh, oh, golly: noun. And yet you didn’t say a word.
Do you recommend avoiding that noun, in favor of the adjective? Heck, should I feel insulted by one, but not the other? If somebody says “you’re subhuman,” well, that’s just an adjective and no big deal – but “you’re a subhuman,” them’s fighting words because now we’ve finally crossed over into noun territory?
The key thing you mention is the commonality of use and understanding. Clearly some terms meet this criteria and others don’t. It seems you believe that “illegal” or “illegal immigrant” fall into this category. It’s not something you as an individual get to decide - some critical mass of society needs to get on board with your position for it to carry the same negative connotations as other slurs. Perhaps this will happen in the future, but perhaps not. I do not think we in general are there yet. Acting as if we are when your audience doesn’t agree can be offputting.
Personally I avoid it unless I am aware of specific illegal acts. But since being undocumented is not illegal per se, in cases where I don’t know I try to use more neutral language. But that’s not because it can be a slur, it’s because I don’t know and it can be a distraction.
I don’t think it rises nearly to the level of a slur, even if some people intend it that way.
I don’t think a critical mass of society decides what is, or isn’t, a slur. Rather, it’s the people it’s applied to. The vast majority of people in the U.S. are probably fine with the name Washington Redskins. Most people won’t be offended by it because they know it doesn’t apply to them. If you want to know if it’s an insult, ask a Native American if he, or she, feels insulted.
I don’t know who came up with that name, or when. Hell, it was probably meant as a compliment, since football teams are usually named for symbols of strength and toughness. They may have had he best of intentions, but that’s not the final word on how it’s used. It’s a slur if the person you’re talking about feels insulted and degraded by it. Once we know that, how we respond is up to us.
No idea what this has to do with what I’ve said so far. “Coward” is obviously an insult, whether as a noun or adjective. Slurs are usually (or maybe always?) insulting, but not all insults are slurs (in fact, most aren’t, in my understanding).
My posts and criticisms are about slurs, not insults. I don’t think it’s ever okay to use slurs like “illegals” or “wetbacks”, but that says nothing about insults (I think it’s sometimes reasonable to insult people and sometimes not, but never with slurs).
I understand that it’s not my decision – I’m taking my cue from the targets of the slur (or not slur)… in my understanding from interacting with (reading and talking to) Hispanic/Latin American folks (and Hispanic/Latin American immigrants in particular), they see “illegal” as a slur. I don’t think it’s a critical mass of all people who determines this, but rather a critical mass (which is obviously a pretty vague number) of the targets – for example, the n-word (which I will not type out due to the computer I’m using) was a slur long before most Americans realized it. When more than a tiny number of white Americans used it in a derogatory fashion against black people (which was occurring for most, if not all, of American history), they were using a slur, whether or not it was recognized by many or most users as such or not.
No idea what this has to do with what I’ve said so far. “Coward” is obviously an insult, whether as a noun or adjective. Slurs are usually (or maybe always?) insulting, but not all insults are slurs (in fact, most aren’t, in my understanding).
My posts and criticisms are about slurs, not insults. I don’t think it’s ever okay to use slurs like “illegals” or “wetbacks”, but that says nothing about insults (I think it’s sometimes reasonable to insult people and sometimes not, but never with slurs).
I understand that it’s not my decision – I’m taking my cue from the targets of the slur (or not slur)… in my understanding from interacting with Hispanic/Latin American folks (and Hispanic/Latin American immigrants in particular), they see illegal as a slur. I don’t think it’s a critical mass of all people who determines this, but rather a critical mass of the targets – for example, the n-word (which I will not type out due to the computer I’m using) was a slur long before most Americans realized it. When more than a tiny number of white Americans used it in a derogatory fashion against black people (which was occurring for most, if not all, of American history), they were using a slur, whether or not it was recognized by many or most users as such or not.
I will point out a few things that you missed. First, in the post where I originally said the question I would ask, I also said that sure, there d be other questions to ensure that they really meant it and would hold to it. That you choose to interpret an offhand comment by myself on a forum as a legal policy that would be followed with no deviation or thought speaks poorly about your desire to score points than to actually have a productive conversation.
You could ask, "What does it mean to “make a better life?'”, and we could have that conversations about what rights and privileges would come with what obligations and responsibilities, but it seems that you would rather spout off about the demons that your imagination dreams up.
Do you want to know what I mean when I say “Make a better life”? or do you want to continue to fight against strawmen of your imagination?
Alabama is slightly worse than california, why are there still people living in alabama, and they have not all moved to california?
Once again, you make shit up to respond to. I cannot help you with the fantasies in your head.
Probably, but it is a demon from your own imagination, so that is your own thing to wrestle with.
I said nothing about absolutism. That’s on you. You tell me what your thoughts are on absolutism, if that is a conversation that you are wanting to bring up.
There will be many edge cases that are adjudicated based on many criteria and merit. You are asking about an edge case with very little actual data, so I could not give you an answer. It’s like if you asked how long someone should go to jail for committing a crime.
I do believe that there are greys, not just black and whites, so, while that is hard to get your head around, it is not the case that my statement of aspiration on a message board be used as the sole and only measure, but it is the aspiration.
I will also point out that I am on the fringe on my desires for increasing quotas as drastically as I would like them to be, so while you can point at me and even if your presumptions were remotely accurate, you still wouldn’t be able to use me as an example of “what the left would do”. Most likely, after the break-up, we will have increased our immigration policies, but I would still be advocating at those times for more.
So, not only do you fundamentally (and I assume intentionally) misunderstand my position, you also incorrectly attribute my position to the mainstream of the left. A double whammy of wrong for you.
Okay, then what method of “cracking down” are you going for then? I assume that you were not serious when you suggested that it be that undocumented immigrants turn themselves in.
What methods are you willing to employ to do this crackdown of the people that you so despise?
And what about all the undocumented immigrants who do not commit crimes? How are you going to catch them? Also, would you then make local police responsible for enforcing federal immigration policies?
A first would be nice. Lets say you have a hard working person who came over when they were in their teens. They have never had any legal trouble, they speak perfect english, they hold down a job, they pay their rent and their car payments. They do more or less everything that a US citizen in good standing would do.
How are you going to find this despicable person to get them deported?
You have never met people that have lost their driver’s licenses through either legal or just laziness issues? You are fortunate, and you live among much higher quality peers than I. Having spent most of my working life working with minimum wage workers, I know of many who, through laziness or not being able to afford the fee or whatever their reason did not renew their license. Many of the people I worked with also had no license because they were either to young for it, or simply hadn’t bothered to go through the steps to get it.
All of them are unlicensed drivers.
In any case, your lack of experience has nothing to do with the use of language. The fact that you have never felt the need to use the word, “Zeugma” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, nor that it wouldn’t be a word that you could find use for.
[/quote]
I also don’t recall ever needing a term for people who were born on the 17th of the month during Nixon’s first term, and one for those who were born on the 17th of the month during Nixon’s second term, and one that encompasses both.
[/quote]
I don’t understand your point. Am I saying that you need to have multiple forms of address to speak of undocumented immigrants? I am not, I am arguing the opposite. So your last little paragraph there is pointless. It is arguing against something that I am not arguing.
But that is the majority of what you write here, so not unexpected.
Or, you could use the term “unlicensed driver.” It is only you that is trying to make this harder than it has to be.
As did a murderer, an arsonist, a rapist, or a litterer, yet you say that you refer to those by the name of the catagory of crime they committed. It is only in the case of undocumented immigrants that you change your pattern and use a slur instead.
And a convicted felon is someone who is convicted of committing a felony. There is a definition to that. An illegal is, what?
I use “congress critter” myself.
There are a couple reasons.
I didn’t have a problem with illegal immigrant, but that is not what illegal is usually short for, it is short for illegal alien, as you can see by Waldy’s use of the word “alien” in the post I just responded to above. While illegal immigrant is somewhat useful as a descriptor, illegal alien, not so much. So, when I hear “illegal”, I do make the assumption that that is what it is short for, as that is what is was short for when it gained popularity. For Starvy to imply that it is only short for “illegal immigrant” is either ignorant or dishonest of him to claim. I did want to go further into why “illegal immigrant” had become derogatory, but I really didn’t have time at that time.
The important people to consider in this are not the targets of racism, but the racists themselves. Are they using it as a slur? They are the ones who make that determination.
If the term “illegal” was used to only ever refer to those who were here illegally, then it wouldn’t be a slur. It may be an insult, people may not appreciate it, but if everyone that was labeled as such were actually accurately labeled, then it wouldn’t be a slur.
It become a slur when racists start using it against people who are here legally, people who were born here, people who’s grandparents were born here, people who can trace their roots in this country back to further back than the famous 1492. They are not using it to refer to the target’s legal status, but instead to their ethnicity and perceived “un-americanness”. That’s how things become slurs, when you refer to a group of people using a word that is not accurately descriptive, and you use it in a derogatory way.
You shouldn’t be blaming me or iiandyiiii or anyone else that these words become problematic, you should be blaming the racists and bigots who use these words to hurt people, and in the process ruin what could have been a perfectly innocent word.
AFAICT the only difference between “David is an illegal immigrant” and “David is an illegal” is that the latter is slightly more objectifying than the former. So THAT is what this is all about.
It’s nebulous. Some terms which were acceptable become unacceptable over time. When did “colored” or “oriental” fall out of use and how did we as a society know that was the case? There’s no rule IMO.
If someone uses a term that seems derogatory like a slur, then sure people should speak out and try and persuade them to change their ways. I do see the tactic to try and latch on to the stigma of other slurs and attach all the negative connotations associated by equivocating on the word slur. Personally I’m going to have a hard time seeing anything as a slur that is not based on some kind of immutable characteristic. “Illegal immigrant” does not fit that criteria.
While the target’s response could be informative, I don’t think it’s controlling. If that were the case, any target of any insult could determine that the insult is a slur. That’s a language mess. During the prop 103 lead up in CA under Pete Wilson, the issue was debated quite a lot in my circles. Up to that point I had used the term regularly. It was only after learning more about the nuance of immigration, those who were merely undocumented, etc. that I came to realize there was more than I had previously appreciated. I continue to believe the term isn’t a slur, but appreciate there are a lot of folks who don’t fit that description.
It’s easy enough in conversation to focus on the “illegal” part and say that the people being discussed are not here illegally because they did not break any criminal law therefore the description is a misnomer as it applies to the people in question. There are people who are here illegally and for those people it’s fine to describe them as illegal immigrants, or if you’d prefer, a person who illegally immigrated, or unlawfully entered the country. But simply labeling the term a slur elides all of that, equivocates and attempts to use the blunt instrument of societal shame associated with other slurs in a way the targets of that instrument do not accept.
Sure, i guess. I tend to agree that “illegal” by itself is problematic, both because it often seems used in a way designed to be dismissive and derogatory, and also because it is often used in an effort to imply that the person or people under discussion are criminals in general, beyond any issue of their immigration status.
I’m still not sure i see a massive problem with “alien.” It’s been used for decades, and while it does tend to “other” the person it’s being used about, its official uses have always been precisely to delineate boundaries of residency and citizenship.
I have lived in the United States for one-third of my life, and i am a Permanent Resident who holds a green card. You know what else i am, under the official language of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services? I’m a Resident Alien. And before i got my green card, and was on a student visa, i was, according to government agencies like the IRS, a Non-Resident Alien.
I’m not sure why criminal law needs to be controlling in talking about illegality. Breaking the speed limit isn’t a criminal offense, but it is illegal. Most copyright infringement cases are handled as civil matters, but it’s still considered illegal to copy or redistribute someone’s intellectual property without authorization.
I think that, if you’re in the country without specific authorization to be here, then you’re here illegally. And i think that’s true whether you walked across the desert, came in the trunk of a car, stowed away in a shipping container, or simply overstayed your tourist visa.
That doesn’t make you a bad person, and it doesn’t change my desire to help the millions of unauthorized immigrants who contribute so much to this country, but the simple fact is that the vast majority are here without proper legal authorization, which means they’re here illegally. If we want to help change the status of many of these people, which is exactly what i would like to do, then i think it behooves us to recognize that fact.
To me, the distinction of whether something carries only civil penalties vs. whether it carries criminal penalties is meaningful. Driving 10 mph over the speed limit on the freeway is not great, but the penalty is civil. Driving 50 mph over the speed limit is much worse and can be criminal. I can empathize with the person who is doing 10 mph, but the person who is doing 50 mph over I judge much more harshly.
I also don’t think the term “illegal alien” is a slur either. The law uses the term “alien” all over the place as mhendo states.
I think it is becoming one, because of its usage by racists. I did not say that it was a slur, not yet, only that it is used disparagingly. There are other terms that are used in the law that also can and have become slurs, because of the adoption of them by racists.
If Waldy and Starvy can type out the whole term, illegal immigrant or illegal alien, then I still think that it is not the best choice, but it’s not a slur (not yet). The shortening of it, to use it in the same way that a racist uses it to refer to a legal citizen of the united states who happens to have hispanic heritage is most certainly a slur. To then justify it by saying that he uses the word murderer to refer to someone who murders, and that is why he uses the word “illegal” to refer to someone who has immigrated without authorization is a poor attempt to justify his desire to use a slur without being called out on it.
Seriously, you have a problem with it, take it up with the racists. They are the ones who will take a word that you thought was perfectly innocent, and by using it to disparage people, ruin its use for the rest of us.
Pick a word or term, any word or term at all, no matter how much you like it, if it gets picked up by racists or bigots to derogatorily refer to other people, then it becomes a slur. If bigots start calling people with one eye “Straight Dopers”, and it catches on, and starts being used not only by racists, but by others looking to be derogatory (e.g. “Come on ref, what are you, a straight doper?”), then “Straight Doper” becomes a slur.
The sequence I see is as follows.
You have a word that refers to a group of people, that word is neutral, as are the people.
There are those who for irrational (or even for rational) reasons, hates the first group of people, and desires for them to receive harm until they “go away”, by whatever means that entails.
The people start referring to those people using the neutral word, but do so with vim and vigor. This makes it an insult, but not necessarily a slur.
Other people, who are not of the first group, but do share some perceived negative characteristic of them, are referred to using the insulting word to refer to the first group of people.
The word is no longer used exclusively to refer to a group of people, but instead to refer to the negative trait that is perceived to be shared by these people.
The word’s a slur, and decent people stop using it. Some who are ignorant of the changes of language may continue using it out of their ignorance, but when they learn that it is a harmful word, they stop. Some who are more stubborn will refuse to change, even after it is pointed out that their usage makes them look like racists. Then there are the racists, who refuse to change, and try to act as if they are simply ignorant that their word choices are intentionally harmful to a group of people.
At least there are some racists out there with the courage and conviction to admit that the word choices that they make are intended to harm. I don’t have much respect for them, of course, but I find myself having more respect for them than someone who “just can’t understand” that words can have harmful meanings, and that not using a word is an easy accommodation to make to reduce the harm that you do. No, you don’t insist on using the slur because it is accurate, you insist on using it because you know it is harmful, and you wish to be harmful, because the ones harmed by the use of the word are the people that you do not like.
I’m really talking about the noun form – as in “illegals need to get the hell out!”. That’s not a standard use of the word by any measure, and considering the vehemence and negativity that’s usually attached to it, as well as the views of those ‘targets’ I’ve interacted with, I think it’s clearly crossed over into reasonably being characterized as a slur.
I think it’s reasonable to construe the noun form of “illegals” as not being a slur.
That’s the problem with declaring things as reasonable - it’s not very useful especially given wildly different worldviews. I identified a criteria that is objective - things can only be slurs if based solely on immutable characteristics. Your criteria (vehemence and negativity) can be applied to any insult and after a while the power of the word “slur” you are trying to latch onto will evaporate.
