I think you have a good argument for an ATMB thread.
ETA
n/m
Now I kind of wish the thread title could be changed to “Clothahump defends usage of ethnic slurs (and admits to trolling)”, just for Dope history and to make it easier to find when it needs to be referenced in the future (which I have little doubt that it will).
– bolding mine.
Considering the source, no, not at all. In fact, it’s par for the course.
Your warm generosity and humanity is clear to anyone who has engaged with you. A beacon to us all.
I love that people who were appalled at his use of wetback are the bigoted ones.
Miller now has, and I agree with it.
Another plus for using alternative facts! They’re all I use anymore!
Well, no, it’s not obvious: it’s very close to the point being debated.
But we’re not quite there yet.
Do you really think Clothahump would call a black Mexican, or a Mexican with Nordic ethnicity, a wetback, if they illegally immigrated to the US?
I strongly doubt it. Can’t prove it, but strongly doubt it.
It’s not just the nationality that leads to this insult. It’s the subset consisting of brown-skinned folks that Clothahump thinks are from Mexico and that he thinks are here undocumented that he calls wetbacks. There’s absolutely a race component to it, inasmuch as “Latino” is a race. (If you insist on “Latino” as an ethnicity, then use the ethnic equivalent of “racist.”)
So she’s raised her prices?
She also takes pesos.
You should see the way she makes change.
FTR, this is no longer about Clothahump since he disavowed my interpretation of his position. At this point, the discussion is theoretical.
No one would call an illegal immigrant to the US of non-Latino ethnicity a wetback. That’s because language doesn’t always work with individuals.
Illegal Mexican immigrants were thought to commonly immigrate via swimming so that name was applied to them (even if that particular individual may have snuck in a different way). Illegal immigrants from other counties did not commonly get in that way, so that term never applied to them, even if one particular individual did that.
But none of this changes the point, which is that it’s still a term that applied to a subset from one ethnic group, whose defining characteristic was that they illegally immigrated to the US.
But it’s only brown-skinned Mexican illegal immigrants who would apply, right? Not white Mexican illegal immigrants, or black Mexican illegal immigrants?
So the slur is not just for “Mexican illegal immigrants”, but rather “Hispanic/brown skinned Mexican illegal immigrants”, right?
I’m not aware of any such distinction.
I’m curious what you are getting out of this. You’re defending the term wetback. Why? Is it a term you like to use frequently? Do you know how this is making you look? I just don’t get why you are going to all this effort. Why this word is so important to you to not be considered a slur is baffling to me.
Uh-oh. It looks like Airbeck is onto me.
Clothahump, seriously, you need to rethink what you’re doing. Posting with the sole intention of riling liberals is counterproductive, as well as being contrary to the rules. Argue with them, sure, exchange inventive insults, fine, but poking the hive with a stick to watch the reaction of the bees is not recommended. You’ll be badly stung.
I’ll say this. There are good times and bad times to use so-called racial, ethnic, or gender based slurs. Clothahump’s usage was probably one of those bad times.
Now back to listening to Dope Man by N.W.A.
I concur. What the fuck, seriously. What. the. fuck.
That’s kind of what I was thinking as well; maybe it’s a geographic thing, where if there are relatively smaller hispanic populations made up of mostly immigrants, the terms are used more loosely than in areas with large native hispanic populations who have been US citizens for decades, if not since the mid 19th century, like border states.