I still fully support that position. And since many vocal immigrant critics use the adjective or noun form of illegal specifically to cause the unwashed masses to believe that they are criminals I choose to respect their declaration of the term to be pejorative and use a term other than “illegal” when describing them.
You can hope. But I think history will be against you on this. We can check back in a few years.
Are commentators like you using “illegal” in the hopes that the “unwashed masses” will be deceived into the belief that United Airlines was acting criminally?
I’d really like you to show me where anyone used the term “illegal flight attendants” in that thread. Because that is the only analogy that would hold up in this context.
But even if calling an airline’s policy illegal because it violated federal law served as a catalyst for decades of abuse against their employees to the point that flight attendants were being discriminated against personally by the unwashed masses as if they were criminals and dangers to society in their every day personal lives, while waiting in line at the grocery store or walking down the street with their kids I would consider using a different term in that case too if it was as clear as it is in this case that the terminology was being used as a sort of hate speech and not just academic discussion.
Yeah, this, pretty much any time bigots are using a word (or phrase) to denigrate and dehumanize a group of people, it is a word (or phrase) that you should try to avoid. If you know that it is used by bigots to denigrate and dehumanize people, and you use it anyway, if anyone confuses you for a bigot, that’s all on you, not on them.
What you said: “And since many vocal immigrant critics use the adjective or noun form of illegal specifically to cause the unwashed masses to believe that they are criminals…”
My question: are commentators using the word “illegal” to describe United Airlines’ actions for the same reason?
Has nothing to do with flight attendants.
You really need things spelled out very literally don’t you? The answer to your question is right there within the words of mine you quoted.
Calling an airline’s policy illegal isn’t contributing the people that make up the airline being personally discriminated against in every facet of their lives as though they were criminals.
If I did want to convince the unwashed masses to discriminate against airline employees I would have to start using a term like “illegal flight attendants.” not just saying “What that airline did was illegal.”
I was using the term illegal, as to the flight crews orders, because I believed that they were in fact breaking criminal law. Just as if you were stabbing me in the eye, I would say, “Hey, that’s illegal.” (I could be wrong on that, but that’s not the point, the point is is that I cited a specific criminal law that I believe that they were breaking when I called their orders illegal.) I am pretty sure that I was the first to use the word “illegal” in regards to their actions, and if it were not for Manson’s proclivities for obstinance, it probably would never have been even noticed by yourself, nor defended on other merits by others.
So yes, as the commentator using the word “illegal” to describe the actions of the flight crew (note, flight crew, not airline, unless the airline can be held criminal liable for the criminal actions of its employees, which I do not think is the case) specifically because, IMHO, they were in fact criminals.
But, getting back to why I prefer not to use the term “illegal alien”, in preference to “undocumented immigrant,” or even better, “Bob,” is because of the stigma that has been attached to that phrase by bigots.
First, I think we agreed that using the term “illegal” to describe a person is in fact a slur. You combine that wit the word alien, which explicitly means “other”, or “not like us”, and I don’t see the phrase getting any better.
Second, I get the feeling that you have personal issues with “persons of insufficient bureaucratic investment”, maybe because of your personal immigration story, or maybe for entirely different reasons, but you are very very hung up on their legal status being the primary defining factor. Now, I get fruit of the poisoned tree philosophy, in that the moment that they crossed the border by paying thousands of dollars to smugglers to take them across desert, mountain, and river, while being beaten, robbed, and raped by their very guides, in order to try to find a way out of the desperate deprivation and violence that they come from, rather than getting into a line that has no end, and if you wait the 14 years that is the current waiting list to get entry for unskilled workers from mexico, and even if you have all your papers in order, and all your fees paid, then you can still be denied because a bureaucrat had a bad day.
If we had an immigration policy that actually gave immigrants a real chance to get here, then you would have a point that they did not follow the simple and straightforward laws to be here with proper documentation, as we do not, then any anger at them for breaking these white collar laws should be directed at the people, agencies, and society which made breaking these laws the only way to survive.
Your point that they break laws in order to escape the desperate conditions they come from, and to survive in a society that does not want to let them achieve a legitimate status is noted, but as you can see that property and violent crime is much lower amongst these populations than among the american populace as a whole, an argument that deportation is for safety and security falls flat on its face.
Can I use this for my Marilyn Manson cover band name?
This post still doesn’t answer my question. Read my question carefully: are commentators using the word “illegal” to describe United Airlines’ actions for the same reason?
The reason: “to cause the unwashed masses to believe that they [the company] are criminals.”
I see that you are trying to avoid inconsistency by pointing out that calling the company criminal is not likely to result in “personal discrimination” in “every facet of their lives.”
That’s nice. But not what I asked. I’m asking if you think commentators like you used the word “illegal” to cause the unwashed masses to believe that they, United Airlines, are criminals in this instance. Do you?
Could you please show me one example of me using the word “illegal” to describe United in that thread? Not that I object to it’s use in that context but in fact I never used it.
The closest I can find is:
and
In any case the answer is obviously no. Nobody in the thread describing violations of federal airline regulations as illegal was trying to set a tone to facilitate discrimination against airlines or their emlplyees with their use of the word.
But since it’s well known that many who use the term illegal to describe a non-citizen living in the US without authorization are doing exactly that, it is a slur in that context.
If I ever argue that deportation is for safety and security please feel free to link me back to this post.
So far as I recall, I have never offered such an argument.
Makes perfect sense to me. A criminal action is in fact illegal.
My problem is that adopting this means that bigots and mean-spirited people drive language change.
At one time, “idiot,” “moron,” and “imbecile,” were reasonably well-defined medical terms to refer to people with varying degrees of intellectual disability. But these terms were used by the public in ways that created stigma, and so were replaced by well-meaning people with the phrase mental retardation. An enlightened, civilized person in the 1950s would use mental retardation and remonstrate those who used imbecile.
Today, an enlightened, civilized person – such as yourself, perhaps – might similarly scold the use of mental retardation, because, to absolutely no one’s surprise, it too passed into plebian usage and beame stigmatized. Today’s mental retardation is “intellectual disability.” And ten years from now, when that term gains stigma, your bretheran will insist on something else.
Sorry, I pass. At least for now. I may lose, but for the moment I argue that the term illegal immigrant carries the stigma of breaking the law, civil or criminal, and that’s just what illegal immigrants have done. The shoe fits.
There are many who do make that argument, I did not mean to lump you in there, in fact, I was trying to show that you had already acknowledged that deportation was not for safety or security, and I was just trying to relate that to how their crimes were not something to be concerned about when it comes to safety and security, but just that the crimes that they commit harm no one, and they only commit those crimes because they have no choice if they wish to be in our society.
My problem is that adopting this means that bigots and mean-spirited people drive language change.
At one time, “idiot,” “moron,” and “imbecile,” were reasonably well-defined medical terms to refer to people with varying degrees of intellectual disability. But these terms were used by the public in ways that created stigma, and so were replaced by well-meaning people with the phrase mental retardation. An enlightened, civilized person in the 1950s would use mental retardation and remonstrate those who used imbecile.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, bigots will drive language change. Any group of people who latch onto a word and use it will change the way that that word is used. If a large enough group of people decided that oobleck now meant the sun, then it would be silly to argue that oobleck can’t refer to that bright ball of gas in the sky because of ti’s latin or other etymological roots. If people decide to use a word to refer to something, then that is what the word means.
Bigots are also why we lost negro, colored, and don’t know if black is acceptable or not. It’s not because a bunch of SJW’s wrote it down in a dictionary, it’s because bigots used those words to disparage and dehumanize other people.
I heard the term “retard” as an insult long before I heard it used properly. Same with idiot and moron. I only learned that these were actual medical terms much later. If I were a child of hispanic descent, of either illegal or legal residence, do you think that I would have heard the term “illegal” or “illegal alien” first as an insult towards myself or my family, or in a clinical academic setting? Do you not think that that might have some impact on how the language evolves, and how the words gain meaning and impact? I am sorry, but bigots are in fact the ones that are in charge of slurs, I’m not a big fan of that fact either, and if they latch onto “intellectual disability” as a slur, we’ll lose that too. (Though I suspect that we can keep the words and phrases that are too hard for the bigots to remember and say.)
And if you are comfortable in labeling and defining a group of people based on a single trait, then describing them in that way makes sense.