The fact that it has made it to a style guide of all places shows that there are enough people who find something offensive that you cannot say the word without those people being offended.
And that’s what a slur is. It doesn’t matter who says it. The fact that a substantial part of the population finds it offensive means you should avoid using it unless you want them to be offended. And, since you know they will be offended, they have every right to assume you intended to offend.
This is different from some old lady who didn’t know which words to use. The point is, when corrected, she immediately tried to use a better term. She didn’t get all upset and act like it was all about her and how dare anyone get upset that she said that word or think she was racist.
If something as big as the AP Style book tells you that something is offensive, you should listen.
I didn’t willfully ignore; I simply failed to make explicit that my riposte to Lawrence Downes’ commentary does not materially differ from my earlier comment with respect to Charles Garcia: in what way does Lawrence Downes claim authority in this regard?
And I’m sure that the Jews were discomfited at the appellation. So what? At the time, British Palestine was a entity that had legal existence, validated by the League of Nations, no less, and had every right to control entry into its borders. Jews fleeing Nazi persecution were still illegal immigrants. That’s not a moral judgement: it’s a legal claim.
If I were on fire and you advised me as to the location of the nearest lake, BigT, I’m fairly certain I’d run in the opposite direction. That’s how much I treasure your trenchant insight in this matter.
According to this, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal style guidelines have retained the phrase “illegal immigrant.” Inasmuch as Reuters style points weigh 52.5 stylons, and WSJ points weigh 77.5, this clearly and measurably outweighs the AP style guide’s 92.2 stylon weight.
Unless there are no such things as stylons. And thus no way to definitively claim one style guide is authoritative. But surely that’s not true.
Not my claim either, I was indeed talking about the reality that they took offense to it.
Remember: this side issue here originated by you asking for a cite about a poster saying that “Whether or not something is a slur is determined by how the people targeted by it generally feel. It’s not up to you.”
The AP has reacted to what groups from the Hispanic media organizations told them, and I have seen reports that a plurality of Hispanics do indeed see that as insulting too. So, as I see it, the point from Beren Erchamion stands.
There was a reversal of this for comic effect on Saturday Night Live where Tracy Morgan demanded that Charlize Theron refer to herself as an African-American.
No problem, BTW I did not explain properly but when I said “how the democrats painted him” I was referring to what my relative thought about Trump. Of course he was bananas.
In any case it is not likely that another schill will come on 2020, it is more likely that Trump will seek reelection…
… Regardless if he would be under more investigations than Nixon. I already did said elsewhere that incumbency is such a big factor that Trump may also be reelected, but just like Nixon, a straw will eventually come that will break the camels back and he will not only be impeached but removed from office, the only issue is if the Republicans will be wise enough to realize on time the big mistake they made by getting into bed with him or if they will continue to chain themselves to the sinking ship.
The portion of his claim that I quoted and asked for a supporting cite was: “Whether or not something is a slur is determined by how the people targeted by it generally feel.”
There is an indefinable turning point when a word or phrase used to describe a group of people changes from everyday language to offensive slur. Illegal immigrant is somewhere right on the cusp of that point if not past it. Using “illegal” as a noun has long passed that point.
In the past the terms oriental, colored, and tranny were everyday words used with no malice to describe asian, black and transexual people. Each reached a point where the word was taken over by people using it in a pejorative way and eventually it crossed that indefinable tipping point where it was no longer acceptable to use by decent people.
Rather than rehash all the arguments about illegal immigrant as being such a term I’ll just repost some links from another thread.
It’s ridiculous that colored and oriental are considered offensive. Tranny I can see as not being very polite. Regardless, context is key. Illegal immigrant and immigration accurately describe the folks and act.
If I were violating another nation’s immigration policy I’d have no issue with people referring to me accurately.
In the case of “tranny,” I would argue that it was always used in a pejorative way, and society finally realized that that’s probably not a good thing to be doing.
N.B. I’m not taking a position that applying it to people in adjectival form is similarly dehumanizing and indecent. Being a product of the era in which I was socialized, I find “illegal (X)” to be the least stilted and contrived-sounding option available. If a different preferred description becomes ascendant in the culture, I can see myself accepting it. But not “illegal” as a noun, which will always be dehumanizing and indecent.
That’s just how language changes. It isn’t a partisan process. There’s no way to define or predict the exact moment where enough people will perceive a word to be offensive that everyone else stops using it. It happens slowly over a long time. I can safely say illegal immigrant is on the cusp of such a transition based us even having this conversation, and the general trend it is taking over time toward more and more people finding it offensive. When exactly it crosses some line that it makes it into every style guide or whatever other justifications you’re using to keep saying it knowing it it is offensive is not precisely predictable. It might be another year, or another 5 but that is where it is going.
In the mean time there are still large numbers of those it describes and others who already take offense so that is reason enough for me to choose another term.
Besides anything else Illegal immigrant is inflammatory and not even accurate by most uses of “illegal” - we’ve had this conversation before. In the huge majority of cases no criminal offense is involved in a person’s immigration status. So why use it instead of “undocumented” or “unauthorized” if those people find them to be less offensive?
We’re not in disagreement. I don’t have as strong an emotional objection; I agree it’s a word that makes the subject an Other, and not an Us. My primary objection is that it’s either vague, or that the usage is more correctly captured by “criminal.” We have little concern about referring to a bank robber as a criminal. If the interest is simply to identify a person as one who’s violated criminal law, that’s the word.
Wow. Wanting to have our immigration laws enforced and not wanting people to be rewarded for breaking the law makes us “incredibly vile” people that you “wish ill upon”?
