I believe so, yes. I think plenty of threads show posters referring to someone as a felon even if they haven’t actually been convicted — or as a murderer, even if they haven’t been convicted; or as a rapist, even if they haven’t been convicted; and so on.
I asked about groups of people not individual people.
Also, “haven’t been convicted”? You mean like all those folks you call invaders?
Yes to all of this.
Well, you asked about “a” group of people, and I figured it was the group of people who had, individually, been referred to that way; mea culpa. But, yeah, I think casual mention still gets made from time to time of this or that group of people who aren’t “convicted felons” (or else we’d use the term “convicted felons”) but who get unproblematically described as “felons”: I stand by what I said before — that we do it for this felon and that felon, and that we can so group them — but I think we also do it for a group, at once, every now and then.
Just to bring everything back around to the inciting incident, I think it’s worth noting that the… entity that started the GD thread which in turn prompted this thread in ATMB has not been back since its first and only post (or at least hasn’t logged back in through that account). That account has only that one, single post, less than one minute of read time, and a user name that really ought to be a dead give away.
To the extent there was anything useful/fruitful to be had in that discussion, I believe it has happened here, with a number of posters making a credible case that the GD post in fact employed hate speech, which should be banned.
I further think, to the extent there was ever enough doubt to keep that thread open, it is now undeniably clear, in the absence of any follow-on history (not even so much as an indication the account was used to read replies) that the offending account is a sock account, and should be banned, with its post sent to the cornfield.
If a sock never returns, has it banned itself?
(Zen Koan)
I thought it was already closed to tell you the truth.
It is now.
The Troll is banned, I should have stuck with my first instinct on that one.
The thread is cornfielded.
At this point I would think it’s pretty embarrassing to be defending the language used by a troll/sock in a post that has since been closed/cornfielded, and that pretty clearly was designed to deliberately offend as much as possible.
I mean, I guess defending a troll/sock’s trolling language is allowed, but I think it really makes one’s credibility take a hit.
I was referring to illegal immigrants as invaders long before the post and poster in question appeared; they make it no more, and no less, acceptable to me.
Still on the broader aside semi-hijack…
We could go back a few years and closer by a few thousand miles, and use the example of how come Cubans risking a passage in boats to get to US soil were (are) presumed entitled to being admitted if they made it, but everybody else in the region were not, no matter how crashed their economies or how tyrannical their Juntas.
BTW and of course just IMO: I have always lived with the reference to someone displaced from their home location by dire general conditions (war, disaster, famine, plague) as a “refugee”, not always or necessarily an “asylum seeker” , which used to have a specific connotation of seeking protection from persecution or direct threat.
Would it give you pause if white supremacists advocated calling migrants “invaders” because they thought it helped to dehumanize them and encourage others to hate them?
I still don’t get how it helps to dehumanize them — which makes me figure that, if white supremacists think that it does, well, then, they’re simply getting something else wrong, is all.
And I’m of course wary of the euphemism treadmill: whatever accurate term gets swapped in next, white supremacists could just start using it with a sneer and a hope that it helps to dehumanize, and then, what, pause is to ensue again, and again, and again?
(Heck, looking back at the name I gave when asked to provide an example of an invader, it’s the same one I would’ve given if asked to name an illegal immigrant — or an illegal alien, or someone undocumented, and once again we’d be right back to the current situation.)
But there’s a reason I switched from using “illegal” as a noun to using it as an adjective, and I figure I could be persuaded to do likewise here; it’s just not as simple as mentioning what white supremacists think, is all. After all: why the heck would I care what they think?
Indeed. Any conversation about dictionary definitions is completely missing the point of how the word is used in the context of immigration debates. Namely, its primary usage is by defenders of the white supremacist ideology Great Replacement Theory. I am uninterested in discussing the issue with anyone who is not thoroughly familiar with and willing to address that fact in a meaningful fashion.
So, I’m still an invader to you?
Generally speaking, why is then that “invaders” got amnesty or paths to citizenship? And that was the case in the past too, as even “Saint” Reagan did.
So, no, “invaders” is the wrong term to use, and that bigoted right-wingers out there use it in an attempt to dehumanize other human beings is willfully ignored at a risk.
Are you saying you were an illegal immigrant? Someone who entered the country unlawfully? Are you okay with me phrasing it in a bunch of other ways, but not that one?
I don’t know why “invaders” in the past got amnesty or paths to citizenship, and so I’m not sure what point you’re going for, here; sometimes folks pay millions for defense, and not a penny for tribute — and, of course, sometimes they do pay tribute; isn’t there something that gets said at times like these about Danegeld? Like, sometimes people say they won’t negotiate with criminals, and sometimes people do negotiate with criminals, and sometimes they just let criminals get away with stuff without even really negotiating for anything in return?
Anyway, sometimes lawbreakers don’t get a pass, but sometimes they do, and if you’re asking me why they sometimes do, I’m willing to learn.
Checked my copy of the OED. The earliest cites for both “illegal immigrant” and its shortened form “illegal” are dated 1939, both in reference to Jews and Palestine.
Apologies if this has already been brought up, but I’m not going to plough through 200 more posts right now.
Because it does make the “invader” word applied to them sound really stupid in light of the amnesty granted, and yes, I got that amnesty and became a citizen, so stop using invader for that and other reasons explained by many others before.
Not really, as usual you ignored the cite where Reagan and others explained the reason why “lawbreakers” got a “pass.” (Even then, there was a price to pay by paying lawyers and other fees to become an American resident and then a citizen.
Ignored the cite? That’s fucking rich: you went back in and added it later. There was no cite there when I quoted you.
What a joke. What an absolute fucking joke. You know what you did, and you’re saying with a straight face that I ignored a cite that wasn’t there.
Your post is unconscionable.
Good, and I agree with cornfielding the whole thing. But I do think it’s important to note, in the interest of fairness and perspective, that there’s no rule against expressing unpopular opinions, even if some find those opinions to be loathsome, nor should there be, as long as one is willing to engage in a productive discussion to defend them. There is also no rule that explicitly says a thread OP is required to return to the thread. But the combination of the two is precarious, as it suggests a troll who gets his jollies by figuratively depositing a turd in the punch bowl and then running away. This was the case here, although it wasn’t immediately obvious. It can sometimes be a tough call to make.
By the same token, I think we should be cautious about what we label “hate speech”. There are some terms, like the infamous n-word, that are so loaded and inflammatory that they’re beyond redemption. Other terms like “illegal immigrants” and even the distasteful “illegals” don’t rise to that level and IMO shouldn’t be sanctioned. This should be a venue where intelligent adults can freely discuss controversial issues without feeling like they’re walking on eggshells and might have the teacher rap their knuckles at any moment for using bad words.
FWIW, I think “invaders” kicks it up another notch by deliberately introducing a hateful value judgment, but I wouldn’t ban that, either; I’d just let it stand as an appraisal of the person using such a term to describe asylum seekers, and judge the speaker accordingly.
I edited at 11:19 and you did reply at 11:27.
BTW, the point stands, what have you learned?