That is our general policy for a first time use of an inappropriate word.
The connection to Great Replacement Theory, and to terrorist murders, is what makes me think we should take this extremely seriously. But yeah, if moderators just shut it down hard, I’d be satisfied.
The SDMB should strive to be better than Donald Trump and his ilk.
That it’s a shortening doesn’t matter – the n word, after all, descends from shorthand/slang for negro (and its equivalents in Romance languages).
What matters is how its used and understood by its targets, and in my understanding (and personal experience) “illegals” is used as a dehumanizing, dismissive slur (i.e. “Don’t worry about them, they’re just illegals”).
Gonna have to ask in another thread about that.
Good grief.
Nobody’s suggesting the term “deportationally threatened.” Nobody’s saying undocumented immigrants are saints.
And we already have wide swathes of the general public distrustful of the media. That isn’t something that’s going to “suddenly happen” because people are objecting to the term “illegals.” That’s something that’s been a problem to some extent all along, and that has recently been deliberately stoked by some who are trying to convince as many people as possible to listen only to them, despite the fact that they’re “swapping terms around, to match their preferred world view” and often straight out lying.
I think that’s a fair point. Deciding when and whether a slur is hate speech turns into a tangle of language. Deciding whether using a slur is “being a jerk” may be simpler.
Thank you for discussing it.
Ah. I didn’t realize that it’s a technical term.
How many cites would you need — of definitions that require neither a military aspect nor a hostile intent — before you’d shrug it off as mere accuracy and agree to allow it? Two? Three? Twelve? Or is there never a hypothetical point where it’d be okay to be correct?
The question is whether it’s used to describe immigrants in a context that doesn’t directly or indirectly call on the hateful, white supremacist, violence-encouraging Great Replacement Theory. If you have cites showing that it’s used to describe peaceful immigrants without that sort of allusion, I encourage you to offer them instead of playing games around asking about numbers of cites. Make your case, please.
For example?
No, but likewise, the average person of the 19th century didn’t say “cocksucker”, they said things like “tarnation”.
Sometimes, it’s useful to migrate the lingo so that an outsider can better understand how things look from the vantage of the insiders.
Seems like this is mostly the good ol’ euphemism treadmill in action. You see it with things like the homeless being changed to persons of unhousedness or whatever.
Well, at a start, “invader” just seems to blandly refer back to the definition of “invade” — which I see lists “to enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.” Such a definition doesn’t, strictly speaking, seem to require that ‘intrusive effect’ — but so long as intrusiveness is defined in terms of being unwelcome or uninvited, we could maybe begin there?
Or: “to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage” — with the “usually” and the “or” working their magic, and with the clarifying followup example of “Hundreds of squatters have invaded waste land in the hope that they will be allowed to stay.”
Would that sort of thing suffice, or would it have to get even blander?
What has that got to do with anything?
And sometimes, it amounts to attacking a straw man. (As also is, for that matter, claiming that anyone objecting to “illegals” must think that all immigrants are saints; let alone claiming that everyone in the country was united and trusted the same news sources until “suddenly” people started objecting to the term.)
Yeah, there’s such a thing as a euphemism treadmill. And as long as people keep turning words into slurs (which will probably be as long as this species lasts), we’ll need a euphemism treadmill. There are a lot worse walks to go on. This one’s just part of being a responsible human.
You claim to see it, but your only example (so far) is ridiculously imaginary.
I know the mods are already discussing this, but just for whatever it’s worth, I join the side that finds this kind of dehumanizing language utterly appalling. I therefore 100% support the OP, and I very much hope not to be disappointed by a mod decision that doesn’t directly engage the reality of what is encompassed by the hateful subterfuge of this usage.
I’m coming into this thread late, even though it’s only four hours old. Nothing to add since all sides have been set forth and the mods are discussing it.
So I’ll just say that your OP was impressive in many ways. Well-researched, well-reasoned, well-presented. You’re the Jack Smith of the Dope.
How is it dehumanizing to refer to someone as an invader? The definitions seem to encompass, y’know, humans being humans — entering a place in large numbers, say, with given examples mentioning, AFAICT, humans.
Where, in the definition of “invader”, do you find a requirement of inhumanity?
I said what I said and I’m not debating it. If you can’t see it, I can’t show it to you.
How convenient!
For both of us, because we can now move on to more productive endeavors.