Something rather like ‘declaring victory and going home,’ one supposes.
Invaders may be, but “Illegals” or“illegal immigrant” is such common usage, I cant see how we can ban it. And it isnt hate speech.
I concur. But “Invader”- which I heave heard only once- is.
It is totally possible to ban the former and not the latter.
The “illegals”-by-itself thing, the turning of the illegality into a noun, standing by itself, making it an identity rather than a modifier of a condition, is troublesome. It is literally name-calling. As others have said “illegal immigrant” at least is a specific descriptor.
TL/DR: what Czarcasm said
But, in the section right before the piece you quoted, cheap shots based on nationality and other groupings (which I’m darn sure this would fall under) is already defined by this board as hate speech. Which was the point I was making.
In case it was missed earlier -
No slurs or racist cheap shots. Do not post slurs or other cheap shots against minorities, including but not limited to groups characterized by race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or gender orientation.
Where I directly quoted Ed_Zotti’s post on Hate Speech from 2022. So that’s not even a new rule. Which again, is why I said at a minimum ‘invaders’ should be out. ‘Illegals’ is IMHO not much better, and it’ll be up to the mods to talk though the implications, but I feel fine applying the existing rule to invaders.
And to -repeat- the other posters, myself and the OP - many of us have felt that while “illegal immigrant” is dated, with some unpleasant connotations, NO ONE has said we think that phrase should be considered hate speech.
What on earth are you talking about? Of course “invading” is something that humans do. To “dehumanize” does not mean to say that someone is doing things that humans would not do.
Is that a rebuttable presumption? Is it impossible, in your view, to so refer to invaders regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender orientation, or whatever?
No, its not. You can make all the slurs you want against white people, seniors or men and be totally okay and 100% supported by posters who claim to be “woke”.
And Illegal immigrants does not apply to any one race or ethnicity- there are illegals from China and Canada too, not to mention others. In fact most of the folks either claiming asylum (in which case, i agree- they are not “illegals”) or crossing illegally (in which case, they are crossing illegally) are not from Mexico, they are from Central America.
If you feel this is the case, please feel free to start your own ATMB and petition the Mods to consider this, and/or flag posts you see as aegist or racially targeting Anglo-Saxon males. It is your right. But again, you agreed invaders was a cheap shot, it’s targeted at a specific group, and IMHO easily falls within the -existing- posted definitions.
I thought it involved something along the lines of making them either feel or appear somehow less than human.
Perhaps dehumanizing is less accurate than identifying them as an enemy that has to be repelled. Though the virus one is pretty dehumanizing, if you think about it.
verb (used with object), in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing.
to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:
Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
to enter like an enemy:
Locusts invaded the fields.
to enter as if to take possession:
to invade a neighbor’s home.
to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:
viruses that invade the bloodstream.
Put me down as thinking invader and illegal are terrible ways to describe people who immigrated to the US.
I have quoted a specific section of our board-based instructions on what we have already defined as hate speech. We can argue what should or should not constitute hate speech in the wider world (see the earlier cite about Canadian guidelines, or the OPs VERY detailed review of the terms in question), but this is the SDMB. So right now, your attempts to select other, arbitrary definitions aren’t particularly on topic.
Oh no, I know this is a lost battle- the woke crowd here is bigoted against those groups, and thinks its perfectly okay as it is “punching up”. So being a bigot is okay if you “punch up”. I think being a bigot is never okay. Silly men.
Sure, I agree that “invaders” which is a recent and rare term can be banned. But has it been used here- seriously? Except in “quotes” that is, like here. Do we want to ban something that no one uses?
Yeah, the one that’s “including but not limited to groups characterized by race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or gender orientation.” That’s the one I likewise had in mind.
(bolding mine) In the thread where we’re discussing the appropriateness of the term “illegals”, is it really necessary to use it to refer to people? That seems weirdly aggressive.
I’m surprised by exactly how disappointed I am that this is even a debate on these boards. I thought it was bad enough I have to deal with it as a Nextdoor moderator. Call me “woke” I suppose. A term that has lost all meaning.
Sure, but not by claiming that what they are doing is not what humans would do. It has absolutely nothing to do with suggesting that “invading is not what a human would do”.
In a descriptive sense, it means to portray someone in a manner that obscures the fact that they are fully and multidimensionally human, deserving respect and empathy. For example by using a derogatory term to place them in a negative category, with the implication that this unidimensional category is all we need to know about them.
By that metric, is, say, “felon” dehumanizing?
It can be, sure. “Ex-cons like you are scumbags that don’t deserve jobs.”
Changing “alien” to “migrant” and “illegal” to “undocumented” is an attempt to win the debate before it starts, by mandating a vocabulary favorable to one side of the argument.
George Orwell took a dim view of the practice.