Forgot to ask, were you go to work up that list for us or leave us guessing?
Do you really think this board is meant to be inoffensive? Just look at the OP.
That stated opinion is setting out a position, and it’s done with full knowledge that other posters have been using the term “illegals”. That’s not asking other people how they use the term, or how they hear the term. It’s not trying to gain an understanding of the spectrum of opinions on the term, and see if there’s a reasonable consensus on its use. If you were a user of the term, wouldn’t you find that opinion, at the very least, provocative?
I’ll note that this thread was pretty good about staying on track. It wasn’t until post #49 when someone really made a shot-like comment:
Do you think it’s inoffensive to be called indecent? I generally adopt the tone of the thread I’m participating in. If the tone is light-hearted, academic, or thoughtful, I’ll try to post in that manner. But if it’s contentious from the beginning, and the other side is taking shots, I’ll probably respond in kind and use counter-provocative terms.
And yes, in post #106 I should have added to my promise the caveat of “outside this thread”.
There are forums in which political jabs are disallowed. There are certain words that are not allowed. I don’t see how we couldn’t just say there are certain words that won’t get you banned but shouldn’t be used outside the pit. I’d say infractions could be policed with mod notes unless there’s a clear pattern of deliberately flaunting the rules.
Someone who perhaps once let’s “The damn illegals” slip from his fingertips? A mod note would do the trick. Repeated offenses that inevitably invite harsh responses from other posters is clearly trolling/flaming.
I disagree that the board should be ruled, more than it is, by the most persistent, vocal, and organized subset.
The administration sets the boundaries on acceptable language and behavior. Obviously, eliminating words that may be seen by some as offensive isn’t deemed desirable or possible.
I’m pretty new here – is arguing about the words a person used in their post really considered attacking the poster? (I can see how it could eventually, or.in some instances, be off topic.)
That’s not what I think, but okay.
Not sure what list you’re talking about. If it’s some nebulous list of offensive words, that’s beyond the scope of this thread, IMO. If you want to start a thread about it, I may or may not contribute.
I think people sometimes mischaracterize the things that I say, and I make jokes about mind-reading to gently mock this kind of mischaracterization. No big deal.
Nonsense. Not all points of view deserve protection. The belief that everyone is entitled to equal treatment and the belief that white people deserve better treatment than black people are not two equally valid opinions.
Somebody who goes around saying that black people are criminals and deserve to get shot by police is going to be called a racist. And he shouldn’t whine because his feelings get hurt. People that say offensive things shouldn’t be protected from other people calling them offensive.
I have no problem with people criticizing my beliefs. If somebody criticizes them, I’ll be able to defend them. When people say that nobody else should be allowed to criticize their beliefs, it means they know their beliefs can’t stand up to any criticism.
I missed that this thread was in ATMB. I thought it was asking should it be considered hate speech in general. I’d say no to that, but for me it definitely does act a signifier that the person using it might well be a bit of a bigot. It’s possible that they’re not, though, unlike with the serious slur words.
Basically yay to “policing” other people’s language by judging them on the words they use - which we all do all the time - and nay for adding it to a list of words that incites an automatic warning.
Pronounced “Heem”, presumably.
Same here. The problem arises when someone else tells me what my position is. As in “if you refer to illegal immigrants as ‘illegals’ you are saying that all Mexicans are vermin who should be shot”. Because that is not a criticism of any belief that I hold, so I don’t need to defend it.
Regards,
Shodan
For the people who use “illegals” to refer to those who entered the country illegally, because that is a crime, why would you choose that term over broader terms like undocumented aliens? Because if that’s really what you use it for, I’ll be interested to see why in a particular instance you might choose to exclude people who do not have lawful status but entered lawfully (visa overstayers, e.g.), or in some contexts, people who are lawfully present but lack work authorization.
That’s horrible! Whoever here said that to you should feel ashamed.
Who was it?
Moderator Action
This thread has turned into a general discussion about the word “illegals”, which is not relevant to ATMB. Since this is no longer about the rules and moderation of the word here on the SDMB, I am going to close this.
Anyone wishing to continue the general discussion is free to start a new thread in a more appropriate forum, and you may of course link back to this thread if you’d like.