Didn’t we agree to mod stuff that turns your stomach?
How are we not straight up banning someone who is advocating for indiscriminate mass murder?
How do I put someone with a “hidden” profile on ignore?
Go to your profile → preferences, and add them to your ignore list.
Ah yes!
Thank you.
It’s not trolling, I take it, to note that legal doesn’t mean moral — or, if you prefer, to say something about not deriving an ought from an is? That’s a sentiment I’ve seen expressed plenty of times on this board; heck, it’s one that I’ve previously mentioned on this board.
I kind of thought it was a commonplace.
I was under the impression that folks can, in fact, apply for asylum at the border At A Port Of Entry.
Heck, to quote the ACLU, “under U.S. law, a person seeking asylum may do so by arriving at the border and asking to be screened by U.S. officials at a “port of entry,” or by entering the U.S. without prior inspection and then declaring their fear of persecution.”
Is that not how the law works?
The link you post includes as one of its go-to examples ‘The town is gearing up for the annual tourist “invasion”’, which doesn’t seem to run afoul of the literal and doesn’t seem to have a strongly negative connotation informed by the like of a political position — and, googling around, I see another dictionary in turn gives an example of “Hundreds of squatters have invaded waste land in the hope that they will be allowed to stay” — but, putting examples aside for a moment, there’s everything from “any encroachment or intrusion” and “encroachment; trespass” to “an intrusion or infringement” and “infringement by intrusion”, as well as “an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity”.
I would say it is an incursion by a large number of people. I would say it is an encroachment (in the sense of intrusion onto another’s territory or entry to another’s property without right or permission) as well as trespass (in the sense of an unwarranted or unlawful intrusion, such as hunters trespassing on farmland, and then we’re back to examples). I realize this is getting into defining words in terms of words in terms of words — something about Overrun, say, or Unwelcome Intrusion Into Another’s Domain, or perhaps Penetration Steadily By Taking Up Residence In — but, well, that genuinely seems to be how this word is used.
That is how it is used by bigots and racists as reported by NPR. The meaning you are going for is not the common one, that you are falling for the meaning that extremists bigots are going for is telling.
Yes, by entering the U.S. without prior inspection and then declaring their fear of persecution is how the law works.
As noted, he is not a bright one.
Yes, but not if you stop them before they enter the US without prior inspection, if they opt not to go the port of entry route.
That’s why I would recommend going the port of entry route.
Yup, funnel them into a target rich kill zone.
And the not bright quality of The Wanker shows up here, googling around I get that the meaning he is trying to shoe horn in the usual definition of “invade” is coming from an incomplete definition from the Cambridge Dictionary, The Wanker here omits that the complete secondary meaning is: “to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage:”
Yep, he is that dense when trying to ignore that even that secondary meaning has very negative connotations. When one sees someone talking about “doesn’t seem to have negative connotations” that is what fascist nationalists say to defend their dog whistles.
What are you talking about? When I said “doesn’t seem to have a strongly negative connotation informed by the like of a political position” — not merely “doesn’t seem to have negative connotations” — I explicitly said it in reference to the example Dr.Drake provided from Merriam-Webster. Go re-read what I wrote; you can’t miss it.
Like if the accusations of Squatting are not lines that Republicans or Toffee nosed Brits use against the poor.
The point about fascist nationalists minimizing the meaning of “invaders” when called for using that reprehensible usage against immigrants does stand, trying to justify it is what fascist nationalists do about their dog whistles.
You do realize that your actual position is that Russian troops with tanks and women and children seeking asylum are equally deserving of death.
You do realize I was being accused of being simpatico with them, right? But not a word of criticism for the guy who guessed wrong. Amazing.
(Also, how often does the phrase Deserve’s Got Nothing To Do With It get thrown around around here?)
Yep, and I will post here my reply to him in the Troll tread:
Ok, seems that The Other Wanker of Popper is also trying to be stupid and to try to gaslight, what he was doing a few hours ago in this thread was an attempt of ‘who me? I’m not seeing the immigrants as murderers, no siree, why I’m going for what I think an invader means to me, it is not that bad’.
Yeah, tell that to the Ukrainians.
And Karl Popper is rolling in his grave after TOWP abused him all these years.
As I mentioned, I will be wrong about him not having sympathies with invader Putin when he stops diluting what an invader is . While at the same time declaring that he sees what an invader really is (“that genuinely seems to be how this word is used.”). That is only clarifying that he is going for the “tails you lose, heads I win” stupid argument.
Someone to be gunned down? That’s your idea of sympathizing?
Or as others say: The other Wanker of Popper wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Nah, besides that contradiction, his further clarification is that he is supporting the stochastic terrorist Republicans.