Just calling them “people” seems a silly suggestion. So, instead of talking about protesters, government officials, border patrol agents, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants, we should just say “People confronted people over peoples’ policies concerning people and people”?
It strikes me that it might be valid, accurate, and meaningful to refer to someone who knowingly committed an illegal act with some sort of adjective implying ill-motive, as opposed to the more passive “undocumented.” Does “undocumented” necessarily refer to someone who came to the country illegally?
I’m not tied to “illegal immigrant,” but I’m not sure “undocumented immigrant” really is equivalent. I’m not entirely sure why it is offensive to use an accurate term to refer to people. Of course I have heard folk suggest prisoners be referred to something stupid like “people disadadvantaged by interactions with the justice system” (likely inaccurate phrasing - from memory.)
Ya don’t want to be referred to as “illegal” - how about you refrain from doing something illegal?
Yeah. The term’s only used to refer to people who aren’t legally within the country. It isn’t used to refer to people who drive drunk, steal, beat up other people, starve their kids or dogs, rape, and/or murder.
That’s why it made sense for Biden to say that “legals” also commit murder. Nobody thought he was saying that he thinks it’s legal to do so.
Well, we do have a lump term for people who have gone on trial for a crime and been found guilty by the legal system–convicted criminals. Which–because people tend to like to shorten words and terms in use–becomes convicts, and then cons. I can’t think of other specific illegal activities with common abbreviated versions, though. Arsonists aren’t arses and burgulars are not burgs, for example. Oh, wait–pedophiles are pedos.
You also get some other occupational or behavioral terms that are shortened in common use but other similar terms that aren’t. You get vet for veterinarian but not veg for vegetarian, for instance.
I agree. Politics is not about policy and is certainly not about power. It’s about showcasing my virtue, highlighting what an upright and proper person I am who never ever makes verbal false steps. Also, one example proves everything that I want it to prove. No more, no less.
Biden’s remarks shocked me and outraged me. But the OP outraged me as well. So did TruCelt. In fact I’m outraged by this very post: my outrage is maximum outrageous. That’s how virtuous I am: everything outrages my delicate moral sentiments. The world is a blur of outrage, so when election time rolls around I just flip a coin.
Thank the gods we got rid of that dog torturing racist LBJ before he could do any damage to the country . . . like signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. /s
That is in fact true of most of the posters in this thread. It’s probably true of you. What’s Joe Biden’s policy with respect to those “illegals?” You don’t think that kind of fucking rhetoric is tied to policy? You don’t think trying to bandy their language back and forth with right wing psychopaths is tied to what he’s actually likely to do with immigration policy? You don’t think the world will be markedly worse if people don’t push back against dehumanizing language by “progressive” presidents?
You don’t give a shit. You are in fact doing outrage theater. You’re getting outraged at me for pointing out a blindingly obvious truth. You just haven’t thought about policy in so long you all forgot what it is. You’re better than MAGA people by accident. It’s an aesthetic thing for you all. None of you gives a shit about the border. I genuinely have no idea why I ever come back to this place.
I just want to bring increased attention to Ann’s point here because I think it is really important.
Yes the second half of biden’s response to Empty Greene puts his use of the word in a new context. I do remember hearing that portion of the exchange but it had completely slipped my mind by the time I got here to the board and was reading this thread.
I’ll also note that the fact that this word was thrown out in the middle of a confrontation with Greene and what was already expected to be a highly contentious state of the union. If he had said this while being completely calm in a random conversation or speech I might put more concern on it than what I do. Biden had every right to be extremely upset with the way she was acting like that night. Hell I’ll admit if I’d been in biden’s place I might have come up with a few more colorful phrases to throw at her.
And just to be clear no one is saying the word illegal is not a slur when used in that way. What people are objecting to is you jumping to the ridiculous conclusion that that makes Joe Biden racist.
And to think that we’re going to apply the same standards to Joe Biden that we do Donald Trump when taking in to account their entire history of public service and public statements? That’s just absurd and I think you know that.
Given that Biden has already forthrightly stated he regrets having employed the term, “illegal,” this all seems like a lot of fuss over little.
Biden expressed his regret in an interview with Jonathan Capehart of MSNBC, who asked him directly about it. The full interview will be shown at 6:00 p.m. EST.
Gotta love the attitude, “don’t talk about Donald Trump even though I mentioned him in the thread title”.
So much wrong with the person who made this thread, it’s like shitting yourself the moment you walked into a party then getting angry that everyone is objecting to your presence. Then getting mad when people ask you to clean yourself up.
