Well, I look at it another way: my point is that your post, as written, shouldn’t be taken seriously — because, as worded, it’s merely incorrect. It starts off ludicrously wrong; I saw no reason to think it gets any better; I find what you note here to be a perfectly sufficient ‘counterargument’: how can I improve on the writer pointing out that, no, it doesn’t literally mean what it stated?
…you were. You were, actually, wrong.
I can’t help but wonder what the next ‘figure of speech, not literal’ dodge is going to be. The guy who stated “that people who aspire to human decency do not use “illegal” as a noun” — what, is he going to awkwardly explain that, er, well, no, of course some people who so aspire do use that noun, gosh, it wasn’t meant literally, there’s at least one exception, clearly, clearly, heh, heh?
Sigh. This isn’t Alice in Wonderland. You cannot make words mean whatever you want them to mean. kaylasdad was not manipulative–he didn’t trick anyone or coerce them into doing anything. It’s simple logic. Decent people do not use ‘illegals’ as a noun Typo Negative used ‘illegals’ as a noun. Therefore Typo Negative is not a decent person.
This is, of course, understatement. He far worse than just indecent. But he is not ever referred to as less than human. So he was not dehumanized, either.
The purpose is obvious: to call out the guy for his bigoted little tirade, where he was so unhinged he used a slur. He is, at the very least, “not a decent person.” I admire kaylasdad’s restraint.
Fuck you, The Other Waldo Pepper. There’s a reason why I have you on ignore (and thus never read your “retort” until now).It’s tied up with that higher standard that Dopers are held to.
You’re leaving out a word, there; the phrase was “human decency”. The point was to emphasize that someone who uses that word as a noun doesn’t merely lack decency, but lacks human decency and doesn’t even aspire to human decency.
(You know, if he meant that literally — which, if he’s anything like you, ain’t at all a safe conclusion; it’s still possible he might try the same backpedal.)
You’re stopping short: you say the goal is to call him out; why? What’s he trying to accomplish by ‘calling him out’ when stating that he lacks human decency?
Uh, okay. I sure do hope someone manages to relay to you that your flatly-stated claim remains factually incorrect; if you really do have some kind of fondness for high standards, maybe ‘accuracy’ can find its way into your posts.
It would still be a minority interpretation of a common English world.
Or you could just admit you were wrong.
Because referring to fellow human beings as being “illegals” is derogatory and dehumanizing and is a favorite tactic of those who want to scapegoat/demonize a group of people, treat them as second-class human beings, or worse.
Well…no, people who refer to other human beings as “illegals” are not decent humans. It’s despicable, really. It’s a slur. The rest of what you’re doing is hairsplitting and special pleading.
But that’s my point: if a minority of dictionaries list it that way, then I wasn’t wrong; the poster who stated that it’s listed as derogatory in any dictionary was wrong, and should’ve made some other claim instead.
If a guy says something that’s incorrect, and I reply that the statement is incorrect, and you feel like jumping in to ask me to admit that I was wrong, you should maybe stop to note that, no, my correct reply isn’t the problem; the incorrect statement was the problem, not the response that points it out.
It’s an interesting — and derogatory? — claim that you’re putting out there; I take it you mean I’m not a decent human, because no matter what else I do I refer to such people as ‘illegals’ instead of ‘illegal aliens’ or ‘people who are here illegally’ or whichever term you prefer? If so, then: if you had to guess, what percent of this country would you figure “are not decent humans”?
This is some quality sov cit level arguing right there. The hypothetical existence of a dictionary that doesn’t call a dehumanising slur a slur would be in no way relevant to the facts that a) it is one, and b) you were using it as one.
Everyone else isn’t using a gold-fringed dictionary magically making this drivel have a point; if you think it’s fine to use a slur to describe people, own it.
Hypothetical? Broomstick, who doesn’t seem to be at all on my side here, didn’t merely grant that there might be some dictionaries out there that don’t make that notation, but immediately went on to mention one that doesn’t.
Is it a slur to describe people as “felons” instead of phrasing it in some other way? Is it a slur to accurately describe people as “trespassers” or “perjurers” — or as “arsonists” or “burglars” or whatever, on through the alphabet — instead of wording it some other way? In a sense, you could say it is; and yet, yes, all of that strikes me as fine. So fine, in fact, that I’m not sure that’s what it means to use a slur.
Would you say ‘illegals’ is a slur the way ‘felons’ and ‘trespassers’ and ‘perjurers’ and the rest are? Or are you saying it’s a slur in a way they’re not?
You’re just splitting hairs, Waldo. A word becomes a slur when it is used to describe a group of people, and when people take umbrage to the slur. That’s really all it takes.
The word “fag” once meant cigarette - still does in some parts of the world. Most know it’s a slur, and it doesn’t matter whether a majority of dictionaries describe it that way or not. Most adults who care enough to discuss the politics of gays and lesbians know it’s something that gays and lesbians take offense to when used by non-gays and non-lesbians. The other day Septimus used the word “tranny” to refer to transgendered people. He used it because at one time, it wasn’t considered offensive. Not realizing it was no longer p.c., he used it and was warned for it. (FTR, Septimus apologized and said he wasn’t aware it was no longer an acceptable term, and I believe him - he’s a good poster).
The same is true of “illegal.” You can say that so-and-so is an “illegal immigrant” or that “illegal immigrants” put a strain on the resources of some local communities. But the term “illegals,” like many other slurs, is offensive because of its casual usage. It’s used casually to describe a group of people. The term also reinforces the idea that they are “the other,” and that they’re low class. Even if someone is 100% factually correct in pointing out that they don’t have legal status, it’s dehumanizing to label them in that way because it so often ignores the understandable reasons many have for skipping the immigration process. Many “illegals” are, in fact, decent people who just want a better life for themselves and their families. People can disagree with their decision and their justifications for crossing the border illegally - that doesn’t make someone a racist or a bigot. But one could argue throwing them into some broad category or class of people and debasing them with a term that reinforces their low status is bigoted behavior. At the very least, it’s insensitive. Dictionaries aren’t required to prove that point.
But that gets at what I’m asking, in all sincerity: the word ‘felon’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if they “take umbrage” to that? The word ‘trespasser’ describes a group of people; is it a slur if it’s met with umbrage?
If so, then, sure, I guess I’m fine with using such slurs. If your two-part test is the one we’re to apply, then as far as I know I’m already making regular use of slurs. Heck, maybe I can meet something with umbrage and jab an accusatory finger at a slurrer, if they so describe me and I then, uh, “take umbrage”?
If dopers were held to a higher standard, you for one would not be here. You are an annoying turd and your drive-by “witticisms” and pontifications are appreciated by nobody.
Yes, I suppose it can if the word becomes frequently associated with reference to specific types of people. Take the word “thug,” for example. A generation or two ago, a thug referred to a violent person or a criminal generally. However, in today’s context, particularly when speaking in reference to a black person, it can just as easily be understood to refer to a violent black criminal, or a more socially acceptable way of using the n-word.
The real point you’re refusing to acknowledge is that words have denotative meanings and connotative meanings. Words are attempts to describe thoughts and ideas. In communication, it’s thoughts and ideas first, and words second, not the other way around. Words frequently fail to describe ideas, feelings, and thoughts with precision, which is why how words are intended and also interpreted depends a LOT on the context. Words can have more than one definition, and Webster’s isn’t necessarily the last word on what a word means.
That’s right, show everyone reading this that rather than showing a willingness to try to understand why people might be offended, you just don’t give a shit. Racism isn’t your problem, I guess.
Illegal is regularly used against people based on skin color, country of origin, accent/language, and more features that have nothing to do with immigration status (in my personal experience, at least half the time the users of the word “illegal” couldn’t possibly have knowledge of the immigration status of those they are targeting with the word). It’s become a slur because it’s used like a slur and received like a slur. Maybe the first people who used the n-word didn’t intend it as a slur. Maybe some of them kept using it with a non-slur intention. But it doesn’t matter – once tons of people are using it as a slur, and receiving it as a slur, then it’s a slur. Which is the case for “illegal” as a noun.
This is hilarious in 2019.
I can’t find any evidence that those words are defined as being slurs, disparaging, or offensive.
So should I take your questions as essentially asking why the word “cunt” is offensive but the word “apple” is not? Are you this stupid?
o_o
>_<
o_0
I appreciate them.
