6 ms·

> Technically, almost every expression imaginable could be used by somebody who is racist. you seem to be having a hard time with this. Let me paraphrase somet

> Technically, almost every expression imaginable could be used by somebody who is racist. you seem to be having a hard time with this. Let me paraphrase something that, if you have an open mind, might help elucidate the issue. "I'm not saying that everyone who says, 'illegals' is racist, but an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'" > Yah, this very time. no, you.

smsm42 7y ago
> you seem to be having a hard time with this It may come as a surprise to you, but when people disagree with you, it's usually not because they don't understand the infinite wisdom of your words. It's often because they understand and think you're talking nonsense. And sometimes - like in this case - it's because you are. > an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'" So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening". Obviously, that doesn't make these expressions taboo. It would only be meaningful if the link went the other direction - if this designation was predominantly used by racists. So what you're doing here is trying to imply it's the case, by stating the reverse and hinting there's a casual link, but because your case for it is so weak that it would not tolerate direct confrontation, you avoid telling it directly. So that, when challenged, you can feign innocence and cry "I didn't say it's racist, I just said it's used by racist!". Taken literally, you didn't, but you words only have any meaning if that's exactly what you tried to imply without saying it directly, as to avoid being confronted and revealed as falsity. This is an insincere and I'd even say cowardly way to discuss things - casting implications without daring to stand behind them and defend them.
- V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
  > So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening". sigh this is the second time you've said essentially, "racists say a lot of other things too, so clearly 'illegals' isn't racist". that's not a particularly helpful or clever point. are there non-racist people who say "illegals"? sure. do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do. does the original commenter probably understand the connotations? yeah, good bet they do. do you? I honestly don't care. I pose this question for you: are there other, non racially charged ways to describe someone's immigration status? think hard. anyway, like I said, elucidating the point only works if you have an open mind. I guess yours isn't. cheers.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do That's called "circular arfument" - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim. > do you? I honestly don't care So, being unable to prove your point, or somehow substantiate the claim that calling acts that are agains the law "illegal" is somehow "racist" (tbh, you shouldn't blame yourself too hard for the failure - it's very hard to prove something this idiotic, but you definitely should blame yourself for proclaiming it in the first place, as you should know better) - you resort to denigrating me personally and feigning indifference to my opinion (after all the discussion) because you are so much smarter than me (and the way these smarts are revealed is by mindlessly repeating a slogan which you are unable to substantiate). > are there other, non racially charged ways to describe someone's immigration status? Yes, here's one: if someone immigrated legally, she's a legal immigrant. If someone immigrated illegally, she's an illegal immigrant. Nothing to do with race. See how easy it was? Of course, if you tend to reflexively call whoever disagrees with you "racist", it may become harder. But that's exactly the reason to get rid of that foolish tic.
    - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
      > That's called "circular arfument" (lol, sic) - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim. first, it's whom, not who. second, i didn't claim that it's racist because people know that it's racist. learn from google, learn from teen vogue. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-you-shouldnt-use-the-term-illegals https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-you-shouldnt-use-the-ter... you bring nothing novel or new or clever to this conversation. bye, dude. you're intellectually dishonest. even worse, you're boring.
      - smsm42 7y ago
        > first, it's whom, not who. That's the best you can do? "Dude". > learn from teen vogue Oh my.

smsm42 7y ago

> you seem to be having a hard time with this It may come as a surprise to you, but when people disagree with you, it's usually not because they don't understand the infinite wisdom of your words. It's often because they understand and think you're talking nonsense. And sometimes - like in this case - it's because you are. > an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'" So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening". Obviously, that doesn't make these expressions taboo. It would only be meaningful if the link went the other direction - if this designation was predominantly used by racists. So what you're doing here is trying to imply it's the case, by stating the reverse and hinting there's a casual link, but because your case for it is so weak that it would not tolerate direct confrontation, you avoid telling it directly. So that, when challenged, you can feign innocence and cry "I didn't say it's racist, I just said it's used by racist!". Taken literally, you didn't, but you words only have any meaning if that's exactly what you tried to imply without saying it directly, as to avoid being confronted and revealed as falsity. This is an insincere and I'd even say cowardly way to discuss things - casting implications without daring to stand behind them and defend them.

V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
> So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening". sigh this is the second time you've said essentially, "racists say a lot of other things too, so clearly 'illegals' isn't racist". that's not a particularly helpful or clever point. are there non-racist people who say "illegals"? sure. do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do. does the original commenter probably understand the connotations? yeah, good bet they do. do you? I honestly don't care. I pose this question for you: are there other, non racially charged ways to describe someone's immigration status? think hard. anyway, like I said, elucidating the point only works if you have an open mind. I guess yours isn't. cheers.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do That's called "circular arfument" - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim. > do you? I honestly don't care So, being unable to prove your point, or somehow substantiate the claim that calling acts that are agains the law "illegal" is somehow "racist" (tbh, you shouldn't blame yourself too hard for the failure - it's very hard to prove something this idiotic, but you definitely should blame yourself for proclaiming it in the first place, as you should know better) - you resort to denigrating me personally and feigning indifference to my opinion (after all the discussion) because you are so much smarter than me (and the way these smarts are revealed is by mindlessly repeating a slogan which you are unable to substantiate). > are there other, non racially charged ways to describe someone's immigration status? Yes, here's one: if someone immigrated legally, she's a legal immigrant. If someone immigrated illegally, she's an illegal immigrant. Nothing to do with race. See how easy it was? Of course, if you tend to reflexively call whoever disagrees with you "racist", it may become harder. But that's exactly the reason to get rid of that foolish tic.
  - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
    > That's called "circular arfument" (lol, sic) - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim. first, it's whom, not who. second, i didn't claim that it's racist because people know that it's racist. learn from google, learn from teen vogue. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-you-shouldnt-use-the-term-illegals https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-you-shouldnt-use-the-ter... you bring nothing novel or new or clever to this conversation. bye, dude. you're intellectually dishonest. even worse, you're boring.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      > first, it's whom, not who. That's the best you can do? "Dude". > learn from teen vogue Oh my.