5 ms·

> People on welfare are taking from the system and people who cross our borders and enter and stay in our country without visas are illegal. They are taking f

> People on welfare are taking from the system and people who cross our borders and enter and stay in our country without visas are illegal. They are taking from the system, yes. They are people who receive welfare, not parasites. People who emigrate illegally have committed a crime, they are not themselves a crime , they are not themselves illegal. The most we could stretch to would be "illegally present people." But going further and calling a group of people "illegals" removes the human aspect from the conversation and is therefore quite literally dehumanising. > People who look at such things with "horror" dehumanize the conversation A conversation is not a human so this point comes across as absurd. Could you rephrase it? > It is like they bathe themselves in weakness and virtue signaling. This point comes across as a vaccuous ad hominem, could you rephrase it? > They hide from how cruel the world is I can speak for myself and say that I am very much not doing that. I couldn't be more conscious of the fact that the last time language like this was normalised it lead to the deaths of millions of innocent people. This cannot happen again. It is purely the incredible cruelty of this world that drives me to say what I am saying.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
When the completely descriptive term "illegal immigrant" becomes somehow an immoral thing to call people who immigrate illegally, it was a bit absurd. Literally every illegal immigrant has committed a crime, by definition, and that crime is immigrating illegally - "illegal" describes the mode of immigration. The previous administration used "undocumented immigrant" (and often shortened it to "undocumented") as a sort of "softening" language game.
- snozolli 2y ago
  When the completely descriptive term "illegal immigrant" becomes somehow an immoral thing to call people who immigrate illegally, it was a bit absurd I think you're missing GP's point. It's "illegals" that's arguably dehumanizing. Similar to "blacks" or "the blacks" versus "black people". I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with GP, but I've definitely picked up on racism from people who talk about "blacks" instead of black people, and the homophobia from people who talk about "the gays" instead of gay people.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Why, then, is "the undocumented" not dehumanizing? This is the language that has been used under the prior administration.
    - snozolli 2y ago
      Who says it isn't? If you want my opinion, it's the same habit creeping into the new language. Whether or not that's dehumanizing, I don't know, and I don't care. I'm fine with the term "illegals". I was just explaining what I understood GP's point to be.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      The real problem is the totality of it. We've gone far past calling them "illegal" to saying "they're poisoning the blood of our country", which incidentally is also language used by Nazis. The things they say consistently ratchet toward justifications for genocide rather than away from it, and that's how it works - one small step at a time, where people explain each one away as not that bad. But each step is toward the day when you can say "... and therefore we must implement a final solution for the problem of illegals. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but they forced us to by poisoning and invading our country."
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        It's a long way to go from the word "illegal(s)" and large-scale deportations to Nazism and genocide. Deportation of illegal immigrants is a good thing. Illegal immigration is a violation of the law, and it is routine for people who overstay a visa to be deported (and usually banned from entry to a country for 10-20 years). There are people who wait decades to legally get a visa, and all of the people who saunter over the border thinking they are above the law make a mockery of the people who do it the right way. While you keep imagining an unavoidable slippery slope to genocide, I will celebrate the return of the rule of law to immigration while making sure that it goes no further.
        2y ago
- rajup 2y ago
  If we should call things what they are, we should definitely start by calling Americans who emigrate to other countries what they are: immigrants in the other country. Of course most choose to cutely refer to themselves as "expats".
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    Sure, I agree you should call them that. "Expat" is short for "expatriate" which is about where they come from. They are both expatriates of America and immigrants to wherever they go.
    - rajup 2y ago
      Glad you agree! I'm just pointing out that the most plausible reason your fellow countrymen choose to call themselves "expats" wherever they go, is because the rhetoric in your country has dehumanized or made the word immigrants/illegal "dirty". Not hard to imagine such rhetoric can lead to nastiness all around, ending even in violence against said group. If you don't mind that and see no problem with that, then of course there's absolutely no common ground for us to have any discussion on :)
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        I don't agree with you that the words "illegal immigrant" create violence. Also, "immigrant" does not carry a negative connotation in most uses as far as I can tell. The negative connotation comes from the word "illegal," which marks someone who commits a crime (illegal immigration) as a criminal. Of course, aside from arrest and deportation, they do not deserve to be subject to violence or maltreatment. That is how every country in the world treats people who immigrate illegally.
        rajup 2y ago
        > I don't agree with you that the words "illegal immigrant" create violence. Heh I guess you've never been subject to taunts such as "go back to your country illegal" or "you don't belong here!". Must be nice!
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  You're talking about the term "illegal immigrants" but I was responding to the use of the term "illegals." The term you're using includes the word migrant and is therefore not dehumanising in the same way. The difference is between using illegal as an alternative or a noun. Sorry if that wasn't clear from what I said
  - cglace 2y ago
    I'm sorry but these are the word games that drive the right. In essence, no one gives a shit. You are only signaling to other liberals and accomplishing nothing. Why not focus on a fight that matters.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      You've made a good example of the danger of using words like this to group people. You've made an incorrect assumption that I am a "liberal" and you've made no argument beyond that I am serving a boogeyman in the nebulous concept of "the right," perpetuating a black and white idea of us-and-them politics and shoe-horning every possible opinion into one of two camps. If you genuinely want to change my behaviour then please substantiate your claims, give arguments for the points you're making and speak to me like an individual rather than a hologram of whatever group you're projecting onto me.
      - cglace 2y ago
        I don't care about political labels. These niche arguments are useless - they don't change anyone's mind. Both sides use these debates as examples to portray the other as extreme. I'm tired of discourse that claims to enlighten but only pushes people further apart, regardless of intent.
        AlecSchueler 2y ago
        You don't care about political labels but your entire argument was that my position "drives the right" -- no reasoning was offered, only the claim that your boogeyman of choice was somehow being strengthened. You don't care about labels but you made sure to accompany your claim by pointing out that I was "only signaling to other liberals" making again a point with no content other than the boogeyman and now with the addition of now placing me within that group on the basis of my position. I've read back on this exchange several times. I see that I am positing something about language and explaining my reasoning, then you're responding with cries about "word games" without saying anything of substance. Do you see the same thing? What are you trying to say and why?

pclmulqdq 2y ago

When the completely descriptive term "illegal immigrant" becomes somehow an immoral thing to call people who immigrate illegally, it was a bit absurd. Literally every illegal immigrant has committed a crime, by definition, and that crime is immigrating illegally - "illegal" describes the mode of immigration. The previous administration used "undocumented immigrant" (and often shortened it to "undocumented") as a sort of "softening" language game.

snozolli 2y ago
When the completely descriptive term "illegal immigrant" becomes somehow an immoral thing to call people who immigrate illegally, it was a bit absurd I think you're missing GP's point. It's "illegals" that's arguably dehumanizing. Similar to "blacks" or "the blacks" versus "black people". I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with GP, but I've definitely picked up on racism from people who talk about "blacks" instead of black people, and the homophobia from people who talk about "the gays" instead of gay people.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Why, then, is "the undocumented" not dehumanizing? This is the language that has been used under the prior administration.
  - snozolli 2y ago
    Who says it isn't? If you want my opinion, it's the same habit creeping into the new language. Whether or not that's dehumanizing, I don't know, and I don't care. I'm fine with the term "illegals". I was just explaining what I understood GP's point to be.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    The real problem is the totality of it. We've gone far past calling them "illegal" to saying "they're poisoning the blood of our country", which incidentally is also language used by Nazis. The things they say consistently ratchet toward justifications for genocide rather than away from it, and that's how it works - one small step at a time, where people explain each one away as not that bad. But each step is toward the day when you can say "... and therefore we must implement a final solution for the problem of illegals. I wish it didn't have to be this way, but they forced us to by poisoning and invading our country."
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      It's a long way to go from the word "illegal(s)" and large-scale deportations to Nazism and genocide. Deportation of illegal immigrants is a good thing. Illegal immigration is a violation of the law, and it is routine for people who overstay a visa to be deported (and usually banned from entry to a country for 10-20 years). There are people who wait decades to legally get a visa, and all of the people who saunter over the border thinking they are above the law make a mockery of the people who do it the right way. While you keep imagining an unavoidable slippery slope to genocide, I will celebrate the return of the rule of law to immigration while making sure that it goes no further.
      - 2y ago
rajup 2y ago
If we should call things what they are, we should definitely start by calling Americans who emigrate to other countries what they are: immigrants in the other country. Of course most choose to cutely refer to themselves as "expats".
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  Sure, I agree you should call them that. "Expat" is short for "expatriate" which is about where they come from. They are both expatriates of America and immigrants to wherever they go.
  - rajup 2y ago
    Glad you agree! I'm just pointing out that the most plausible reason your fellow countrymen choose to call themselves "expats" wherever they go, is because the rhetoric in your country has dehumanized or made the word immigrants/illegal "dirty". Not hard to imagine such rhetoric can lead to nastiness all around, ending even in violence against said group. If you don't mind that and see no problem with that, then of course there's absolutely no common ground for us to have any discussion on :)
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      I don't agree with you that the words "illegal immigrant" create violence. Also, "immigrant" does not carry a negative connotation in most uses as far as I can tell. The negative connotation comes from the word "illegal," which marks someone who commits a crime (illegal immigration) as a criminal. Of course, aside from arrest and deportation, they do not deserve to be subject to violence or maltreatment. That is how every country in the world treats people who immigrate illegally.
      - rajup 2y ago
        > I don't agree with you that the words "illegal immigrant" create violence. Heh I guess you've never been subject to taunts such as "go back to your country illegal" or "you don't belong here!". Must be nice!
AlecSchueler 2y ago
You're talking about the term "illegal immigrants" but I was responding to the use of the term "illegals." The term you're using includes the word migrant and is therefore not dehumanising in the same way. The difference is between using illegal as an alternative or a noun. Sorry if that wasn't clear from what I said
- cglace 2y ago
  I'm sorry but these are the word games that drive the right. In essence, no one gives a shit. You are only signaling to other liberals and accomplishing nothing. Why not focus on a fight that matters.
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    You've made a good example of the danger of using words like this to group people. You've made an incorrect assumption that I am a "liberal" and you've made no argument beyond that I am serving a boogeyman in the nebulous concept of "the right," perpetuating a black and white idea of us-and-them politics and shoe-horning every possible opinion into one of two camps. If you genuinely want to change my behaviour then please substantiate your claims, give arguments for the points you're making and speak to me like an individual rather than a hologram of whatever group you're projecting onto me.
    - cglace 2y ago
      I don't care about political labels. These niche arguments are useless - they don't change anyone's mind. Both sides use these debates as examples to portray the other as extreme. I'm tired of discourse that claims to enlighten but only pushes people further apart, regardless of intent.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        You don't care about political labels but your entire argument was that my position "drives the right" -- no reasoning was offered, only the claim that your boogeyman of choice was somehow being strengthened. You don't care about labels but you made sure to accompany your claim by pointing out that I was "only signaling to other liberals" making again a point with no content other than the boogeyman and now with the addition of now placing me within that group on the basis of my position. I've read back on this exchange several times. I see that I am positing something about language and explaining my reasoning, then you're responding with cries about "word games" without saying anything of substance. Do you see the same thing? What are you trying to say and why?