3 ms·

Is there something wrong with that? Incredibly common parlance.

by _bin_ 1y ago

AlecSchueler 1y ago
It's dehumanising. They have committed an illegal act. The respectfully term would be "illegal immigrants." It's the difference between "black people" and "blacks." The latter was also once incredibly common parlance.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  This is BS. I call people illegals or blacks just like I call them millennials or Christians. This is still standard parlance. You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it.
  - palmotea 1y ago
    > You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it. He (and his fellow travelers) assert it, therefore that is the way it is. It's an obnoxious but super-common way of driving ideological change (and keeping people on the outside). For the most part, all these formulations (illegal, illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, person experiencing un-documentation) have an objectively equivalent meaning. The newer ones are kinda foolish attempts to use language games to change people's beliefs and perceptions, and really only function as shibboleths.
    - _bin_ 1y ago
      Correct, we could ban undergrads reading Wittgenstein and half of this BS would go away. I generally ignore this because these changes both carry some level of significance in how people think, linguistic determinism wise, and because they turn into Havel’s Greengrocer type situations.
  - AlecSchueler 1y ago
    I did make a case, I thought that anyone using HN would have a good enough reading ability to take the inference about human first language from my examples. I understand you might have missed it because of your emotional reaction, evidenced by your jumping straight to swearing at me. It's not bullshit, though, it's actually also extremely common parlance if you care to get out of your bubble. Watch a speech from a Democrat and you'll see that they probably prefer terms like "undocumented migrants." Look at style guides from publishers like the Associated Press and you'll see that they specifically warn against using agressive language like "illegals." This is not a fringe idea and it's strange to argue for your own term on the basis of it being "common" without recognising how commonly people feel that it is inappropriate, and without having the decency to offer a case as to why you feel they are wrong. Maybe you use the term blacks just like you use Christians. Ok? That's specifically ignoring the explicit requests from various advocacy groups and ignoring the historical problems associated with the use of the term. If you're still making the case that you aren't a bigot this looks very unconcinving. Especially when you start talking about banning philosophy books just because you can't handle questions being raised about language. The world and its people are various and it's time that you learned you have to share it with people who have different views. You are on the wrong side of history today.

Is there something wrong with that? Incredibly common parlance.

by _bin_ 1y ago

Is there something wrong with that? Incredibly common parlance.

It's dehumanising. They have committed an illegal act. The respectfully term would be "illegal immigrants." It's the difference between "black people" and "blacks." The latter was also once incredibly common parlance.

_bin_ 1y ago
This is BS. I call people illegals or blacks just like I call them millennials or Christians. This is still standard parlance. You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > You have to make a case as to why it’s dehumanizing if you want people to listen; you can’t just say it. He (and his fellow travelers) assert it, therefore that is the way it is. It's an obnoxious but super-common way of driving ideological change (and keeping people on the outside). For the most part, all these formulations (illegal, illegal immigrant, undocumented immigrant, person experiencing un-documentation) have an objectively equivalent meaning. The newer ones are kinda foolish attempts to use language games to change people's beliefs and perceptions, and really only function as shibboleths.
  - _bin_ 1y ago
    Correct, we could ban undergrads reading Wittgenstein and half of this BS would go away. I generally ignore this because these changes both carry some level of significance in how people think, linguistic determinism wise, and because they turn into Havel’s Greengrocer type situations.
- AlecSchueler 1y ago
  I did make a case, I thought that anyone using HN would have a good enough reading ability to take the inference about human first language from my examples. I understand you might have missed it because of your emotional reaction, evidenced by your jumping straight to swearing at me. It's not bullshit, though, it's actually also extremely common parlance if you care to get out of your bubble. Watch a speech from a Democrat and you'll see that they probably prefer terms like "undocumented migrants." Look at style guides from publishers like the Associated Press and you'll see that they specifically warn against using agressive language like "illegals." This is not a fringe idea and it's strange to argue for your own term on the basis of it being "common" without recognising how commonly people feel that it is inappropriate, and without having the decency to offer a case as to why you feel they are wrong. Maybe you use the term blacks just like you use Christians. Ok? That's specifically ignoring the explicit requests from various advocacy groups and ignoring the historical problems associated with the use of the term. If you're still making the case that you aren't a bigot this looks very unconcinving. Especially when you start talking about banning philosophy books just because you can't handle questions being raised about language. The world and its people are various and it's time that you learned you have to share it with people who have different views. You are on the wrong side of history today.