3 ms·

You (and everyone who takes that stance) are reading a lot into how the term should be parsed. "Immigrated illegally" is a completely accurate statement. It i

You (and everyone who takes that stance) are reading a lot into how the term should be parsed. "Immigrated illegally" is a completely accurate statement. It is not saying that the people are illegal (how could they be?), but that their immigration was illegal. Now, you can say that the immigration laws are morally wrong if you want, but that's a different argument. As far as descriptive terms go, they immigrated illegally, so they're illegal immigrants - immigrants whose immigration was illegal. No, we're not going to go with whatever newspeak alternative you come up with. But your side also has a valid point: These are human beings. They deserve to be treated like humans, not animals, even if they are being expelled from the country. That's a true point, and one that needs to be made repeatedly. But heckling people about the term used to describe the people is not going to move the needle on that issue.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> heckling people about the term used to describe the people is not going to move the needle on that issue I disagree with this; this is the primary means by which dehumanization occurs. I like to think of "police officer" as the perfect dehumanizing term because it showcases that dehumanization is not always negative. Some people will hear the term and automatically think good things and some will automatically think bad things. Few will think about a person they don't know, complete with vices and virtues they may or may not agree with. The point is that dehumanization makes you think of a concept of a person rather than a person.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  But that's true of every term. "Computer programmer", say. People hear that term and automatically think certain things. " Few will think about a person they don't know, complete with vices and virtues they may or may not agree with." It "makes you think of a concept of a person rather than a person." So I think that dynamic is present in every term we use to refer to humans as something other than "human". I don't need people to refer to me as "human who programs computers" so that I'm not dehumanized. (In fact, once "human that programs computers" becomes the accepted term, that term would also have the dynamic of dehumanizing those it covers. Having the word "human" in it wouldn't save it once it became a recognized term.)
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    Your whole first paragraph is actually offering another example of a dehumanizing term. The point of “human who does a thing” is to be a naturally-chosen phrase, not a term. Think, “Joe programs computers”, not, “Joe is a computer programmer”. You are correct that it would similarly be dehumanizing if it simply became another term to replace “computer programmer” like “Joe is a human-who-programs-computers” but that is because the statement is about what Joe supposedly “is” rather than being a description of things they’ve done.
- hcnova10 1y ago
  In that case the most dehumanizing terms I can think of are blacks, Asians, Latinos, and to a certain extent, white.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    Well, I mean, I don’t disagree; those are all racist terms. The dehumanizing aspect of those terms (and more generally with racism) is that they are reducing a person to their physical characteristics. “They’re black” is different from “they have a dark skin color”. One is talking about “what someone is” holistically (dehumanizing), while the other is talking about a specific aspect of their physical appearance.
    - hcnova10 1y ago
      That seems a bit of a stretch. The idea will evolve into, “Since racial labels are bad let’s just ignore them altogether and be color blind”. But we all know that’s not how the real world works. Three male programmers with same qualifications, the black man is going to have a different experience with the police than a white man. And the Asian man is going to deal with different stuff when it comes to dating.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        I don’t necessarily disagree with this comment but I also think the things you mention are examples of how society-wide dehumanization can affect real-world decision-making when it comes to certain demographics.
saubeidl 1y ago
> You (and everyone who takes that stance) are reading a lot into how the term should be parsed. "Immigrated illegally" is a completely accurate statement. It is not saying that the people are illegal (how could they be?), but that their immigration was illegal. That is not what is said - otherwise it would be people who immigrated illegally, using an adverb instead of an adjective. By moving the designator illegal from the activity to the person, you are criminalizing their being instead of their deed.
- ryandrake 1y ago
  Maybe we should start calling people who speed "Illegal Drivers," so that people can see the danger of a term like "Illegal Immigrant."
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    Well, if someone doesn't have a license and drives, we call them an "unlicensed driver". It's their driving that's unlicensed, not them as a human being.
    - jjj123 1y ago
      You sure? Seems to me that the person is unlicensed, as in they don’t have a license.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

> heckling people about the term used to describe the people is not going to move the needle on that issue I disagree with this; this is the primary means by which dehumanization occurs. I like to think of "police officer" as the perfect dehumanizing term because it showcases that dehumanization is not always negative. Some people will hear the term and automatically think good things and some will automatically think bad things. Few will think about a person they don't know, complete with vices and virtues they may or may not agree with. The point is that dehumanization makes you think of a concept of a person rather than a person.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
But that's true of every term. "Computer programmer", say. People hear that term and automatically think certain things. " Few will think about a person they don't know, complete with vices and virtues they may or may not agree with." It "makes you think of a concept of a person rather than a person." So I think that dynamic is present in every term we use to refer to humans as something other than "human". I don't need people to refer to me as "human who programs computers" so that I'm not dehumanized. (In fact, once "human that programs computers" becomes the accepted term, that term would also have the dynamic of dehumanizing those it covers. Having the word "human" in it wouldn't save it once it became a recognized term.)
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  Your whole first paragraph is actually offering another example of a dehumanizing term. The point of “human who does a thing” is to be a naturally-chosen phrase, not a term. Think, “Joe programs computers”, not, “Joe is a computer programmer”. You are correct that it would similarly be dehumanizing if it simply became another term to replace “computer programmer” like “Joe is a human-who-programs-computers” but that is because the statement is about what Joe supposedly “is” rather than being a description of things they’ve done.
hcnova10 1y ago
In that case the most dehumanizing terms I can think of are blacks, Asians, Latinos, and to a certain extent, white.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  Well, I mean, I don’t disagree; those are all racist terms. The dehumanizing aspect of those terms (and more generally with racism) is that they are reducing a person to their physical characteristics. “They’re black” is different from “they have a dark skin color”. One is talking about “what someone is” holistically (dehumanizing), while the other is talking about a specific aspect of their physical appearance.
  - hcnova10 1y ago
    That seems a bit of a stretch. The idea will evolve into, “Since racial labels are bad let’s just ignore them altogether and be color blind”. But we all know that’s not how the real world works. Three male programmers with same qualifications, the black man is going to have a different experience with the police than a white man. And the Asian man is going to deal with different stuff when it comes to dating.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      I don’t necessarily disagree with this comment but I also think the things you mention are examples of how society-wide dehumanization can affect real-world decision-making when it comes to certain demographics.

saubeidl 1y ago

> You (and everyone who takes that stance) are reading a lot into how the term should be parsed. "Immigrated illegally" is a completely accurate statement. It is not saying that the people are illegal (how could they be?), but that their immigration was illegal. That is not what is said - otherwise it would be people who immigrated illegally, using an adverb instead of an adjective. By moving the designator illegal from the activity to the person, you are criminalizing their being instead of their deed.

ryandrake 1y ago
Maybe we should start calling people who speed "Illegal Drivers," so that people can see the danger of a term like "Illegal Immigrant."
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  Well, if someone doesn't have a license and drives, we call them an "unlicensed driver". It's their driving that's unlicensed, not them as a human being.
  - jjj123 1y ago
    You sure? Seems to me that the person is unlicensed, as in they don’t have a license.