Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Liberal Immigration Strategy (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Liberal Immigration Strategy
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
That you are conflating entering the country (or over staying) illegally with speeding and illegal parking is the point I was trying to make.
As legal violations, they are about on the same level, particularly to the degree that the laws are used to force people into violation in many cases (hidden speed zone changes that are used to rack up out-of-town fines)

Man, I just have no idea how conservatives could ever have gotten the idea that liberals don't take immigration law seriously... [DOH]

This is *exactly* the kind of thing I was thinking of when I started the thread. It's a great way to rally the GOP base.

[ December 01, 2015, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The language does not have intent.
Unless one is totally careless or ignorant, there is always intent behind ones choice of language.

quote:
You are suggesting “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” or simply “illegals” are titles which exist to alienate and “other”.
Not "exist to". They do by their nature. Many people, especially in politics understand that and use it actively, but one does not have to understand it for the phrasing to have its effect.

quote:
The title is an acknowledgement of that fact.
So is undocumented. But it doesn't shade the people being discussed with personal judgment at the same time.

quote:
There is no justification taking place.
You don't think that the people abusing them rationalize their abuse? That people don't think "Well, if they didn't want to be treated poorly, they shouldn't' have come here illegally"?

There is plenty of justification going on or the abuse problem wouldn't be an issue and they wouldn't be treated any different than someone who has parking tickets or occasionally speeds while driving.

quote:
Changing the label does not change the fact that they are apart from us and have concerns which influence how they see the country around them.
Indeed it doesn't. But it does avoid further stigmatizing them.

quote:
“undocumented immigrants” or “non citizen residents” or whatever you want to come up with does not imbue them suddenly in anyone’s mind with further humanity and make them “one of us”
That last example is what you might call someone who was here legally. Only "Undocumented immigrants" is generally being used.

And actualyl yes, it does influence people to think of them in a more human fashion rather than othering them as criminals who deserve what they get. That's a very real power of language.

quote:
I see this type of PC speak as the laziest most selfish back patting BS out there
Showing respect for others is lazy? It seems to me that refusing to make the effort to talk about other people respectfully, because it's easier to go on using disrespectful language is the lazy thing to do. Who cares about what harm you might be doing to others, all that matters is that you don't have to think about what you're saying, right?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Unless one is totally careless or ignorant, there is always intent behind ones choice of language."

A decade ago some twerp had a screaming fit on Ornery claiming that the word "Moslem" was a slur and that the only PC way to spell it was Muslim. The poster himself wasn't Muslim, and he was basically singling only one Iberian out for his abuse even though most Iberian's had been using the spelling that so offended poor angry Leto.

I think that's how most people have experienced PC language, I.e. as an exercise in self righteous hypocrisy. From my observation DW is a principled liberal and a compassionate soul and I suspect that if some of my clients told him their stories that he would try to generally use "undocumented.". Ultimately compassion isn't something you can beat unto people with guilt and expectations. Compassion floes from becoming acquainted with others and their sorrows. Ultimately the answers is love, Pyr, not shaming.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Showing respect for others is lazy? "

You have lost the antecedent. He's saying that the bandage solution, changing what we call undocs, like giving the cowardly lion a medal, is lazy, and I agree. I understand you don't feel that is what you said, and yet multiple persons have responded this way.

It's also lazy to accept a rich privileged honky's word for what language is respectful or disrespectful to to thus and that minority groups.

[ December 01, 2015, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
The language does not have intent.
________________________________________
Unless one is totally careless or ignorant, there is always intent behind ones choice of language.

You can use language with more than one intent though. When you say something like, “This word or phrase does this” or “causes that” you are ignoring the intent of the speaker or writer and instead claiming that the word or phrase means a specific thing or causes a specific result. I’m trying to use my language choice to convey to you that you are bringing (an often large amount) of bias and baggage with you in your pronouncements of what the intent of some language is. This may be entirely honest or (as I perceive it) an attempt to frame an issue in such a way that it is increasingly difficult to speak or write in a manner which conveys the position you oppose. The concessions in language you suggest or demand are proper, are (also) tactics used to stifle debate.

That is why I hate a lot of PC branding and phrasing. I have no problem with people striving to be more polite, compassionate and considerate to each other through their language. I have a huge problem with people who resort to dirty tricks and believe that nobody notices. Note: I accept the use of dirty tricks in politics; I just dislike the false indignation when someone points out the tricks being used.

quote:
quote:
________________________________________
You are suggesting “illegal alien” or “illegal immigrant” or simply “illegals” are titles which exist to alienate and “other”.
________________________________________
Not "exist to". They do by their nature. Many people, especially in politics understand that and use it actively, but one does not have to understand it for the phrasing to have its effect.

I reject THIS example, but accept your point. I still believe the title is only descriptive and the status does the alienating.

quote:
So is undocumented.
It also conveys a minor clerical error and trivializes it to the level of expired license plates per your earlier comparison. Now sometimes it IS a clerical oversight, but we aren’t talking about that are we?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
“This word or phrase does this” or “causes that” you are ignoring the intent of the speaker or writer and instead claiming that the word or phrase means a specific thing or causes a specific result.
Because many phrases convey meaning without regard to the intent of the speaker, particularly if the speaker is ignorant of the connotation or effect of the words that they're using. Even more when a word. phrase, or even attitude is so deeply embedded in a culture that it requires people to remain ignorant of the damage behind it and encourages rationalization in defense of of to resolve cognitive dissonance.

quote:
That is why I hate a lot of PC branding and phrasing. I have no problem with people striving to be more polite, compassionate and considerate to each other through their language.
Except that "PC" is a slur term that was invented to dismiss the suggestion that people make the effort to be more polite and respectful in their language. It's an active assertion that it's more important to allow those being rude and disrespectful to go unchallenged so as not to give them the impression that doing so might be harmful than it is to make and effort to shift dialogue to a more respectful tone.

quote:
I reject THIS example, but accept your point. I still believe the title is only descriptive and the status does the alienating.
You're presenting it as an either or, when you're actually talking about practical alienation vs mental alienation. Their legal status does alienate them in a practical sense, in that it cuts them off from support and exposes them to harm. The language has a similar effect on discourse, presenting them as an external other, potential threat, and otherwise a "them" that we need to protect ourselves from and are justified in mistreating.

quote:
It also conveys a minor clerical error and trivializes it to the level of expired license plates per your earlier comparison.
Which, for all intents an purposes, it is. Which is why the kind of treatment the receive is so unjust. If you elevant the nature of the crime above that just justify harsher treatment and even some degree of abuse because people are more willing to believe that a more significant crime deserves a harsh punishment.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You have lost the antecedent. He's saying that the bandage solution, changing what we call undocs, like giving the cowardly lion a medal, is lazy, and I agree. I understand you don't feel that is what you said, and yet multiple persons have responded this way.
What solution? The suggestion that this is a solution is made up here. No one has proposed it as a solution, only a step needed to facilitate finding better solutions. No one, except people constructing false arguments against the phrase, has presented it as a solution. That's a total strawman, and I didn't ignore it, I pointed out repeatedly that how it's a false premise.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because many phrases convey meaning without regard to the intent of the speaker, particularly if the speaker is ignorant of the connotation or effect of the words that they're using. Even more when a word. phrase, or even attitude is so deeply embedded in a culture that it requires people to remain ignorant of the damage behind it and encourages rationalization in defense of of to resolve cognitive dissonance.
Discard for a moment your position and passion for the subject. Read your own words. You call the speaker ignorant. You don’t ask or suggest that the speaker may not be aware of the alternate message that could be intended. You do not point out that some hearing the words will interpret that message as something else entirely from what was intended. (Both valid points)

You say the speaker “is ignorant”. You say an attitude “is so deeply embedded in a culture that it requires”. You point out the damage behind the words. Not saying that some people take offense at the language. You suggest the words, used in any context, are harmful and taboo. Just using the words, regardless of the intent of the speaker, is somehow sinful or shameful per the religion of political correctness. Challenges to this logic are met with dispersions of the challenger’s politeness or empathy. I don’t know if it was being raised Catholic then rejecting the church once old enough to make my own choices that laid the groundwork or not; but shame based persuasion tactics used to establish authority offend me deeply.

quote:
Except that "PC" is a slur term that was invented to dismiss the suggestion that people make the effort to be more polite and respectful in their language. It's an active assertion that it's more important to allow those being rude and disrespectful to go unchallenged so as not to give them the impression that doing so might be harmful than it is to make and effort to shift dialogue to a more respectful tone.
I use it to point out to people that they are wasting everyone’s time by arguing semantics. The fact that you can even have a discussion on why a word or phrase is acceptable or rude means that you KNOW the intent of the speaker and understood them. I will actively assert that it is MOST important that we, of conflicting views, can have meaningful discussions on a range of topics. Imprecise language should be scrutinized and even corrected. Challenge usage all you want, but be open to a rebuttal to those challenges. Assuming “your side” controls the language is means assuming you are already superior to the opposition. It’s starting the discussion by “punching down” as you like to phrase it. Maybe not from a position of power, but from a position of intellectual, empathic or moral superiority.

Have you noticed that most PC corrections or re-labeling tend to be longer, more… academic? They are almost verbal speed bumps. They are not always simply more accurate or more sensitive. Some (are I suggest intentionally meant to) sound less natural. They call attention to themselves. To be hypocritical and do what I just cautioned you against doing… The phrases are, in and of themselves, a celebration of victory in framing the debate in an advantageous way.

I realize that last bit sounds absurd, but is it really any less absurd than your position that words are hurtful? If they can be hurtful, why can’t they be condescending? It’s not like those playing these semantic games are interested in discussion anyway. It’s about silencing the opposition.

quote:
Their legal status does alienate them in a practical sense, in that it cuts them off from support and exposes them to harm. The language has a similar effect on discourse, presenting them as an external other, potential threat, and otherwise a "them" that we need to protect ourselves from and are justified in mistreating.
Until the legal status is resolved, they are NOT part of us. We should protect ourselves from them. Desperation IS dangerous. It’s dangerous when it’s an illegal immigrant, a citizen living in poverty, a junky looking for their next fix. Sympathy does not mean ignoring threats. I could be dangerous if placed in a situation which threatened my livelihood or the safety and comfort of my family. I believe most of us could be. A respect (or fear) of law enforcement is one of the tools used to keep that danger in check. Blatant disregard of those laws (even the poorly working ones) is a warning sign to me.

Now the justification of mistreatment is a less clear issue. I see your (and Hilary’s) focusing on a label to be a distraction in addressing this. You are not justified in mistreating all undocumented immigrants because they broke the law. You are being rational in acknowledging that this person has already ignored our laws to some extent out of desperation (or at least a hope for an improved situation). You have made very clear that you see our immigration laws as trivial things and border security as no more a big deal than speed traps. A false sense of security for the masses and a periodically useful tool for financial or political gain. I can’t change your mind on that and wouldn’t bother trying. You see victims of bureaucracy where I see a breaker of a serious law who I still sympathize with.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What solution? The suggestion that this is a solution is made up here. No one has proposed it as a solution, only a step needed to facilitate finding better solutions. No one, except people constructing false arguments against the phrase, has presented it as a solution. That's a total strawman, and I didn't ignore it, I pointed out repeatedly that how it's a false premise.
Please explain how this change in terminology is "needed" or what it facilitates? Demonstrate it is anything but an empty gesture by those impotent to affect change?

I think where I differ most from you (as we seem to be in line more often than not on policy) is you applaud these comforting overtures where I see them as blatant manipulations and holding zero value.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Except that "PC" is a slur term that was invented to dismiss the suggestion that people make the effort to be more polite and respectful in their language. It's an active assertion that it's more important to allow those being rude and disrespectful to go unchallenged so as not to give them the impression that doing so might be harmful than it is to make and effort to shift dialogue to a more respectful tone.

Here's a little history lesson for you from Wiki:

quote:
In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided for "correct" positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

"The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance."
— "Uncommon Differences", The Lion and the Unicorn Journal[2]

The term originated as a means of identifying dogma enforced by the power elite that people had to say in order to avoid censure or punishment. The right or effective ability to say anything contrary was silenced, and this was a tool for both legitimizing political narratives as well as manipulating language. When authors in the 80's and 90's began using this term again it was precisely with this context in mind, where certain 'PC' elements in America were perceived to have been endorsing language dogma where certain words were correct to say and others forbidden based on political climate. Regardless of the accuracy of these usages, the intent was to illustrate a neo-Marxist movement to rewrite language.

Your claim that "PC" is a smear against progressives is precisely the opposite of the truth. It is the reaction to the usage of "PC" by progressives that is the smear. The argument that "PC" is meant as a blanket derogatory word to smear liberal causes is made in order to avoid confronting the claim that rewriting language on political lines harkens back to the USSR. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't, but the usage of "PC" tends to imply not merely exaggerated policy ideas but specifically the intent to control narrative through language, just as D.W. said. Many of the threads in which you participate here are pretty solid evidence that this is, in fact, what's happening. You can call a criticism a "smear" to avoid dealing with it, but you're not really fooling anyone.

quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I think where I differ most from you (as we seem to be in line more often than not on policy) is you applaud these comforting overtures where I see them as blatant manipulations and holding zero value.

Don't omit the possibility that manipulation of language not only holds 'zero value' but may hold extraordinary negative value. Language and thought are wrapped up with each other. Warp language and thinking becomes warped as well. People who can't say what they mean can't think what they mean either. Speaking from the heart simply goes away when people have to construct speech and thoughts based on one political narrative.

[ December 02, 2015, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You call the speaker ignorant.
No, I conditionally brought up the case of an ignorant speaker as an important example.

quote:
You don’t ask or suggest that the speaker may not be aware of the alternate message that could be intended.
That is exactly what ignorant means.

quote:
You say an attitude “is so deeply embedded in a culture that it requires”.
Again, something I conditionally raised as an example to illustrate the point.

quote:
You suggest the words, used in any context, are harmful and taboo. Just using the words, regardless of the intent of the speaker, is somehow sinful or shameful per the religion of political correctness
Some words and phrasing are inherently harmful, regardless of the speaker's intent, absolutely. PArticularly disparaging, insulting, or degrading words. Take just about any racial slur. When used in an normal context, the words are harmful, regardless of the intent of the speaker. There are only some very narrow contexts (ironic or defensive internal use to reclaim the word, or academic discussions of the term that aren't actualyl using the word, but dissecting it) that may rise above that, but all oft hose cases require acute awareness of the nature of the term.

And when you have a slur that's so embedded into language that most people don't even realize that it's a slur, you end up with huge fights and efforts to rationalize why it's not a slur (See also: "Redskin")

quote:
The fact that you can even have a discussion on why a word or phrase is acceptable or rude means that you KNOW the intent of the speaker and understood them.
And if the context here was anything but the reasoning behind the choice to use one phrase or another, I'd likely have rolled my eyes and carried on using the more respectful name. But recall that we're specifically discusses word choice here, so talking about it is the context of the conversation.

quote:
. Assuming “your side” controls the language is means assuming you are already superior to the opposition.
What assumption of control? You're the one pushing back against someone choosing to use a different phrase here and against simple awareness of how a certain phrase is loaded. That's not controlling your usage, but simply allowing you more control of your own usage so you can better express what you mean to.

It feels like you're effectively arguing that I'm trying to control people because making them aware of the consequences of their actions might make them choose to change their behavior. And since that change in behavior amounts to "control" I should instead allow them to remain ignorant so that they can continue behaving without the burden of having to think about what hey're doing.

That's a completely absurd position. I'm not saying anyone must use certain language; that's still fully your choice. I'm just providing more information on what the consequences of your choices are so that you have _more_ control of your own words, not less.

quote:
Have you noticed that most PC corrections or re-labeling tend to be longer, more… academic?
I'd use "clinical" often, but that's the natural result of removing judgemental shorthand. Clinical or academic phrasing is intentionally as judgment neutral as possible, so there's little choice but to move toward if if the goal is to be more respectful and less judgemental.

And, sure there's a bit of a speed bump. It's called "making you think" that's part of the point- the words make you think about what you're saying instead of being lazy and just repeating the easiest thing to say, with all of its accumulated baggage.

The fact that you acknowledge that there's a speed bump there seems to indicate that you do actually understand that the words you choose matter and covey tings regardless of your intent- that there's mental effort needed to actualyl control your meaning instead of simply tossing a word out there without regard for what it communicates.

quote:
Until the legal status is resolved, they are NOT part of us.
In what way does their legal status make them more like objects and less like people? Short of that, that's a false premise. They are just like us, and will more or less react just like we would under certain circumstances. As you not, the problem is the legal status, not something different about the people themselves.

quote:
. I could be dangerous if placed in a situation which threatened my livelihood or the safety and comfort of my family.
Would that make you fair to classify as being illegal, or still as a human in bad circumstances?

quote:
Blatant disregard of those laws (even the poorly working ones) is a warning sign to me.
Indeed- it's generally a sign of bad or abusive laws that need to be fixed so people will have more respect for them instead of being forced to disregard them to get by.

quote:
I see your (and Hilary’s) focusing on a label to be a distraction in addressing this.
The people objecting to the change in phrase are the only ones focusing on it. She's made a statement that she'll use this phrase and moved on. If she starts making speeches about how she's using the phrase as a thing unto itself, I'll agree that she's focusing on it, but outside of that,she's not the one making an issues out of it. I'm "focusing" on it here, because it was raised as a specific issue to discuss by someone else, not because I put any focus on it.

quote:
You have made very clear that you see our immigration laws as trivial things and border security as no more a big deal than speed traps.
That's a factual assessment of the current broken state of our immigration law. with abuses rising from the fact that we keep it that way, in no small part specifically to maintain an abusable underclass of people that were forced to violate them to get by. They would be worthy of more respect if they were changed and updated so that they actualyl provided some real degree of security instead of promoting an insecure situation where it's impossible to easily distinguish between people who are a threat because they break them and people who have no choice but to break them because of the social and economic pressure on them to find a way to survive.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The term originated as a means of identifying dogma enforced by the power elite that people had to say in order to avoid censure or punishment. The right or effective ability to say anything contrary was silenced, and this was a tool for both legitimizing political narratives as well as manipulating language. When authors in the 80's and 90's began using this term again it was precisely with this context in mind, where certain 'PC' elements in America were perceived to have been endorsing language dogma where certain words were correct to say and others forbidden based on political climate. Regardless of the accuracy of these usages, the intent was to illustrate a neo-Marxist movement to rewrite language.
Fair enough- it's origin goes back one step further, but then was applied to the movement to speak more respectfully as a disingenuous way to, as you note equate being respectful with Marxism.

That does even better to make my point about it being a slur to justify attacking an effort to be more respectful. Who wants to be respectful, when showing respect, apparently, makes you a neo-Marxist, right?

quote:
The argument that "PC" is meant as a blanket derogatory word to smear liberal causes is made in order to avoid confronting the claim that rewriting language on political lines harkens back to the USSR. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't, but the usage of "PC" tends to imply not merely exaggerated policy ideas but specifically the intent to control narrative through language, just as D.W. said.
Which is to say, it's a blatantly false accusation that finds a way to demonize pointing out ways to be more respectful.

[ December 02, 2015, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Fair enough- it's origin goes back one step further, but then was applied to the movement to speak more respectfully as a disingenuous way to, as you note equate being respectful with Marxism.

That does even better to make my point about it being a slur to justify attacking an effort to be more respectful. Who wants to be respectful, when showing respect, apparently, makes you a neo-Marxist, right?

Let's see if you can conduct a thought experiment with me for a moment, setting aside your political and social beliefs. Let's assert by hypothesis that a neo-Marxist movement was initiated in the 80's in America, and they employed language manipulation as a tool. Let's say certain authors noticed this and pointed it out by calling it "PC" and comparing it to Soviet Marxist techniques. How do you think the neo-Marxists would answer this charge? They couldn't very well deny the fact of trying to alter the language, since part of their stated goals was to alter language. Their only option then would be to create an alternate explanation of why they were doing so. Are you with me so far?

What sort of response do you think such Marxists would offer to create the best cover for their real intentions? Since they were being accused of using authoritarian tactics we might assume that the best defence against this accusation would be to claim they are doing precisely the opposite, which is to say, helping the underdog. In other words, they'd be punching down but claiming to be punching up.

And actually this thought experiment serves decently to explain some of the real usage of "PC" and the response by liberals to that term. You see, merely claiming that since you're punching up your manipulation of language is only to help people is exactly the same thing that neo-Marxists would say anyhow. That doesn't mean you are one, but it does mean that this statement alone is insufficient to demonstrate anything. It means that how you use the tool of language will end up saying more than claims you make about your own movement. The claims themselves are worthless since if you really were the boogeyman some people think you are you'd say the same thing anyhow. The best (and perhaps only) way to show sincerity in trying to help others rather than trying to control narrative through language would be to show the earnest desire to bridge the gap with others in discussions and to be open minded rather than dogmatic. If you wonder why some people think negatively of the "PC" movement you might want to think about this point in particular. The extent to which the PC movement really wants to bring people of different thinking together, versus how much it resembles religious evangelism, will be the important feature to note.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
You don’t ask or suggest that the speaker may not be aware of the alternate message that could be intended.
________________________________________
That is exactly what ignorant means.

Wow… let me state what I thought I implied blatantly. Someone may know there are alternate usages of their words but believe someone would have to be quite dishonest to PRETEND they meant that alternate meaning instead of the OBVIOUS one. They may understand that others have CHOSEN to take offense at a usage, either honestly, or as a manipulation, then choose to dismiss this as frivolous and use those words despite this. Neither position is ignorant. They may be “bad form” as you perceive it but “ignorance” is a judgment based upon insufficient data.

quote:
What assumption of control? You're the one pushing back against someone choosing to use a different phrase here and against simple awareness of how a certain phrase is loaded. That's not controlling your usage, but simply allowing you more control of your own usage so you can better express what you mean to.
My push-back is only that I fear the new word usage MAY be less accurate and a distraction. Now that you have stated your position on the seriousness of immigrating illegally as a largely trivial breach of our laws, another possibility presents itself. One, until just now, I assumed was the ranting of right wing blowhards. That by changing the language you can make the law no longer relevant and changing the system becomes a moot point. I find this dangerous both in terms of national security and a false victory which does little to improve the situation of those currently here illegally.

You offered me “more control over my own usage” and I decline that offer. I feel your option is less precise. You offer a means to “better express” what I mean, but I feel it is less clear. It is not uncommon for posters here to use phrases that set us apart as having a higher standard of honesty or even intellect. Let me do a bit of that now. I have no problem acknowledging that all politics use language tricks to influence people. I’m happy to get into discussions about how those tricks are used and the pros and cons of their use or how to counter them when used against your interests. I find that very interesting. That does not stop me from being insulted when someone uses them blatantly and seems perplexed when others don’t roll over and play dead.

quote:
The fact that you acknowledge that there's a speed bump there seems to indicate that you do actually understand that the words you choose matter and covey tings regardless of your intent- that there's mental effort needed to actualyl control your meaning instead of simply tossing a word out there without regard for what it communicates.
That is well said. My problem is that after stopping to think, you appear to reject that there is more than one possible “correct” result.
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
. I could be dangerous if placed in a situation which threatened my livelihood or the safety and comfort of my family.
________________________________________
Would that make you fair to classify as being illegal, or still as a human in bad circumstances?

Umm whether or not I break a law makes me illegal or not. “Illegal” used alone, I agree is a ridiculous title. One I refrain from using. Not because it dehumanizes, but because it lacks context. It IS lazy and bad use of language. If someone called me a law breaker, after I broke a law, it would be true. “bad circumstance” is subjective and it’s not an either or situation. Breaking a law does not exempt one from sympathy. Punishing a criminal does not make one unsympathetic.
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
Blatant disregard of those laws (even the poorly working ones) is a warning sign to me.
________________________________________
Indeed- it's generally a sign of bad or abusive laws that need to be fixed so people will have more respect for them instead of being forced to disregard them to get by.

Correct. As I said, I agree with you on the policy. I only criticize the path you feel is required to achieve it.

I am not attempting to silence you. I’m not even attacking your goals. I am saying only that you are employing tricks to use on the weak minded and I fear you believe them rather than just being willing to employ them.

[ December 02, 2015, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The best (and perhaps only) way to show sincerity in trying to help others rather than trying to control narrative through language would be to show the earnest desire to bridge the gap with others in discussions and to be open minded rather than dogmatic
Sure. And here we have me trying to help people who asked about something understand why there are concerns, while being attacked by people dogmatically defending current usage and leveling false accusations against me of trying to control others.

So, while your basic point is valid, you've fallen into the trap created by applying the pejorative slur. The people advocating more respectful communication are trying to explain the problems with current language and help people understand how to be more respectful, while those opposed to it are trying to maintain control silence them through false accusations that actively distract from the explanations.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have fallen into a trap.
First "opposition" is shamed.
If shaming fails to work, claim victimhood.
Best yet is accusing the "other side" of employing the exact tools you attempted to use against them.

I quoted opposition and other side because in this case, I'm in many ways on your side.

The "slur" is again, a conscious choice to describe what you are doing. (and per Fenring's history lesson, more accurate than I knew)

I don't even judge you for putting them to use. I just grow weary of people who care more about form than substance.

More to the point. I consider them a political liability to our shared stated goals.

[ December 02, 2015, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
The term originated as a means of identifying dogma enforced by the power elite that people had to say in order to avoid censure or punishment. The right or effective ability to say anything contrary was silenced, and this was a tool for both legitimizing political narratives as well as manipulating language. When authors in the 80's and 90's began using this term again it was precisely with this context in mind, where certain 'PC' elements in America were perceived to have been endorsing language dogma where certain words were correct to say and others forbidden based on political climate. Regardless of the accuracy of these usages, the intent was to illustrate a neo-Marxist movement to rewrite language.
Fair enough- it's origin goes back one step further, but then was applied to the movement to speak more respectfully as a disingenuous way to, as you note equate being respectful with Marxism.

That does even better to make my point about it being a slur to justify attacking an effort to be more respectful. Who wants to be respectful, when showing respect, apparently, makes you a neo-Marxist, right?

quote:
The argument that "PC" is meant as a blanket derogatory word to smear liberal causes is made in order to avoid confronting the claim that rewriting language on political lines harkens back to the USSR. Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't, but the usage of "PC" tends to imply not merely exaggerated policy ideas but specifically the intent to control narrative through language, just as D.W. said.
Which is to say, it's a blatantly false accusation that finds a way to demonize pointing out ways to be more respectful.

You honestly don't understand how others here an Ornery might reasonably feel that you are trying to control what they can say, by trying to control how they can say it?

I bet that if you spent just one week without trying to control others' language that you would find them more responsive on such issues, in a case where offensive wording really was a significant issue.

[ December 02, 2015, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Incase it wasn't obvious Pete, this topic illustrates the mental hurdles I struggled with you regarding SSM.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
The people advocating more respectful communication are trying to explain the problems with current language and help people understand how to be more respectful, while those opposed to it are trying to maintain control silence them through false accusations that actively distract from the explanations.

You may have comprehended the words I used, but I think you missed my message. The fact that you say you're doing this means nothing. A neo-Marxist would say the same. In fact they did say exactly the same thing in the USSR and in subsequent countries that fell under the Iron Curtain. I don't know how many people you know who previously lived under the USSR, but they could tell you all about how the Party told the people that it was all about brotherhood, equality and compassion, and that people who didn't agree must not care about their fellow man. The statement alone means nothing, any manipulator would say it.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't perceive your efforts here as doing what you claim they're doing. You always frame a lack of convergence to your thinking as people resisting you, derailing conversation, lying, dissembling, and enforcing the status quo. I've never heard you say you respectfully disagree but that the other person has a good point. Creating understanding and caring is about walking the walk, not talking the talk.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Incase it wasn't obvious Pete, this topic illustrates the mental hurdles I struggled with you regarding SSM.

Funny; I thought it was the other way around. With SSM, I did not tell people how to characterize their own arguments, but simply resisted language that misrepresented my own position and those of others. Changing the language of what I said into PC speak was changing the content.

More importantly, I wasn't demanding that others change their language to avoid giving offense. I was simply maintaining the right to communicate my own ideas in accurate and specific language.

[ December 02, 2015, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They may understand that others have CHOSEN to take offense at a usage, either honestly, or as a manipulation, then choose to dismiss this as frivolous and use those words despite this.
Sure. People absolutely can intend to be disrespectful of others and trivialized heir concerns by characterizing them in degrading ways such as "choosing to be offended". But you can't honestly pretend that you don't communicate that disrespect when you opt to do that. If you're going to be disrespectful ,at least own the behavior instead of trying to redefine what it means to show respect to include the behaviors that you want to engage in.

quote:
My push-back is only that I fear the new word usage MAY be less accurate and a distraction.
How is it less accurate? Rather than the vague "illegal" is specifies exactly what the violation in question is, with the side benefit of not stigmatizing them in the basic language used.

quote:
That by changing the language you can make the law no longer relevant and changing the system becomes a moot point.
On what basis? It emphasizes that the law is the problem, and not the people forced to break it. It makes the law more relevant by shifting the blame to the broken system rather than suggesting that the problem can be solved be attacking the people put in a bad place by it.

quote:
You offered me “more control over my own usage” and I decline that offer. I feel your option is less precise. You offer a means to “better express” what I mean, but I feel it is less clear.
Not quite. I point out what's communicated by your words, particularly to people who mistreat those that are here illegally and to the people themselves. You can choose to disregard that and use whatever word you want, but now you can't claim that you're unaware of how others might interpret it and how it contributes to a sense that it's okay to punish them for their status. You can choose to not accept that or not care about that, but at least it gives you the ability to make that choice rather than acting in ignorance of that information.

quote:
Umm whether or not I break a law makes me illegal or not.
Your _action_ is illegal or not, not you personally. And that's part of the point here- to stop conflating people with an action that they may note have even wanted to take. Keep attention on the situation that needs to be resolved instead of allowing a simple path to blaming the people for where they find themselves.

quote:
My problem is that after stopping to think, you appear to reject that there is more than one possible “correct” result.
No. Just simply a more conscious result, regardless of what you choose to do. There isn't any such thing as a "correct" or "incorrect" actions on the whole, there's simply being aware of the full spectrum of what you may be communicating so you can choose what you care to pay attention to or not.

quote:
I am saying only that you are employing tricks to use on the weak minded and I fear you believe them rather than employ them.
What tricks? I'm just explaining the reasoning behind the choice of words.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You honestly don't understand how others here an Ornery might reasonably feel that you are trying to control what they can say, by trying to control what they say?
Since I've never tried to control what anyone says, absolutely.

Unless you're again, conflating an explanation of why I'd make a given word choice with attempting to control anyone. You are completely free to say what you want, and I've not even reported anyone for word choices, never mind actually attempted to control language.

If you accepting something I say about what your word choice communicates to others makes you choose to change your language, that's all on you, not me.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We have fallen into a trap.
First "opposition" is shamed.
If shaming fails to work, claim victimhood.
Best yet is accusing the "other side" of employing the exact tools you attempted to use against them.

Note, of course, that the only person whose motives or intent has been so shaded here is mine. I've said nothing personal about anyone one else, simply tried to explain the loaded nature of certain phrasing.

For that I've been accused of various things from attempting to control others to, effectively, being a neo-Marxist. And when I point out that the thrust of the conversation has been against me personally instead of the merits of the position, I apparently get and unfounded accusation of shaming thrown in, despite not even having addressed anyone's personal behavior, just the generic theory behind the language choice.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
________________________________________
That by changing the language you can make the law no longer relevant and changing the system becomes a moot point.
________________________________________
On what basis? It emphasizes that the law is the problem, and not the people forced to break it. It makes the law more relevant by shifting the blame to the broken system rather than suggesting that the problem can be solved be attacking the people put in a bad place by it.

Our “broken system” does not do the forcing. Their broken system makes ours look like the best or at least better option. Our system, no matter how broken did not put them in a “bad place”. They may be victims and worthy of sympathy and we should do what we can to help, but WE, the United States, did not force them to break our laws.
quote:
Not quite. I point out what's communicated by your words, particularly to people who mistreat those that are here illegally and to the people themselves. You can choose to disregard that and use whatever word you want, but now you can't claim that you're unaware of how others might interpret it and how it contributes to a sense that it's okay to punish them for their status. You can choose to not accept that or not care about that, but at least it gives you the ability to make that choice rather than acting in ignorance of that information.
Is there anything I could say which would make you understand I’m not ignorant of these things? I do not believe that a shift in language makes those who mistreat or exploit illegal immigrants any more likely to stop doing so. Maybe you honestly believe some farm, hotel or restaurant owner will refer openly about their “undocumented workers” one day and go, “WOW, I never stopped to think about how it’s just some paper in a government office and a frivolous background check that separates me from them! I’m going to pay them the same I do my other employees and vow to never leverage their totally trivial legal status against them. When I thought of them as criminals cowering from the big bad government I was content to exploit the **** out of them!”

Even if that were the case, I see the flouting of our immigration laws as a big deal.

quote:

quote:
________________________________________
Umm whether or not I break a law makes me illegal or not.
________________________________________
Your _action_ is illegal or not, not you personally. And that's part of the point here- to stop conflating people with an action that they may note have even wanted to take. Keep attention on the situation that needs to be resolved instead of allowing a simple path to blaming the people for where they find themselves.

You had to do some selective truncating of my point to come up with that rebuttal…

quote:
quote:
________________________________________
I am saying only that you are employing tricks to use on the weak minded and I fear you believe them rather than employ them.
________________________________________
What tricks? I'm just explaining the reasoning behind the choice of words.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Note, of course, that the only person whose motives or intent has been so shaded here is mine. I've said nothing personal about anyone one else, simply tried to explain the loaded nature of certain phrasing.
Yes, you play the game better than me and keep things appropriately impersonal.

I personalize sometimes to remove ambiguity. [Razz]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Our “broken system” does not do the forcing. Their broken system makes ours look like the best or at least better option. Our system, no matter how broken did not put them in a “bad place”. They may be victims and worthy of sympathy and we should do what we can to help, but WE, the United States, did not force them to break our laws.
You're suggesting that, when coming here was the only option they had, there was a reasonable way that they could have gotten here legally?

We know desperation is going to force them to come one way or another. If we intentionally set the law so that they must do it illegally, then yes, we're forcing them to break the law to get here.

quote:
I do not believe that a shift in language makes those who mistreat or exploit illegal immigrants any more likely to stop doing so.
Sure. But it will influence more people on the margins to think "Maybe we should fix this situation instead of feeling like they deserve what they get for breaking the law". Perhaps a few of the people directly exploiting them will be a little less able to justify supporting a system that enables such. But, more importantly, it will communicate to the immigrants in question that you understand where the problem lies and aren't trying to point at their basic existence or presence as the problem.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
I do not believe that a shift in language makes those who mistreat or exploit illegal immigrants any more likely to stop doing so.
Sure. But it will influence more people on the margins to think "Maybe we should fix this situation instead of feeling like they deserve what they get for breaking the law". Perhaps a few of the people directly exploiting them will be a little less able to justify supporting a system that enables such. But, more importantly, it will communicate to the immigrants in question that you understand where the problem lies and aren't trying to point at their basic existence or presence as the problem.
This is a huge red herring, since even Trump - the GOP candidate who takes the toughest position on immigration law - makes a special point of distinguishing between caring, respect and sympathy for the them as people and between being serious about enforcing the laws. His position has been stated more or less as "we care about them, appreciate them, and all that, but we need to get them all out of here, put up a wall, and then get them all back in, legally." He has nothing against them as people (or at least he says this), but he has something against the law being violated. And this is the guy who is toughest on immigration. And let's not pretend that other GOP candidates like Rubio and Cruz are taking positions that dehumanize immigrants either; that claim would be kind of a joke.

It seems to me that your point basically applies to no one with influence, and that in this sense the change of language won't change anyone's mind about treating illegal immigrants as people. Actually you're the only one talking about them being denigrated as people, everyone else seems to be talking about whether the term "illegal" is accurate or not.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seem we don't agree on where the problem lies either.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
This is a huge red herring, since even Trump - the GOP candidate who takes the toughest position on immigration law - makes a special point of distinguishing between caring, respect and sympathy for the them as people and between being serious about enforcing the laws. His position has been stated more or less as "we care about them, appreciate them, and all that, but we need to get them all out of here, put up a wall, and then get them all back in, legally." He has nothing against them as people (or at least he says this), but he has something against the law being violated.

quote:
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
quote:
“What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.”
quote:
DONALD TRUMP, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, if you look at the statistics of people, I didn't say Mexicans -- I said the illegal immigrants. If you look at the statistics on rape, on crime, on everything, coming in illegally into this country, they're mind-boggling. If you go to Fusion, you will see a story about 80% of the women coming in, you have to take a look at these stories. And you know who owns Fusion? Univision. It was in The Huffington Post. I said, let me get some of these articles because I've heard some horrible things. I do a lot of talking with people on the border patrol. They're incredible people. They help our country.

DON LEMON: But I want some clarification --

TRUMP: No, but Don, all you have to do is go to Fusion and pick up the stories on rape and it is unbelievable when you look at what is going on. So all I am doing is telling the truth.

LEMON: I've read The Washington post, I read the Fusion, I read The Huffington Post. And that's about women being raped, it's not about criminals coming across the border entering the country.

TRUMP: Somebody is doing the raping, Don, I mean, you know -- I mean, somebody's doing it. You think it's women being raped, well who is doing the raping? Who is doing the raping? I mean how can you say such a thing.


Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kmbboots, those quotes are about the Mexican government, and about the fact that a lot of bad seeds may get into American along with the good people that want a better life.

In terms of the "they're not sending their best" quote (which wasn't mine and I don't particularly feel I need to defend) I suppose I could argue that this means that people who are more impoverished and desperate will be those that will come illegally, and that this means their comportment might be less than stellar. You may note that even the most liberal people on Ornery don't contest the notion that behavior declines as conditions for a person worsen, but the main issue here lies in finding the source of the person's bad conditions. An unsympathetic person might say it's the desperate person's own fault while someone else might say the system screwed them, but neither of those positions pertain to the basic fact that desperate impoverished people may have a higher incidence of criminal behavior than middle class working people do. Duh.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It certainly doesn't sound like caring, respect, and sympathy.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It certainly doesn't sound like caring, respect, and sympathy.

On this point I think you need to distinguish whether you're talking about a political position or a person's manner. Trump's political position is that he believes in upholding immigration law, and believes in respecting people and trying to find a way to get them legally back into the country. His manner is that of a rude a****** who doesn't sound particularly caring or sympathetic towards anyone.

In terms of his manner I can see why you'd doubt the veracity of his words since he can act cold and condescendingly to just about everyone. But I'd suggest you not fall into the trap of assuming that just because someone doesn't express something the way you would it means they're full of it. I'll grant you that a healthy skepticism about Trump's intentions or honesty on just about any topic is warranted, but the mere fact of him acting rudely isn't, I think, automatic proof that he doesn't have any kind of compassion for illegal immigrants. His way of expressing or even feeling compassion may not be the same as it would be for you.

In terms of his policy, although the "get them out of the country" part of his platform seems anything but hospitable, at the same time this isn't the same as dehumanizing illegal immigrants. I don't think it would be fair to say that a policy tough on immigration law intrinsically lacks respect, caring and compassion. The two seem orthogonal to each other, since being respectful or not and being tough on illegal immigration or not don't need to have anything to do with each other. A lot of the time they probably do correlate, and I'm sure there are many Americans who do prefer a tough immigration law because of resentment or dislike for illegal immigrants. I just think it's not fair to assign this attribute to anyone at all tough on immigration.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think a policy "tough on illegal immigration" without distinction other than being an "illegal immigrant" is stupid.

I and a dozen other Americans lost our jobs when our employer was arrested and held on immigration charges. (I was just his party business attorney: the others were full time workers). While he had had legal status, his immigration attorney, Reza Athari Esquire, had ****ed up his green card renewal. His business went under and he was deported to central America. It's ironic since his business operated in a field that relies heavily on illegal and under the table work, but he was painstaking about everyone and everything being documented and above board. Yes it was him who ended up becoming "illegal" through no fault of his own other than hiring Reza Athari, esq. against my recommendations.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1