|
sexpig by night posted:Hi, the holocaust directly impacted my family by wiping out most of a whole branch of the ol family tree, don't hide behind their corpses to avoid calling a concentration camp a concentration camp. The Holocaust directly impacted my family too, and I find it disgusting when people use the term "concentration camp" either purely for rhetorical effect (as Jarmak correctly pointed out) or out of sheer laziness when referring to US refugee camps. English is a very rich and flexible language, and many alternatives to that term, some of which happen to actually be historically and contextually accurate, exist.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
Are you saying concentration camps existed only during the Holocaust? You can have a debate over whether or not the conditions on the ground at the border qualify as concentration camps, but I've yet to see anyone explain why the term should only apply to the Nazi death camps. There are sadly dozens of examples of concentration camps used by brutal regimes all over the globe over the past century, and for the most part nobody makes a fuss about calling them what they are. Using the appropriate terminology is one way to stop one type of camp from becoming another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
[ed: wrong thread, sorry.] (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:which is not actually 'unaccompanied minors' in the sense that the administration (and past ones) paints them, where the idea of getting in touch with family and all is just impossible, these people are in a city near the border, yet the administration is refusing the kids even basic things like phone calls that'd help that. No one in the administration said it was impossible to get in touch with family, it just literally takes time to do and that time adds up when there is an overwhelming volume of people. Also you're lying about the context of the separations quote:The migrant children often arrive with a grandparent, older sibling or other relative but are separated until federal officials can confirm the accompanying adult is their relative, as required under U.S. law. The procedure, which is different from the highly controversial Trump administration policy of separating immigrant parents from their children, is designed to protect minors from human traffickers and grant them legal protections. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/03/06/migrant-children-facility-used-house-minors-separated-family/4587455001/ Lester Shy posted:Are you saying concentration camps existed only during the Holocaust? You can have a debate over whether or not the conditions on the ground at the border qualify as concentration camps, but I've yet to see anyone explain why the term should only apply to the Nazi death camps. There are sadly dozens of examples of concentration camps used by brutal regimes all over the globe over the past century, and for the most part nobody makes a fuss about calling them what they are. Using the appropriate terminology is one way to stop one type of camp from becoming another. No, I'm not saying that, in fact I've made two posts at length details just how explicitly I'm not saying that, which is just more evidence on the pile you're not engaging with this topic in good faith. Concentration camps are defined in large part by their intended purpose, and "get people out of here and out to their family in the public" is not one that fits under that definition. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No one in the administration said it was impossible to get in touch with family, it just literally takes time to do and that time adds up when there is an overwhelming volume of people. the two parts of your post combine to make them functionally indefinite in many cases
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Are you saying concentration camps existed only during the Holocaust? You can have a debate over whether or not the conditions on the ground at the border qualify as concentration camps, but I've yet to see anyone explain why the term should only apply to the Nazi death camps. There are sadly dozens of examples of concentration camps used by brutal regimes all over the globe over the past century, and for the most part nobody makes a fuss about calling them what they are. Using the appropriate terminology is one way to stop one type of camp from becoming another. We're arguing in circles, and this point has already been covered: no, concentration camps did not only exist during the Holocaust, but the Holocaust is the most prominent occurrence that featured them and it still occupies a large space in our society's collective psyche. That's why usage of the term implies or strongly suggests similar atrocities. Therefore, continuing to insist on using the term, when, again, many alternatives exist, really comes across as an incendiary and low effort method to evoke a particular emotional response, and a cheap tactic to cudgel ideological opponents with. Maybe that's not your goal, but most people, when asked not to use a particular term due to its effects on others, will comply with the request, at the very least to avoid coming across as intentionally abrasive. And no, trying to explain to the person why they should not actually be offended is not a good idea — it just makes it worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Sorry, if they haven't killed exactly as many people as the Nazis did in WW2 in their Concentration Camps TM, then it's not bad enough to do anything except handwring and hope for more funding in the 2023 budget cycle (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
sleep with the vicious posted:Sorry, if they haven't killed exactly as many people as the Nazis did in WW2 in their Concentration Camps TM, then it's not bad enough to do anything except handwring and hope for more funding in the 2023 budget cycle Yep, this is just like the Nazis: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/migrant-families-border/2021/03/28/355c59a2-8d70-11eb-aff6-4f720ca2d479_story.html posted:Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced this month that it will expand its capacity to hold families near the U.S.-Mexico border to more than 3,700 beds in coming weeks, including 2,500 beds at a pair of existing family residential centers in South Texas, records show. ICE has also converted its two largest family detention sites into rapid-processing hubs to facilitate the release of parents with children within 72 hours. That bolded thing that you're calling a concentration camp is being structured to do literally the exact opposite of what a concentration camp does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
The intersection of good and bad policy creates a horrible situation, but you're only openly recognizing the good part of the policy. The need: prior to allowing entry into the United States, it must be verified that the accompanying adult is in fact a relative, and not a human trafficker. That's entirely valid. Why then, is the solution to separate them? They don't actually need to be separated - they traveled this far together, and nothing is happening until they move on, and it is far more likely that the the adult is a relative than a trafficker. That's where our bad policy comes in. They are separated because our system takes ages to verify identity, we hold migrants in deplorable conditions in the meantime, and we are required to keep a higher minimum standard of care for the children. We separate them so that we can dump the child in a cage and the adult in a worse cage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yep, this is just like the Nazis: Well, it IS just like the Nazis! Except the part where, for Nazis, "rapid-processing" meant more efficient gas chambers and higher capacity ovens for dead body disposal. But that's just a tiny, unimportant detail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
“We must be listened to: above and beyond our personal experience, we have collectively witnessed a fundamental unexpected event, fundamental precisely because unexpected, not foreseen by anyone. It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.” -Primo Levi The point is not that America is unique. The point is that the stepping stones to genocide should be recognized wherever they appear. The Holocaust did not go from nothing to death camps. Rendering entire groups of people illegal and normalizing the loss of their rights was an essential stepping stone in the process. It does not matter what the stated intentions are when those stepping stones happen, only that they enable the next stage of escalating violations. The "meta" discussion is germane to this thread because the question at heart is: how "dangerous" is this situation? I can't speak for others' experiences, but in my Jewish education, I was taught that it does not disrespect the memory of the Holocaust to apply its survivor's lessons to our own society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I know the dictionary game is tedious, but I do not think this is a widely-accepted definition. Late reply but this is a good point and I concede on this argument but as always linguistics is always a tough subject. This NPR article was pretty informative and persuasive - Euphemisms, Concentration Camps And The Japanese Internment
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
Andenno posted:“We must be listened to: above and beyond our personal experience, we have collectively witnessed a fundamental unexpected event, fundamental precisely because unexpected, not foreseen by anyone. It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.” -Primo Levi Okay, but I think you're going to have to try a lot harder to make the argument that US refugee centers are actually "stepping stones to genocide," when their purpose is to process refugees, and to do so regardless of their ethnic or religious group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:We're arguing in circles, and this point has already been covered: no, concentration camps did not only exist during the Holocaust, but the Holocaust is the most prominent occurrence that featured them and it still occupies a large space in our society's collective psyche. That's why usage of the term implies or strongly suggests similar atrocities. Therefore, continuing to insist on using the term, when, again, many alternatives exist, really comes across as an incendiary and low effort method to evoke a particular emotional response, and a cheap tactic to cudgel ideological opponents with. I find appeals to personal experience generally pretty lame as a debate tactic, but as someone who had family brutalized in one of the many other examples of concentration camps in the past 100 years, I find the repeated insistence that I must be invoking the Holocaust equally offensive. Sequestering a very important and simple term to one dark corner of history serves to obfuscate ongoing brutality, to the benefit of oppressive regimes everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:
We haven't even gotten to criticizing the policy and how it's been enacted, I'm just trying to get to talking about the actual policy instead of the misinformation being spread in this thread. Andenno posted:“We must be listened to: above and beyond our personal experience, we have collectively witnessed a fundamental unexpected event, fundamental precisely because unexpected, not foreseen by anyone. It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.” -Primo Levi A facility designed to take a concentrated group of people and disperse them into population as quickly as possible is not a concentration camp even by pedantic dictionary definition. I appreciate that unlike some people, you're being honest about the point you're making, but this is exactly why I'm saying the usage of the term is for the express purpose of making analogies to the holocaust. The mere existence of immigration controls, no matter how much poetic license you take with the description, is not a stepping stone to the Holocaust. It's something pretty much every functioning government on the planet does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So you are saying they are continuing family separation but are doing so in secret? Do you have any sort of evidence of this seems like a huge deal? I mean, the AP wire story from a couple weeks ago about the nonverbal 4 yr old who came over with her aunt, the latter of whom was "expelled" while the 4 yr old was put in a concentration camp then sent to strangers even when her parents in the U.S. tried to claim her, was sort of a big deal to those of us bothered by it at the time: quote:While the majority of youths detained by the government are teenagers, both Border Patrol and HHS are detaining very young children who were in some cases separated from adult caretakers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:52
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I mean, the AP wire story from a couple weeks ago about the nonverbal 4 yr old who came over with her aunt, the latter of whom was "expelled" while the 4 yr old was put in a concentration camp then sent to strangers even when her parents in the U.S. tried to claim her, was sort of a big deal to those of us bothered by it at the time: look when we said 'babies being torn away from their mothers is bad' we were being literal, it's not our fault these dumb migrants don't know that aunts don't count!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Okay, but I think you're going to have to try a lot harder to make the argument that US refugee centers are actually "stepping stones to genocide," when their purpose is to process refugees, and to do so regardless of their ethnic or religious group. What happened under the Trump administration makes that self-evident. We have a "border control" system largely devised by the Bush administration, substantially expanded by the Obama administration, and further weaponized by the Trump administration to the point that there was near-universal consensus on this very forum that we were on a path to genocide that must be disrupted. Is the Biden administration's current trajectory putting us towards unfucking the system? Relative to the Trump administration, it is, but we've had considerable human rights abuses ongoing throughout the last two decades, we are likely to continue to see human rights abuses, and we need to continuously apply pressure until the system is reformed to the point that the turnover of the executive does not let them be heavily weaponized. Strong rhetoric works in our favor. By the end of the Biden administration, the "refugee processing centers" should be so far removed from any reasonable definition of "concentration camp" that it is absurd to apply it. Jarmak posted:We haven't even gotten to criticizing the policy and how it's been enacted, I'm just trying to get to talking about the actual policy instead of the misinformation being spread in this thread. ...come on, really? The policy is that family separations are continuing, and the misinformation being spread is that they are not. You did more to obfuscate than clarify, because your post blamed the ongoing separations on US law rather than something the administration actually has direct, immediate control over. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:I find appeals to personal experience generally pretty lame as a debate tactic, but as someone who had family brutalized in one of the many other examples of concentration camps in the past 100 years, I find the repeated insistence that I must be invoking the Holocaust equally offensive. Sequestering a very important and simple term to one dark corner of history serves to obfuscate ongoing brutality, to the benefit of oppressive regimes everywhere. Please read what I wrote more carefully. I didn't say you "must" be invoking the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Lester Shy posted:Sequestering a very important and simple term to one dark corner of history serves to obfuscate ongoing brutality, to the benefit of oppressive regimes everywhere. The claim that asking people to use a different term when discussing something on an online forum "[benefits] oppressive regimes everywhere" is, frankly, laughable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:while i think the comparative discussion of white western nation immigration remains interesting (and horrible), i think we have largely exhausted the useful discussion of camp terminology for the moment boosting this up and adding my own take how about we talk about the actual lovely conditions in these camps rather than arguing from our loving dictionaries like a bunch of fuckin nerds. this isn't the kind of D&D where you magically alter reality depending on which magic words you say
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:...come on, really? The policy is that family separations are continuing, and the misinformation being spread is that they are not. You did more to obfuscate than clarify, because your post blamed the ongoing separations on US law rather than something the administration actually has direct, immediate control over. The policy of family separations under Trump was to separate them explicitly as a deterrent to stop them coming here. The policy of family internment under Obama was also explicitly as a deterrent to stop them from coming here. If you're going to talk about continuing policy, you're going to have to back it up that the current administration seeks to explicitly use its processes as a deterrent, rather than just being the result of a process failure. Because policy necessarily implies an explicit intention. The fact that the current administration is scrambling to improve its process and add more space for immigrants does little to substantiate the idea that they have a policy of deterrence. It just means they're fumbling the ball trying to end the previous policies. Xombie fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:The claim that asking people to use a different term when discussing something on an online forum "[benefits] oppressive regimes everywhere" is, frankly, laughable. Good thing I didn't say that. Nothing we say on this forum matters, but the way people talk about these issues in the real world certainly does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Andenno posted:“We must be listened to: above and beyond our personal experience, we have collectively witnessed a fundamental unexpected event, fundamental precisely because unexpected, not foreseen by anyone. It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.” -Primo Levi I think the main question here, at least for me, is whether the people using concentration camp here are also using it for every other circumstance that is as bad or worse - ie the situations in Australia, Greece, France, China, etc. As a corollary to that, we also need to determine if there is a difference in severity that should be noted linguistically between any of those, Japanese detainment camps in WWII, and the actual Nazi ones that are the most ubiquitous use of the term. Personally, I think it makes the most sense to have sub-categorizations for the various group detainment areas, from ones that are bad and probably contain some humans rights abuses to ones that are literally genocide, and possibly even a further one for places where genocide-by-death is the end goal. For me, a concentration camp describes one that is much closer to the far end of the spectrum, with the only way to describe a worse one being "death camp," or else an explicit comparison to the Holocaust . One benefit of having this sort of sliding scale is that you can adjust your description to better match the situation as conditions change or new facts come to light. If you use concentration camps to describe every single place where people are in cramped quarters, then you A. Can't tell from the description what crimes are being alleged, B. Don't have room to increase your condemnation, and C. Paint with a wide brush that equates one type of crime with another. It's sort of like using the word "criminal" as a noun. There are a lot of different types of criminals, some of which are mostly unobjectionable. If you group someone who commits a misdemeanor with people who commits murder, you end up with some very odd assumptions about what "criminal behavior" looks like. It's much more useful, then, to describe "criminals" in various ways based on their crimes, like "petty thief", "murderer", "felon", or "drunk driver". Similarly, it is much more useful to have a variety of things you can call government detainment zones- if the main problem with them is that they are temporary structures with inadequate plumbing and living space, you could call them "tent cities". If they also don't allow people to leave, you can call them "detainment camps". If they are primarily occupied by people applying for refugee status you can call them "refugee detainment camps" - or "refugee detainment facilities" if the structures aren't exposed to the elements. If you think the Biden camps are guilty of specific crimes, then you can use your phrasing to describe what those crimes are, and make it clear to people reading and engaging with your conversation what specific concerns you are trying to address with your arguments. The use of the words "concentration camps" was also debated when people used them for the Trump admin, for somewhat similar reasons. At the time, it was basically one brief conversation and then not much further, because news was coming fast and furious every day and there wasn't really time for any sort of quibbling. Now that the rate of news is so much slower than the rate of posting, we can take a lot more time per post, and add a lot more nuance, than we could when there were constantly 5 trainwrecks at a time. I think, given our current knowledge, I would describe the Trump camps as "family separation camps", because there is documented evidence that the result of the policies was a bunch of children removed from their families and basically lost forever due to poor documentation. We could also call them concentration camps, in that family separation is recognized as a type of genocide (ie Canada's residency schools for First Nation children), but I think I would personally rather not use that term, because I think comparing anything without coordinated deliberate deaths with the Holocaust is a bridge too far. You can disagree, and feel free to use the term there if by your personal calculus the amount of suffering passes the threshold to be called that, but for the sake of consistency that would mean that China, Australia, France, Greece, etc also have modern-day concentration camps, and you can probably draw an unbroken line from at least today to WWI of countries with concentration camps, and not just the ones run by dictators. I'd rather save that ammo for a more specific target, because while  can be effective it depends on there still being some shock value to the comparison, which has diminished with every use in mass media of "Nazi", "Hitler", or "concentration camps". I'm not refraining from using the term because I don't think the camps are bad, wrong, and harmful, but because my threshold for using this sort of language is not the same as your personal threshold.Edit: just saw the Modpost, I don't really wanna delete the whole essay but if a mod objects feel free to PM me to take it down or edit it yourself I guess? BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:boosting this up I mean in fairness there what's to discuss? They're horrific, and every report (that we're finally allowed to see, imagine how bad they were last month) is just 'it's probably gonna get worse'. Like, you can't discuss the fact that the Biden administration lied about closing these facilities, or the fact that 'how can you say the parties are similar, ONE SIDE HAS KIDS IN CAGES' was a common election refrain and all without bringing up that about six months ago it was not only 100% good to call them what they are, but also was a moral imperative?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:boosting this up People have tried doing that, which is why the "they're not concentration camps" conversation started; it's easier to quibble about that then actually explicitly defend what's happening inside them. Same reason why every time the focus does go on said lovely conditions, we get excuses and justifications for why they're like that, stated hopes that the people currently actively perpetuating these conditions will take some nebulous future action to make things better as if they aren't already involved and intentionally making them worse, complaints that "Well it was even worse under Trump so you're just upset now because you hate Biden", and so on. It's just another way to ignore the fact that the current administration is just as okay with immigrants being tortured, raped, and thrown in unmarked graves once the abuse and neglect finally kills them as the last two were. And I am being literal when I say that's why the conversation started; someone posted about the actual situation going on, and this was the reply: Thorn Wishes Talon posted:They are not concentration camps. That's it. Nothing about what's actually going on, or the rest of the content of the post, just disagreement about some words used it in. After that, for several pages (and days) the thread was pulled away from discussing what's actually happening and into endless concern-trolling. Some people do not want to have a discussion here, at least not on the subject of what's going on and what to do about it. Anyway, on that topic itself, everyone's favorite senator has some stuff to say regarding immigration policy he supports. It's... Not great. While he does support a pathway for DREAMers, he also suggests stuff like a possible 90-day moratorium on people coming into the country, more border security, and so on. Edit: Trying to find a better article than that, but there's video of what he said here, and here's a clip of, among other things, the "moratorium for 90 days" thing. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:how about we talk about the actual lovely conditions in these camps rather than arguing from our loving dictionaries like a bunch of fuckin nerds. this isn't the kind of D&D where you magically alter reality depending on which magic words you say I agree, but the tone policing conversation exists to avoid doing that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I agree, but the tone policing conversation exists to avoid doing that. Multiple people, including mods/IKs, have stated the exact reasons for their objection to a single specific term to describe the refugee centers on the basis that it is needlessly inflammatory since it implies or suggests, intentionally or otherwise, similarities or parallels to genocide. The fact that you are dismissing all of that as merely "tone policing" shows everyone here that you just want to be able to post whatever the hell you want without any consideration whatsoever for the effect it has on others. No, using another term will not lessen the severity of the atrocious and deplorable conditions in refugee centers. No, using another term will not benefit oppressive regimes everywhere. No, using another term will not suddenly make everyone do a one eighty on how they feel about Biden's handling of the situation, because everybody is angry. It will, however, allow us to finally move past this dumb debate, and maybe you should do it on that basis alone if your goal and desire is in fact to discuss conditions, policies, or anything else that has substance?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Slow News Day posted:Multiple people, including mods/IKs, have stated the exact reasons for their objection to a single specific term to describe the refugee centers on the basis that it is needlessly inflammatory since it implies or suggests, intentionally or otherwise, similarities or parallels to genocide. The fact that you are dismissing all of that as merely "tone policing" shows everyone here that you just want to be able to post whatever the hell you want without any consideration whatsoever for the effect it has on others. okay, let's talk about it then, why is biden still keeping children packed in weird Magneto cubes during a pandemic and why are politicians like AOC now justifying it is 'not as bad as trump'? I mean, it's not a super deep discussion to have since it's really just 'what do you think the ratio is between racism and just general apathy' but if you want to talk conditions let's talk conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:okay, let's talk about it then, why is biden still keeping children packed in weird Magneto cubes during a pandemic and why are politicians like AOC now justifying it is 'not as bad as trump'? I mean, it's not a super deep discussion to have since it's really just 'what do you think the ratio is between racism and just general apathy' but if you want to talk conditions let's talk conditions. Why does not seem like the right question. I can't see it leading to much more than the same Dems evil/just bad debate that's extremely tired. Better to ask 1) What do we need to prevent this kind of crisis from happening again? 2) What are better policies politicians can pursue to get to said better situation? 3) What can activists do to realize 1) and 2)? I know the answer to none of these, because at least for me, who believes in some kind of border monitoring/control, these are not easy questions, and cannot be solved with ideological purity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Why does not seem like the right question. I can't see it leading to much more than the same Dems evil/just bad debate that's extremely tired. I think 'why' matters insofar that, like I said, 'if you don't vote for Joe you're supporting kids in cages' was a pretty huge part of messaging, so it's fairly important to establish if his team was just outright lying and he fully thinks this is fine or if they just misrepresented how much he actually cares. I think that question also answers 1 and 2, because so many activists chose to put their faith in electoralism and blind party politics, assuming that the man famous for being a literal segregationist would stop the camps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 20:08
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:People have tried doing that, which is why the "they're not concentration camps" conversation started; it's easier to quibble about that then actually explicitly defend what's happening inside them. Same reason why every time the focus does go on said lovely conditions, we get excuses and justifications for why they're like that, stated hopes that the people currently actively perpetuating these conditions will take some nebulous future action to make things better as if they aren't already involved and intentionally making them worse, complaints that "Well it was even worse under Trump so you're just upset now because you hate Biden", and so on. It's just another way to ignore the fact that the current administration is just as okay with immigrants being tortured, raped, and thrown in unmarked graves once the abuse and neglect finally kills them as the last two were. There are several unprovable claims here you seem to be trying to weaponize to accuse some posters of defending concentration camps and the torture, rape, and murder of immigrants. You are saying: 1) Immigrants are being tortured, raped, and thrown in unmarked graves following their abuse and neglect in the camps 2) The Obama, Trump, and now Biden admins are aware of this and okay with it 3) The people currently perpetuating these conditions are intentionally making them worse 4) Some posters itt would like you to ignore all the above Nobody here is defending the camps or the conditions at the border. They are horrifying, inhumane, and unacceptable. I agree with you that the argument over terminology is a distraction. But not a distraction from having to defend or justify the situation because... no one is doing that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:I think 'why' matters insofar that, like I said, 'if you don't vote for Joe you're supporting kids in cages' was a pretty huge part of messaging, so it's fairly important to establish if his team was just outright lying and he fully thinks this is fine or if they just misrepresented how much he actually cares. But arguably every issue ends up becoming about electoralism, so that may be too hard a line to hold. When 2) is brought up, thread seems to devolve into meta-discussions around what the exact facts are, which has thusfar not been productive. But I am interested in the threads' thoughts about 1). Like, if you were King of Immigration Policy, how do you set up a system to deal with unaccompanied minors, or indeed any surge of refugee seekers/undocumented folks that are apprehended. Open border, so there isn't an incentive to try stuff like this? Staff up the courts? Much larger infrastructure seems like it would not address the moral issue. Sarcastr0 fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Why does not seem like the right question. I can't see it leading to much more than the same Dems evil/just bad debate that's extremely tired. Allow lawyers & media unfettered access to the concentration camps. quote:2) What are better policies politicians can pursue to get to said better situation? Allow lawyers & media unfettered access to the concentration camps. quote:3) What can activists do to realize 1) and 2)? Allow lawyers & media unfettered access to the concentration camps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Allow lawyers & media unfettered access to the concentration camps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Allow lawyers & media unfettered access to the concentration camps. Yeah that would be a good start to raise public awareness and push politicians on overhauling the whole drat system. We're not going to get any of the GOP on board (or very few), they're just going to push for more deterrence/enforcement. Are there any good resources or references for which Dem senators (and reps I suppose) need the most pushing on immigration reform? Also I posted a couple months ago that I thought the camps would be winding down and significantly reduced in size by April-ish but whoa boy was I wrong on that. I'll donate to RAICES this afternoon and call my congressional reps. Bout all I can meaningfully do in the real world. edit: how good is International Rescue Committee? https://help.rescue.org/donate/help...7xoCBWsQAvD_BwE sounds right on target? quote:Please donate now to help us support families seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. edit2: went with raices for now 
Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Allow lawyers & media unfettered access to the concentration camps. Lawyers should absolutely get total access, media definitely should not get 'unfettered' access for a bunch of reasons just related to turning media loose in facilities with minors. Media definitely should get some access, but not in a way that compromises the functioning or the privacy of the kids. Frankly I trust immigration lawyers vastly more than news crews to meaningfully and effectively look out for the well being of people in the camps
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
<------ I see somebody got mad about what camps are called. "Screetched"? lol Slow News Day posted:Multiple people, including mods/IKs, have stated the exact reasons for their objection to a single specific term to describe the refugee centers on the basis that it is needlessly inflammatory since it implies or suggests, intentionally or otherwise, similarities or parallels to genocide. The fact that you are dismissing all of that as merely "tone policing" shows everyone here that you just want to be able to post whatever the hell you want without any consideration whatsoever for the effect it has on others. I don't think you understand what tone policing is. Calling direct language "needlessly inflammatory" is how that works. And "genocide" is a term with many definitions and one of them is forced deportations of ethnic groups. I've seen similar arguments that calling certain things "racism" devalues racism and hurts others. I've seen similar arguments about how "drunk sex isn't rape and that's offensive to rape victims". I'm sorry if some people have rigid and specific definitions of certain terms, and may dislike their usage in other contexts. However these are sensitive terms and still applicable and your believe that they have a rigid and specific definition that they do not doesn't mean you get to demand that others accept your definition. These are not slurs, and there's broad disagreement over whether or not they can be used here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm sorry if some people have rigid and specific definitions of certain terms, and may dislike their usage in other contexts. However these are sensitive terms and still applicable and your believe that they have a rigid and specific definition that they do not doesn't mean you get to demand that others accept your definition. These are not slurs, and there's broad disagreement over whether or not they can be used here. The applicability of the term is widely disputed — people have provided sources both for and against. That's why the disagreement exists. Let's not pretend that this an attempt to censor a term whose definition is broadly and universally agreed upon, or a war against an objective and self-evident truth. What I'm saying is that y'all can either stubbornly continue using the term and get called out every time, leading to these derails, or you can simply just use another, synonymous term, of which many exist. In the former scenario, a bunch of people get probated and the thread gets closed in short order. In the latter scenario, we debate matters of actual substance, and in your own head you still get satisfaction from knowing that when you typed out "<synonym of X>", you actually meant "X". Everybody wins.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
Slow News Day posted:The applicability of the term is widely disputed — people have provided sources both for and against. That's why the disagreement exists. Let's not pretend that this an attempt to censor a term whose definition is broadly and universally agreed upon, or a war against an objective and self-evident truth. No, the answer here isn't asking one side in a disputed term debate to give up and use a more "acceptable" term, because, again, that's tone policing. The answer is to continue just using the terms you want to use and if you don't agree with one, don't use it. Otherwise you're either forcing someone to agree to your terms, or stopping up the discussion. This is almost verbatim the same arguments against the usage of apartheid or genocide for Israel's actions against Palestinians. Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Apr 2, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2021 21:47
|
|