sexpig by night posted:

So can we say 'concentration' camps in here or are we still required to pretend 'internment camp' is an actual legal different term and not literally just a synonym for concentration camp.

Bishyaler posted:

Great, then I look forward to the immediate influx of Dem Party cheerleaders eager to defend Biden slapping a rainbow sticker on Trump's white supremacy camps like they did in the USPOL thread. But we both know that won't happen. Out of sight out of mind, right?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Jaxyon posted:

Yes the people you imagined to exist in the other thread are also possible for you to imagine to exist here.

I can tell how much people truly care about immigrants being tortured because of this page of trying to own posting enemies. That's the real fight right there.

LGD posted:

The credibility of this statement seems somewhat challenged by the numerous probations handed out on this page and in the US POL thread in relation to the decision of D&D mods to engage in active censorship of the term "concentration camp" in relation to things that they themselves concede are indeed concentration camps, explicitly because usage of the term is too provocative to people who have taken it upon themselves to defend the operation of concentration camps by the Biden administration (and who in several cases can be shown to have had zero qualms about using the term to refer to the same camps, being operated by the same people, under the previous administration).

socialsecurity posted:

So are your saying that USPOL was a Biden cheerleading zone? Could you point out these team sport posts so we can know not post like that in the future?

Insanite posted:

Is it okay for this thread to be about US immigration policy and not boring slapfights?

BougieBitch posted:

Like, yeah, they caught a probe for it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen

BougieBitch posted:

It sounds like you are posting in the wrong thread then, the title of this thread is "US Immigration Policy Megathread", so if you don't think that US Immigration Policy is meaningful reformable then that's fine, but it's not really conducive to a policy discussion. Some threads are for working within the system and some threads are for working outside of it, and this is one of the former

freeasinbeer posted:

They aren’t concentration camps. Like they aren’t by any reasonable definition no matter how bad you want to own the libels, and framing it that way is unproductive and disingenuous. No one wants to engage with if the starting point is implicitly comparing it the Shoah.

quote:

In general the west doesn’t have a ton of spare housing capacity that can be used without tremendous turmoil because of capitalism and private property rights, so using such dire accelerationist language isn’t helping, and just making you sound like shrill lunatics?

freeasinbeer posted:

Last time DHS used just any old hotels it was worse then camps.

quote:

Why is concentration camps more correct then refugee camps, then of not to inflame the discussion by implicitly bringing the Shoah into play.

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

Why?

Words have meaning. There is a enormous difference between a concentration camp and a refugee camp. If someone believes that a term isn't being used properly I would hope that debate is allowed.

freeasinbeer posted:

Yet we let folks go into every conversation painting everyone implicitly a Nazi at best or a British Colonial Administrator at worst, just utterly destroying any conversation that isn’t someone circle jerking to calling them death camps.

If your tone is yelling “concentration camps” over and over to own the libs; maybe it should be policed?

Crosby B. Alfred posted:

I don't know what happened in MSPol.

Housing immigrants is absolutely a topic that's going to part of any immigration policy for any Country. There's hundreds of articles online on the subject from housing, enforcements, camps, etc.

Discendo Vox posted:

The decision in USPOL was specifically to make people stop calling them concentration camps, because, and I quote,

So what you've done is taken a form of rhetorical abuse that was specifically disallowed in USPOL, for reasons that are no less applicable here, and you've enshrined it as an acceptable standard.

Jaxyon posted:

It's not a semantic derail, it's tone policing.

It's an entirely valid term and the fragility of certain posters isn't a good enough reason to ban it, since it's entirely on topic for this thread. This isn't USPOL, it's a thread about immigration.

Your job as an IK is not to tone police.

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

How people can have a discussion of anything if they disagree on what words mean in the first place?

The group that uses "concentration camp" is going to be continually interpreted as saying that the camps at the border are equivalent of the Nazi camps because that is the most well known usage of the term, those who use some other term are going to be seen as trying to minimize the camps and stan for the Biden administration.

How is discussion supposed to occur when both sides view each other as somewhere between deceitful propagandists and blood gurgling monsters?

Lester Shy posted:

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

They are not concentration camps.

Slow News Day posted:

You should perhaps bookmark the encyclopedic definition posted above so that you can refer to it whenever you find yourself asking this question.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

With all due respect, you asked me why I thought they aren't concentration camps, I provided a citation in the form of an encyclopedic resource that explains very clearly and relatively concisely the actual distinction between a concentration camp and other types of camps such as refugee centers. Posting a definition of a term is not an "appeal to authority." Terms don't suddenly change their meaning based on people's opinions.