Immigration Issues

[laughing dog]

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

This is why it's stupid, LD. Everybody knows that it's shorthand for "illegal aliens". Absolutely NOBODY has EVER thought that it implies that being a person is illegal.

So to 1) intentionally misconstrue what one KNOWS to be meant so that 2) one can erect an argument against it... is extraordinarily transparent bad faith. It convinces nobody, it accomplishes nothing. It lets the few people who insist on parroting "it's not illegal to be a person" feel like they're winning because they get back-slaps and high-fives from other people who do the same silly thing. And everyone else merely bites their tongues and silently acknowledges that the entire premise is idiotic.

It's the same for the idiots going on about "All Lives Matter". Like, no shit - we know that, everyone knows that, and absolutely nobody anywhere ever though that BLM implied that anyone who wasn't black didn't matter.

It's absolutely pointless virtue signaling via sloganeering.

Calling undocumented aliens “illegals” is dog whistling. It encourages the terroristic impulses of ICE. It allows the utterers to feel superior and that they support “law and order”while everyone else just winces at its insensitivity and racism.



I find it ironic that you call out the racist “All Lives Matter” while defending the use of illegals.

Especially since many of the so called “illegals” are asylum seekers who are here legally but lumped into that category.

 

[Emily Lake]

You know, it's interesting insofar as mutts tend to be more intelligent, physiologically robust, and have more filled-out traits and personalities.

Dude, did you just call brown people dogs? WTAF?

Wow, the pearl clutching purposeful misinterpretation is strong with this one.

Kind of like your purposeful misinterpretation that leads to you shaking a finger at me with the empty slogan that it's never illegal to be a person?

FWIW, most people with mixed ethnic backgrounds rather object to being referred to as "mutts". Are you somehow so sheltered and unaware that you've missed the (literal) dog-whistle in your own posts? Perhaps you might consider taking your own error here as a learning opportunity, and perhaps extend empathy and consideration to other people rather than pushing their stated views off the edge of the absurdity cliff?

 

[Emily Lake]

Calling undocumented aliens “illegals” is dog whistling. It encourages the terroristic impulses of ICE. It allows the utterers to feel superior and that they support “law and order”while everyone else just winces at its insensitivity and racism.



I find it ironic that you call out the racist “All Lives Matter” while defending the use of illegals.

Especially since many of the so called “illegals” are asylum seekers who are here legally but lumped into that category.

It's not a fucking dog whistle. It's not anything other than shorthand that everyone understands. This is linguistic coercion at its finest.

You know what I mean - you absolutely are not at all confused into thinking I actually mean that it's illegal to be a person. It's pretense on your part to engage in this rhetoric.

It's the same impetus that has people looking down their nose insisting that we can't say "latina or latino" but need to use "latinx" even though the term is disliked by hispanic people. It's the same silliness as requiring that we say "differently abled" instead of "disabled" or "handicapped". It's the same rhetorical manipulation as insisting we say "persons experiencing houselessness" instead of "homeless".

It accomplishes nothing, it clarifies nothing, it doesn't aid in understanding or drive forward any policy. All it does is make it more difficult to communicate, and gives you (and those who share your view on this) a feeling of righteousness when you try to shame and bully them into using different words - especially because we're talking about the exact same things and we all fucking know it.

It's performance for the purpose of being able to treat the "less enlightened" with contempt and still feel like you've got a moral leg to stand on.

 

[Elixir]

That certain class of people being us citizens.

Are you going to force your fellow new lock enthusiasts to underwrite the cost for those who can’t afford a new lock?-

 

[Emily Lake]

That certain class of people being us citizens.

Are you going to force your fellow new lock enthusiasts to underwrite the cost for those who can’t afford a new lock?-

Happy to do so... as I have said a few times already.

 

[Elixir]

That certain class of people being us citizens.

Are you going to force your fellow new lock enthusiasts to underwrite the cost for those who can’t afford a new lock?-

Happy to do so... as I have said a few times already.

SOCIALIST! COMMIE!
I think it’s wise to obtain consent before asking the well heeled to ante up. If people elected people who were not indebted to the well heeled, we might get some things -like either new locks OR a maybe even a significantly reduced need for them. Pandering to insecurities can be effective politically, but not at improving social climates.

 

[ZiprHead]

You know, it's interesting insofar as mutts tend to be more intelligent, physiologically robust, and have more filled-out traits and personalities.

Dude, did you just call brown people dogs? WTAF?

Someone said just before this post:

Alternatively, you can use that squishy gray mass between your ears and employ an understanding of context and shorthand and stop playing games that LITERALLY EVERYONE knows is nothing but a rhetorical game.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know, it's interesting insofar as mutts tend to be more intelligent, physiologically robust, and have more filled-out traits and personalities.

Dude, did you just call brown people dogs? WTAF?

Someone said just before this post:

Alternatively, you can use that squishy gray mass between your ears and employ an understanding of context and shorthand and stop playing games that LITERALLY EVERYONE knows is nothing but a rhetorical game.

IKR?

 

[Elixir]

You know, it's interesting insofar as mutts tend to be more intelligent, physiologically robust, and have more filled-out traits and personalities.

Dude, did you just call brown people dogs? WTAF?

No, he called you and me inferior dogs!


Perplexity:
Mutts, or mixed-breed dogs, offer several key advantages over purebred dogs, primarily due to their diverse genetics.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know, it's interesting insofar as mutts tend to be more intelligent, physiologically robust, and have more filled-out traits and personalities.

Dude, did you just call brown people dogs? WTAF?

Wow, the pearl clutching purposeful misinterpretation is strong with this one.

Kind of like your purposeful misinterpretation that leads to you shaking a finger at me with the empty slogan that it's never illegal to be a person?

FWIW, most people with mixed ethnic backgrounds rather object to being referred to as "mutts". Are you somehow so sheltered and unaware that you've missed the (literal) dog-whistle in your own posts? Perhaps you might consider taking your own error here as a learning opportunity, and perhaps extend empathy and consideration to other people rather than pushing their stated views off the edge of the absurdity cliff?

Seriously you're hilarious RN. I made a comment about the real and observed biological effects of having eclectic and diverse ancestry specifically observed in dogs.

It's a biological metaphor.

You can bitch all you want about the fact being proven using dogs, but it IS a fact that organisms (specifically observable from the statistics of actual canine mutts) with such backgrounds are healthier and more intelligent.

If your only and strongest objection to that material fact is that people might clutch their pearls as you do about where the knowledge came from, then I rest my case!

 

[laughing dog]

Calling undocumented aliens “illegals” is dog whistling. It encourages the terroristic impulses of ICE. It allows the utterers to feel superior and that they support “law and order”while everyone else just winces at its insensitivity and racism.



I find it ironic that you call out the racist “All Lives Matter” while defending the use of illegals.

Especially since many of the so called “illegals” are asylum seekers who are here legally but lumped into that category.

It's not a fucking dog whistle. It's not anything other than shorthand that everyone understands. This is linguistic coercion at its finest.

Of course everyone understands. But it is still a dog whistle.

 

[Elixir]

Of course everyone understands. But it is still a dog whistle.

You got a problem with free speech? Want to outlaw dog whistles? Let the court of billionaire-owned businesses decide!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Gregory Bovino is now under criminal investigation

Video shows the Border Patrol's former "commander-at-large" throwing a gas canister at protesters and observers in Minneapolis in January.

www.motherjones.com

 

[crazyfingers]

Gregory Bovino is now under criminal investigation

Video shows the Border Patrol's former "commander-at-large" throwing a gas canister at protesters and observers in Minneapolis in January.

www.motherjones.com

Bovino is a criminal slimebag and belongs in prison.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Gregory Bovino is now under criminal investigation

Video shows the Border Patrol's former "commander-at-large" throwing a gas canister at protesters and observers in Minneapolis in January.

www.motherjones.com

Bovino is a criminal slimebag and belongs in prison.

LINGUISTIC COERCION OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!!!11

 

[Toni]

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

This is why it's stupid, LD. Everybody knows that it's shorthand for "illegal aliens". Absolutely NOBODY has EVER thought that it implies that being a person is illegal.

So to 1) intentionally misconstrue what one KNOWS to be meant so that 2) one can erect an argument against it... is extraordinarily transparent bad faith. It convinces nobody, it accomplishes nothing. It lets the few people who insist on parroting "it's not illegal to be a person" feel like they're winning because they get back-slaps and high-fives from other people who do the same silly thing. And everyone else merely bites their tongues and silently acknowledges that the entire premise is idiotic.

It's the same for the idiots going on about "All Lives Matter". Like, no shit - we know that, everyone knows that, and absolutely nobody anywhere ever though that BLM implied that anyone who wasn't black didn't matter.

It's absolutely pointless virtue signaling via sloganeering.

Words matter, Emily. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who believe that immigrants are all here fraudulently and are not worthy of being considered human beings or treated with respect or dignity or even the same right to life they want to grant to a ball of 16 cells.

So what are you signaling by your word choice?

 

[thebeave]

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

This is why it's stupid, LD. Everybody knows that it's shorthand for "illegal aliens". Absolutely NOBODY has EVER thought that it implies that being a person is illegal.

So to 1) intentionally misconstrue what one KNOWS to be meant so that 2) one can erect an argument against it... is extraordinarily transparent bad faith. It convinces nobody, it accomplishes nothing. It lets the few people who insist on parroting "it's not illegal to be a person" feel like they're winning because they get back-slaps and high-fives from other people who do the same silly thing. And everyone else merely bites their tongues and silently acknowledges that the entire premise is idiotic.

It's the same for the idiots going on about "All Lives Matter". Like, no shit - we know that, everyone knows that, and absolutely nobody anywhere ever though that BLM implied that anyone who wasn't black didn't matter.

It's absolutely pointless virtue signaling via sloganeering.

Words matter, Emily. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who believe that immigrants are all here fraudulently and are not worthy of being considered human beings or treated with respect or dignity or even the same right to life they want to grant to a ball of 16 cells.

So what are you signaling by your word choice?

Out of the "plenty of people", can you name even one who meet the criteria you laid out?

 

[Toni]

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

This is why it's stupid, LD. Everybody knows that it's shorthand for "illegal aliens". Absolutely NOBODY has EVER thought that it implies that being a person is illegal.

So to 1) intentionally misconstrue what one KNOWS to be meant so that 2) one can erect an argument against it... is extraordinarily transparent bad faith. It convinces nobody, it accomplishes nothing. It lets the few people who insist on parroting "it's not illegal to be a person" feel like they're winning because they get back-slaps and high-fives from other people who do the same silly thing. And everyone else merely bites their tongues and silently acknowledges that the entire premise is idiotic.

It's the same for the idiots going on about "All Lives Matter". Like, no shit - we know that, everyone knows that, and absolutely nobody anywhere ever though that BLM implied that anyone who wasn't black didn't matter.

It's absolutely pointless virtue signaling via sloganeering.

Words matter, Emily. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who believe that immigrants are all here fraudulently and are not worthy of being considered human beings or treated with respect or dignity or even the same right to life they want to grant to a ball of 16 cells.

So what are you signaling by your word choice?

Out of the "plenty of people", can you name even one who meet the criteria you laid out?

I’m not necessarily thinking of anyone here although if I thought hard enough, I might have the misfortune to come up with a name or two of members here. Few members here are so called ‘right to lifers.’ I was thinking of the general public. For instance, I was born in a state that is pretty reliably ‘red’ and many of my former classmates are very firmly, loudly and vehemently ‘right to life’ proponents. Many of these same people are vehemently against ‘illegals’ and are quick to refer to anyone with brownish skin as ‘illegal.’ Most are smart enough not to publicly refer to those with African ancestry by the n word in public, anyway. In private? I don’t want to know. But we all ( in that time/place) grew up hearing racial slurs at home. I’m not going to name my former classmates or my brother in law who likes to spout off about ‘illegals’ and is very anti-abortion although he’s never married and likely never had to worry about a partner’s unplanned pregnancy—and was raised by parents who supported the Civil Rights movement and were pro-choice.

Hey, I’m one of the few people I know still on FB. If you are, try looking at any posts about ICE or immigrants. You’ll see lots of people using ‘illegals’ and if you check out their profiles you can see a lot of ‘right to life’ references as well.

It’s almost as though you’ve never met anyone who is MAGA…..

 

[laughing dog]

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

This is why it's stupid, LD. Everybody knows that it's shorthand for "illegal aliens". Absolutely NOBODY has EVER thought that it implies that being a person is illegal.

So to 1) intentionally misconstrue what one KNOWS to be meant so that 2) one can erect an argument against it... is extraordinarily transparent bad faith. It convinces nobody, it accomplishes nothing. It lets the few people who insist on parroting "it's not illegal to be a person" feel like they're winning because they get back-slaps and high-fives from other people who do the same silly thing. And everyone else merely bites their tongues and silently acknowledges that the entire premise is idiotic.

It's the same for the idiots going on about "All Lives Matter". Like, no shit - we know that, everyone knows that, and absolutely nobody anywhere ever though that BLM implied that anyone who wasn't black didn't matter.

It's absolutely pointless virtue signaling via sloganeering.

Words matter, Emily. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who believe that immigrants are all here fraudulently and are not worthy of being considered human beings or treated with respect or dignity or even the same right to life they want to grant to a ball of 16 cells.

So what are you signaling by your word choice?

Out of the "plenty of people", can you name even one who meet the criteria you laid out?

One of my brothers.

 

[thebeave]

Why do you think that engaging in intentionally misleading use of language gets you a win? This is an absolutely stupid abuse of words. The only people you convince with this "it's not illegal to be a person" are stupid people.

It is not illegal to be a person. That is reality. It may be illegal to in a country that does not make anyone an "illegal". The intentional misuse of language is to call undocumented aliens "illegals".

Yes, it is accepted by nativists, white nationalists, racists, their dupes and their enablers, but that does not make any less of a misuse of the word. And it is done either for political purposes or for stupid reasons.

This is why it's stupid, LD. Everybody knows that it's shorthand for "illegal aliens". Absolutely NOBODY has EVER thought that it implies that being a person is illegal.

So to 1) intentionally misconstrue what one KNOWS to be meant so that 2) one can erect an argument against it... is extraordinarily transparent bad faith. It convinces nobody, it accomplishes nothing. It lets the few people who insist on parroting "it's not illegal to be a person" feel like they're winning because they get back-slaps and high-fives from other people who do the same silly thing. And everyone else merely bites their tongues and silently acknowledges that the entire premise is idiotic.

It's the same for the idiots going on about "All Lives Matter". Like, no shit - we know that, everyone knows that, and absolutely nobody anywhere ever though that BLM implied that anyone who wasn't black didn't matter.

It's absolutely pointless virtue signaling via sloganeering.

Words matter, Emily. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who believe that immigrants are all here fraudulently and are not worthy of being considered human beings or treated with respect or dignity or even the same right to life they want to grant to a ball of 16 cells.

So what are you signaling by your word choice?

Out of the "plenty of people", can you name even one who meet the criteria you laid out?

I’m not necessarily thinking of anyone here although if I thought hard enough, I might have the misfortune to come up with a name or two of members here. Few members here are so called ‘right to lifers.’ I was thinking of the general public. For instance, I was born in a state that is pretty reliably ‘red’ and many of my former classmates are very firmly, loudly and vehemently ‘right to life’ proponents. Many of these same people are vehemently against ‘illegals’ and are quick to refer to anyone with brownish skin as ‘illegal.’ Most are smart enough not to publicly refer to those with African ancestry by the n word in public, anyway. In private? I don’t want to know. But we all ( in that time/place) grew up hearing racial slurs at home. I’m not going to name my former classmates or my brother in law who likes to spout off about ‘illegals’ and is very anti-abortion although he’s never married and likely never had to worry about a partner’s unplanned pregnancy—and was raised by parents who supported the Civil Rights movement and were pro-choice.

Hey, I’m one of the few people I know still on FB. If you are, try looking at any posts about ICE or immigrants. You’ll see lots of people using ‘illegals’ and if you check out their profiles you can see a lot of ‘right to life’ references as well.

It’s almost as though you’ve never met anyone who is MAGA…..

So, in summary, "No". You specifically said, people who believe "immigrants are all here fraudulently", "not worthy of being considered human beings". That is some strong language you used. Still waiting on a name...