Politics

[gmu2006]

... but this guy in SG was supposed to represent all of the students and he used racist language to attack some of them.

Saying "illegals" in a statement is not racist!
Saying "ILLEGALS" in a statement is NOT racist!
Saying "illegal immigrants" in a statement is not racist!
Saying "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" in a statement is NOT racist!
Saying "not" in a statement is not racist!
Saying "NOT" in a statement is NOT racist!

My God! I mean really? WTH? Has political correctness, engineered by the far left, really gone this far?

This country is screwed.

 

[CHRISTOPHER JAMES JOLLAY]

Do it Jollay

You bet your a** I will.

 

[TwoFootTackle]

Saying "illegals" in a statement is not racist!
Saying "ILLEGALS" in a statement is NOT racist!
Saying "illegal immigrants" in a statement is not racist!
Saying "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" in a statement is NOT racist!
Saying "not" in a statement is not racist!
Saying "NOT" in a statement is NOT racist!

My God! I mean really? WTH? Has political correctness, engineered by the far left, really gone this far?

This country is screwed.

The choice of words matters because they are used to convey specific meaning. They're often used for reasons that aren't immediately obvious. Perhaps in everyday language "illegals" was once accepted in polite company. However, it is now intentionally used by people who oppose not just the actions of undocumented immigrants but the people's identities and characteristics. It's a code word (i.e., dog- whistle politics) meant to convey a point of view to like-minded persons but retain a certain amount of deniability when challenged. Consider the example of the various words used to label African Americans over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

While I typically disagree with them, there are some merits to the arguments of those who favor certain strategies with respect to enforcing immigration law or to restricting immigration through changes in legislation. However, advocating for those positions doesn't require language intended to attack and inflame.

If you disagree with those on the left on immigration policy, that's fine, but remember using words like "illegals" persuades no one to change their minds. Try switching to "undocumented immigrants" and see what happens to the tone of the conversation. I bet you'll find that it cools things down and allows for rational discourse.

 

[jmckend1]

The choice of words matters because they are used to convey specific meaning. They're often used for reasons that aren't immediately obvious. Perhaps in everyday language "illegals" was once accepted in polite company. However, it is now intentionally used by people who oppose not just the actions of undocumented immigrants but the people's identities and characteristics. It's a code word (i.e., dog- whistle politics) meant to convey a point of view to like-minded persons but retain a certain amount of deniability when challenged. Consider the example of the various words used to label African Americans over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

While I typically disagree with them, there are some merits to the arguments of those who favor certain strategies with respect to enforcing immigration law or to restricting immigration through changes in legislation. However, advocating for those positions doesn't require language intended to attack and inflame.

If you disagree with those on the left on immigration policy, that's fine, but remember using words like "illegals" persuades no one to change their minds. Try switching to "undocumented immigrants" and see what happens to the tone of the conversation. I bet you'll find that it cools things down and allows for rational discourse.

I feel sorry that TwoFoot has his head in his a**, but it certainly isn't illegal for him to have it there. Next time a get a ticket for an illegal U-Turn I'll correct the cop and tell him it is to be called an "impermissible" 180.

 

[psyclone]

I feel sorry that TwoFoot has his head in his a**, but it certainly isn't illegal for him to have it there. Next time a get a ticket for an illegal U-Turn I'll correct the cop and tell him it is to be called an "impermissible" 180.

Have they started to call people who get such tickets "illegals"?

 

[TwoFootTackle]

I feel sorry that TwoFoot has his head in his a**, but it certainly isn't illegal for him to have it there. Next time a get a ticket for an illegal U-Turn I'll correct the cop and tell him it is to be called an "impermissible" 180.

 

[gmu2006]

I don't think he is missing the point as the point you are trying to make is fallacious. What are they teaching at GMU nowadays?

I read your same misguided points on the fourth estate as well.(http://gmufourthestate.com/2015/02/...removes-undersecretary-of-dining-over-tweets/ )

And if you read the response from "A Veteran", regarding the left wing links you listed to try and re-inforce your point, you will find that the terms regarding illegal aliens (all caps or not) is used by both the IRS and Department of Homeland Security.

Here is a Google for you braniac.
"Illegal Alien
Also known as an "Undocumented Alien," is an alien who has entered the United States illegally and is deportable if apprehended, or an alien who entered the United States legally but who has fallen "out of status" and is deportable."
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals...
So give the IRS a call and tell them they are racist.
And while you are at it, call the Department of Homeland Security and tell them to knock it off too.
"Legalized Aliens - Certain illegal aliens who were eligible to apply for temporary resident status under the legalization provision of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. To be eligible, aliens must have continuously resided in the United States in an unlawful status since January 1, 1982, not be excludable, and have entered the United States either 1) illegally before January 1, 1982, or 2) as temporary visitors before January 1, 1982, with their authorized stay expiring before that date or with the Government's knowledge of their unlawful status before that date. Legalization consists of two stages-temporary and then permanent residency. In order to adjust to permanent status aliens must have had continuous residence in the United States, be admissible as an immigrant, and demonstrate at least a minimal understanding and knowledge of the English language and U.S. history and government."
http://www.dhs.gov/definition-...
Oh, and it seems Mr. Paglia was dismissed for using official IRS and DHS terms.

I am glad "A Veteran" is posting his rebuttals to these ridiculous claims of racism. I also like and agree with his response to your comment about giving examples of heading towards a totalitarian state:

Finally, we agree on something. I am sure I don't bask in the warmth of my own awesomeness as much as you do. I'll give you that one.

Mason as a breeding ground for young, mindless, totalitarians (my ever growing opinion) is a mere symptom of a much larger problem in America as close as todays news. The federal government just voted itself the power to regulate the internet. They want "fairness" or "neutrality." What it really means is that the FCC majority, Democrats for now, will silence their enemies and promote like minded people and causes. So, from today's events alone, I can demonstrate encroaching totalitarianism. What does that current song say? "Don't believe me, just watch!"

As far as "illegal" being racist, I disagree. On the assumption that your implication is that "illegal" is racist toward hispanics, I submit this. I am not hispanic, but speak Spanish and have been VERY deeply embedded in the hispanic community here and abroad. I know many who were born as American as you or me, and many who immigrated legally, some to become citizens as well. I intend no racism toward anyone, hispanic or otherwise, if I point out that they entered this country without legal permission, i.e. illegally. It is simply a statement of fact. Declaring it racist is simply the accepted tool to be used in silencing those who disagree with a questionable policy at best. If I am declared a racist, then clearly I am bad and should be silenced and everyone can feel good about themselves for standing up to "racism." See how attractive totalitarianism can be?

As far as injury goes, back to the Mason event. If you look at Mr. Paglia's tweet (ALL people who tweet being twits in my mind) and the construction of the statement, "disgusting" clearly refers to "the fact" of what the Virginia legislature has done. He does not say "illegals" are disgusting. And yet, for disagreeing with an act of his government, he is branded a racist and summarily dismissed.

 

[phoenix-arizona]

I thought net neutrality was about making sure less well off people could still afford fast and reliable internet? Who knew it was totalitarianism? Really?

 

[phoenix-arizona]

And the United States is on the road to the khmer rouge? Hyperbole knows no bounds. This is what I hate about political discussion in this country.

 

[CHRISTOPHER JAMES JOLLAY]

Actually the term "illegal alien" is still used by border patrol today, and it has nothing to do with race.

It would be as if I was using "Crack addicts" to refer to black people, when it could refer to anyone.

Illegal alien is a perfectly acceptable term.

 

[Walter]

I thought net neutrality was about making sure less well off people could still afford fast and reliable internet? Who knew it was totalitarianism? Really?

Did you really think that? SMH

 

[CHRISTOPHER JAMES JOLLAY]

I thought net neutrality was about making sure less well off people could still afford fast and reliable internet? Who knew it was totalitarianism? Really?

Actually, there is no debating the issue because nobody knows the specifics of what the FCC voted on.

That is what is scary...we weren't even allowed to know the specifics of what was voted on.

If that doesn't disturb you, I just feel bad for you.

 

[Quentin Daniels]

Jollay beat me to it - was going to ask if "Illegal Alien" is racist, to what race does it refer?

 

[TwoFootTackle]

Actually, there is no debating the issue because nobody knows the specifics of what the FCC voted on.

That is what is scary...we weren't even allowed to know the specifics of what was voted on.

If that doesn't disturb you, I just feel bad for you.

Is this it?
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet

 

[phoenix-arizona]

I wouldn't say it's racist per say but comes to how it's used and in what context

 

[GMUgemini]

Actually, there is no debating the issue because nobody knows the specifics of what the FCC voted on.

That is what is scary...we weren't even allowed to know the specifics of what was voted on.

If that doesn't disturb you, I just feel bad for you.

You did have plenty of time to make comments on their proposed regulatory changes.

If letting telecom companies do whatever they want doesn't scare you (which included arbitrary data caps and throttling without telling you by AT&T, or purposefully blocking or throttling content providers during a contract dispute), I feel bad for you too.

 

[Walter]

Is this it?
http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet

I guess I was wrong. Apparently the FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules to Protect the Open Internet.

 

[TwoFootTackle]

You did have plenty of time to make comments on their proposed regulatory changes.

If letting telecom companies do whatever they want doesn't scare you (which included arbitrary data caps and throttling without telling you by AT&T, or purposefully blocking or throttling content providers during a contract dispute), I feel bad for you too.

I guess I was wrong. Apparently the FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules to Protect the Open Internet.

It helps if you actually read all five pages.

 

[mkaufman1]

 

[Walter]

It helps if you actually read all five pages.

It is still just a summary.