Ban The I-Word?

[Epoetker]

Joel, what does "to ourselves and our posterity" mean in the Constitution?

[fm93]

The former will get you kicked out of far more places than the latter. And I see no defense of Christians when we are called "bigots", or my favorite imaginary term "homophobes", from the left or from those who whine about a label they are called.

I agree that "homophobia" is an inaccurate term, especially considering the experiences of people who have genuine phobias. But I fail to see anything wrong with the term "bigots." Has it taken on slur-like connotations? It does seem that there's often a sense of scorn dripping from the strict terminology, but the people to whom it's often applied (the Phelps clan, most notably) do deserve that scorn, wouldn't you agree?

Calling an illegal an illegal is not crude. It is a very accurate and forensic description of their immigration status.

No. Technically speaking, it isn't even grammatically accurate. "An illegal..." what? Illegal is an adjective that really should never be used as a noun. When you call someone "an illegal" and don't follow that with a subject, you literally aren't mentioning their humanity. Linguistically, you're reducing this person's identity to the concept of illegality. They're not even "an illegal PERSON," but simply "an illegal." This is a part of the reason that people object to the term. Not that all such usage indicates a dehumanizing attitude, but people with dehumanizing attitudes tend to resort to such linguistic usage.

They are not immigrants because they have completely eschewed the immigration processes and laws of a sovereign nation

"Immigrants" simply means "a person who comes to a country to take up residence." Those people are immigrants.

That reminds me of the time I was driving on Hwy 58 from Emporia, VA to Newport News, VA at 2 AM. It was back when the first Gulf War was going on, and I was stationed at Langley AFB. Well, I had went to North Carolina to visit the girl I was dating at the time, and I was heading back to base. I hadn't seen anyone for over a half an hour. I was going 66 MPH. There was no one around for me to bother, and I clearly wasn't harming anyone, but the police officer that pulled me over didn't see it that way. I was breaking the law, and I got what I deserved for it. A ticket. No one can be "passively sitting somewhere" that it is illegal for them to be at. Try just "passively sitting" in the President's chair at the White House without legal permission to do so and see how that turns out.

And does the police officer now refer to you as "that illegal" or "that illegal driver?"

I work for a living and I pay for medical insurance. I am also a legal resident of this country. If only certain illegal invaders had done what was necessary to earn that legal status...

That was an example of systemic and institutional inequality.

So, do you then agree that the term "homophobe" is an attempt to oppress?

No.

To show that it IS possible to not be offended by words, and to further reinforce Eleanor's words that one chooses to be offended.

I didn't realize Eleanor Roosevelt's opinion was the end-all on every subject. The fact of the matter is that feeling offense is a natural, instinctive reaction. People can condition themselves to suppress or erase the feelings of anger or bitterness, but people choose or develop along that stage differently. It's an improper response to simply tell people "you shouldn't be offended"--especially if you aren't a member of that group, and in fact are a member of a group that's trying to expel the first group from the country.

Honestly, no. I have no qualms forcing them to admit that their response to a word is nothing more than an emotional outburst that they allowed to happen. In this case, I'd ask the illegal if they were here illegally, then when they say yes, I'd ask them if they stole, would they be a thief. Then I'd ask them if they killed someone intentionally, would they be a murderer. Then I'd ask them why the term "illegal immigrant" was inaccurate

Because, as has already been pointed out, classifying someone as a thief wouldn't be valid if that person no longer resorts to thievery. Likewise with immigrants.

Because it is. Are they out of control? Are their emotions the master of them?

This doesn't address the point, which is that virtually everyone by default experiences emotions as an instant reaction rather than a deliberate choice.

No. I call them, including my niece, disabled, or that their mental development has been retarded.

Why? The term "retard" is accurate, is it not?

No, they want the derogatory feelings eradicated. The n word just gives them a target for their hostility. Is there really a difference in derision between calling them "dumb niggers" or "dumb good for nothings"?

The n-word was essentially created with the intent of causing harm.

[Bill the Cat]

I agree that "homophobia" is an inaccurate term, especially considering the experiences of people who have genuine phobias. But I fail to see anything wrong with the term "bigots." Has it taken on slur-like connotations?

Without a doubt, yes.

It does seem that there's often a sense of scorn dripping from the strict terminology, but the people to whom it's often applied (the Phelps clan, most notably) do deserve that scorn, wouldn't you agree?

Not if we are going to be consistently against using derogatory slurs, no. Because then we get into haggling over who "deserves" it and who doesn't.

No. Technically speaking, it isn't even grammatically accurate. "An illegal..." what? Illegal is an adjective that really should never be used as a noun. When you call someone "an illegal" and don't follow that with a subject, you literally aren't mentioning their humanity.

That's not even close to accurate. It's an adjectival Noun that no more dehumanizes them than calling poor people "the poor".

Linguistically, you're reducing this person's identity to the concept of illegality. They're not even "an illegal PERSON," but simply "an illegal." This is a part of the reason that people object to the term. Not that all such usage indicates a dehumanizing attitude, but people with dehumanizing attitudes tend to resort to such linguistic usage.

That's a fallacy of association.

"Immigrants" simply means "a person who comes to a country to take up residence." Those people are immigrants.

Not even that. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) broadly defines an immigrant as any alien in the United States, except one legally admitted under specific nonimmigrant categories (INA section 101(a)(15)). But Hoeland Security defines them in a much more tight fashion as equating the terms "immigrant" and "Permanent Resident Alien" while acknowledging that the term is used in a more loose fashion in some other legislation.

And does the police officer now refer to you as "that illegal" or "that illegal driver?"

No, because I was no longer breaking the law!! Until I paid the fine, I was simply "the defendant"

That was an example of systemic and institutional inequality.

It was earned inequality. I worked for something and earned the benefits of working for them. Welcome to the US.

No.

Then you are a hypocrite. And deluded. The term "homophobe" is one of the largest bludgeons used by the left to oppress the free speech of those of us who disagree with homosexual practices. Its sole purpose is to control a conversation and paint the critic of homosexual behavior as less than equal.

I didn't realize Eleanor Roosevelt's opinion was the end-all on every subject. The fact of the matter is that feeling offense is a natural, instinctive reaction. People can condition themselves to suppress or erase the feelings of anger or bitterness, but people choose or develop along that stage differently. It's an improper response to simply tell people "you shouldn't be offended"--especially if you aren't a member of that group, and in fact are a member of a group that's trying to expel the first group from the country.

It is a perfectly proper response, and a logical one to boot. And it is just as proper to tell that person to keep their offense to themselves, because a just society does not direct based on the feelings of anyone. As Aristotle said, the law is reason free from passion.

Because, as has already been pointed out, classifying someone as a thief wouldn't be valid if that person no longer resorts to thievery. Likewise with immigrants.

Exactly. When they get the heck out of the country they are in illegally, they are no longer illegal. If they remain, they are still illegal.

This doesn't address the point, which is that virtually everyone by default experiences emotions as an instant reaction rather than a deliberate choice.

It addresses the point directly. Should I be able to beat the crap out of someone just because they called me fat? Or old? Or ugly? Or a Southern hick? Or a teabagger? Or a cracker? Of course not. And this is the same situation. If you choose to allow yourself to be offended, you only have yourself to blame. You've forefeitted the power over your reactions to someone else. You have become a victim of your own making. You choose every day to allow yourself to be offended or not, and how to react to that perceived offense.

Why? The term "retard" is accurate, is it not?

No it isn't. It's a slang term, not a medical one.

The n-word was essentially created with the intent of causing harm.

No it wasn't. It was an English spelling variation of the Middle French pronunciation "negre" of the Spanish term for the color black "negro".