In a normal world, she would be fired for saying something like that.
“I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”
“Millenials have a message for the Joe Biden generation: hurry up and die.”
His expressed politically motivated disdain was directed towards his fellow citizens, not Wall Street bankers, so I don’t know why you would use that as a standard of anything. You’re projecting your own beliefs onto the shooter as the only possible frame for his motives. And still, you’re missing the point. Presumably some future mass shooter could shoot up a Wall Street board meeting with a manifesto that mirrors Warren’s criticisms and a Warren 2020 sticker on the stock of the gun and you would acknowledge it was meant as a political statement. That would NOT mean it was her fault. Warren has never advocated shooting up a Wall Street board meeting. Whatever the Dayton shooter’s motivation was, it was NOT Warren’s fault. She has never advocated murdering Joe Biden supporters or skeptics of socialism. Planting your flag on the hill of “there was no manifesto, therefore it doesn’t count as the left’s fault” is a bad logical choice. Keep it simple, unambiguous, and not results oriented. When a politician advocates for violence, then one of their supporters commits violence, the politician is culpable. When a politician makes no mention of violence, then one of their supporters commits violence, even in some misguided belief that they’re promoting that politician’s goals, there’s no culpability.
3 Likes
Trump has certainly ordered violence against migrants (all recent Presidents have as well) but I don’t think he’s explicitly called for citizens to commit acts of violence on migrants. He has vilified and dehumanized them and that has contributed to violence.
I don’t think an explicit call to violence is required for blame. But, yeah, Warren and Bernie haven’t dehumanized bankers and their influence on a theoretical banker killer would be more indirect.
Also, migrants and Hispanics generally have done nothing wrong.
1 Like
He refers to the flow of migrants crossing the Mexican border as an invasion and laughed at the suggestion that we should deal with it by shooting them. That’s explicit enough for me.
4 Likes
My instinct would be to not tell them - when I was 5 was around the time of the OKC bombing and the WTC bombing was still pretty fresh. My mom really exposed me to it and I had a paralyzing fear of being in large buildings most of my life that still lingers a little today (not helped at all by 9/11).
They dont really possess the tools or understanding to process that shit.
1 Like
Please use ‘immigrants’ instead of ‘migrants’.
Are you sure you’re right about that?
If you want to adopt the Trump admin term for temporary because you think they’re getting kicked back, then go ahead and use the racist term adopted by the press as mainstream (no one will know you’re using it ironically if that’s what you’re intending to do). The people coming here are hoping to stay, that’s why they should be called immigrants, not migrants.
I wasn’t trying to use it ironically. And I certainly wasn’t trying to use it derogatorily. And I certainly don’t think that anyone should be deported at all, I think the borders should be 100% open and unrestricted. I just don’t know if your take is right. Maybe it is.
I hate to say this really but I am strongly coming to the belief that the media is really the most culpable party in the downfall of the US. The way they have handled these two shooting could not be worse. It’s all soft peddling and ignoring huge facts. Letting republicans say anything they want. Ignoring experts in favour of partisan talking heads.
How have I not seen endless public health policy people, social scientists, radicalization experts etc?
6 Likes
I think they are trying to be here permanently. That makes them immigrants. Migrants is a temporary term (generally ascribed to people who move back and forth without becoming an immigrant to the country that’s not their home country), a really quiet racist term, in my opinion. Most media is adopting it, and it makes me cringe every time I see or hear it. I don’t want it to become any part of the vernacular because of the implications of its meaning (that they’re getting deported).
The final destination is what defines the term to me. If someone from Honduras is traveling through Mexico to their final destination of the U.S., then they are migrants when they are in Mexico. But once they’re here, they’re intending to be immigrants to this country. That’s the distinction that’s important to me.
The media saved the country from the Russians doing really bad stuff by reporting on in progress stuff during the Mueller probe. People backed off because of it.
Some stories are good, some are bad. I definitely would not blame the media for the downfall of this country (other than the right wing propaganda outlets), I’d blame the people of this country for the downfall of this country.
Semantics police ITT. Fun stuff.
The second they tried the video games bullshit they should have had their mics cut off.
1 Like
nunnehi may have a point. I dunno. I’d prefer to just refer to them as people, but “people who come here from Latin America” or something like that is cumbersome.
As far as how they should be treated, if you wanted to be a real hard-ass I guess you could greet them with a social security card and a pamphlet about the IRS.
1 Like
It’s not being used in the press to describe the subset of people you describe. It’s being used to describe people arriving at the border. This is a place where nuance is required but not given. Stephen Miller probably comes every time he sees the word ‘migrant’, because of it not sounding offensive to laypeople while it’s absolutely also able to be used as a racist term meant to evoke deportation.
These are my thoughts on it. You have to search yourself about whether you’re comfortable with it. I think it’s the dog whistle version of ‘illegal’, and I’d like to never see it used again except in appropriate terms related to workers traveling back and forth.
There’s also the wrinkle that there are workers, especially in agriculture, who travel within the US, going from place to place depending on what work needs to be done at a particular time. The word migrant can be used in that context without a pejorative connotation, at least in my opinion (which could be wrong).
You’re correct, I think that’s really the only way ‘migrant’ should be used. The bastardization of that is what makes me upset.
1 Like