Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[pancakes3]

if you parse through the surface debate of whether these are or are not concentration camps, it really boils down to the knee-jerk reaction of who these immigrants are.

are they your peers, or are they outsiders?
are they huddled masses yearning for freedom, or are they invaders, yearning to replace you
are they net positives or are the net negatives?
are they good people, or are they criminals?

equating our prisons to concentration camps is not really a gotcha. yeah, prisons are concentration camps. the felons did something wrong, and they're rounded up, and isolated from society.

they key here is (1) identifying what that "something wrong" is, and (2) weighing that wrong against the cost of depriving another person's freedom.

did that person kill someone? rob someone? rape someone? is it merely existing as a Jew? Japanese-American? border crosser?

[I_Like_Dirt]

if you parse through the surface debate of whether these are or are not concentration camps, it really boils down to the knee-jerk reaction of who these immigrants are.

are they your peers, or are they outsiders?
are they huddled masses yearning for freedom, or are they invaders, yearning to replace you
are they net positives or are the net negatives?
are they good people, or are they criminals?

equating our prisons to concentration camps is not really a gotcha. yeah, prisons are concentration camps. the felons did something wrong, and they're rounded up, and isolated from society.

they key here is (1) identifying what that "something wrong" is, and (2) weighing that wrong against the cost of depriving another person's freedom.

did that person kill someone? rob someone? rape someone? is it merely existing as a Jew? Japanese-American? border crosser?

It depends a bit. Concentration camps are about being held without trial. Prisons can be that way but aren't always. Prisons can be concentration camps depending on the surface but aren't always. Dck has been great at giving the definition of concentration camp in general, just bad at understanding it because his own personal definition is different than the one he's repeatedly citing. And yes, it does pay to look below the surface here rather than just branding one way or the other.

[Ruzious]

Concentration camp, internement camp, cages for families who broke no law.

Who TF cares about the label. Jeezus H Crist--talk about missing the point. The true dimwits are the people who are arguing over the language. STFU.

Well, it's important to understand that the terms have different meanings to different people - if for no other reason that we can get to the heart of the matter rather than get caught up in semantics.

[I_Like_Dirt]

And this is where we part ways on this issue. My definition of concentration camps is quite specific and you are broadening them.

Clearly our prisons are then concentration camps as well. Actually, more so in that there are conditions where inmates are actually on death row.

The problem you're having is that your actual definition of concentration camp is different than the one you're repeatedly citing. It isn't actually as specific as you're citing. You're talking about political prisoners and or persecuted minorities often grouped together in inhumane conditions. Prisons can meet that standard when you can show largely political motives or groupings of minorities and I actually think you can do that in certain situations. The war on drugs, for example, has quietly used the industrial prison system as concentration camps for some time now - they even meet the labor requirement. You don't see me going around using that terminology but if someone were to say as much they wouldn't actually be wrong and I wouldn't be spending my time disagreeing with them.

You're talking about how language is being used as a weapon as though you are somehow against it. There is no preventing language being used as a weapon. Changing the definition of concentration camps to specifically meet one example of them in history to allow other examples that meet the definition but aren't the same as the one example people like the least is effectively allowing language to evolve to make things seem not so bad, as though there's a boogeyman of sorts that might happen but isn't so everything else isn't awful by comparison. You can still be awful without being the most awful example in history. The gulags were concentration camps, too, sometimes actually a continuation of ones Nazis had set up but nobody discusses them as such.

We see this kind of fight within language all the time. One example that has quietly slipped by was the rebranding of rape as sexual assault. I understand the legal reasons for it but it's also absolutely a case of language being fought and most people being oblivious to it. If you're strongly on the side of "this stuff might be concentration camps but concentration camps aren't always awful so we need to change the definition of concentration camps to meet the absolute worst example in history to avoid using the terminology again," then fine. But at least own it.

The bigger issue with the border camps right now isn't even the fact that they're concentration camps; it's that they're entirely unnecessary in their current forms. You don't solve the problem entirely but you make it significantly better by simply not prosecuting everyone which results in not having to separate children from parents and, depending on how it's handled, could actually save money, too, by avoiding all the legal/confinement issues. That doesn't mean I'm going to waste time trying to change a definition.

[dckingsfan]

Why the language matters.

Concentration camps equate to what happened in Germany in the 40s.

Calling these concentration camps then equates those running the camps as Nazis.

It's really simple. It demeans what happened in Nazi Germany. It lowers the discourse here. And that results in things not getting done (in a meaningful way).

[pancakes3]

if meaningful change isn't getting done bc of a semantic quibble, i have to question whether those at the table trying to enact the meaningful change is doing so in good faith.

edit: like, yeah i get that language matters but not everything that AOC tweets has to be put through the ringer especially since the bar for tweet accuracy as set by POTUS is... in the negative basically.

if you want to make a case that providing immigrant children with toothbrushes and lice combs qualifies as "safe and sanitary" as dictated by the Flores decision, I'll roll my eyes and engage in a "language matters" discussion over that but this is a weird hill to die on.

[dckingsfan]

if meaningful change isn't getting done bc of a semantic quibble, i have to question whether those at the table trying to enact the meaningful change is doing so in good faith.

edit: like, yeah i get that language matters but not everything that AOC tweets has to be put through the ringer especially since the bar for tweet accuracy as set by POTUS is... in the negative basically.

if you want to make a case that providing immigrant children with toothbrushes and lice combs qualifies as "safe and sanitary" as dictated by the Flores decision, I'll roll my eyes and engage in a "language matters" discussion over that but this is a weird hill to die on.

Like that the house has finally passed their bill to fund this - where was everyone in early spring when the Ds in the house wouldn't pass this funding. Yep, the Rs in the Senate are equally responsible. But this has been going on for months... now it is no longer hostage taking but hot potato - who can get their bill out faster. Sometimes I think that Pelosi is the only grownup in the house.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Wednesday she won’t take up the Senate version, even though it is bipartisan and passed with an overwhelming majority. The two chambers must now work out a compromise deal.

Pelosi is under pressure from progressive Democrats to hold the line on the House version, which would add services and requirements for the treatment of illegal immigrants and would exclude money to deter the waive of illegal immigration that has overwhelmed the southern border.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-under-pressure-after-senate-passes-bipartisan-border-funding-bill/ar-AADt4nt

[Pointgod]

I don’t know if you guys are watching the Democratic debates but Jesus literally every single one of these candidates would be better than Donald Trump. I don’t know how you guys let this complete buffoon and unhinged moron become President.

[TGW]

I don’t know if you guys are watching the Democratic debates but Jesus literally every single one of these candidates would be better than Donald Trump. I don’t know how you guys let this complete buffoon and unhinged moron become President.

Qween Hillary Clinton and her billion dollar campaign got destroyed by an unhinged moron. Blame her. Americans did their job at the ballot box. She didn't do hers.

[Pointgod]

I don’t know if you guys are watching the Democratic debates but Jesus literally every single one of these candidates would be better than Donald Trump. I don’t know how you guys let this complete buffoon and unhinged moron become President.

Qween Hillary Clinton and her billion dollar campaign got destroyed by an unhinged moron. Blame her. Americans did their job at the ballot box. She didn't do hers.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you the guy that didn’t vote for Hillary?

[TGW]

I don’t know if you guys are watching the Democratic debates but Jesus literally every single one of these candidates would be better than Donald Trump. I don’t know how you guys let this complete buffoon and unhinged moron become President.

Qween Hillary Clinton and her billion dollar campaign got destroyed by an unhinged moron. Blame her. Americans did their job at the ballot box. She didn't do hers.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you the guy that didn’t vote for Hillary?

You're damn right I didn't. But I wasn't in a swing state—you know those states that Hillary refused to go to because she didn't want to leave the comfort of her NYC bed. The states that the unhinged moron campaigned in and won by 70,000 votes.

[Pointgod]

Qween Hillary Clinton and her billion dollar campaign got destroyed by an unhinged moron. Blame her. Americans did their job at the ballot box. She didn't do hers.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you the guy that didn’t vote for Hillary?

You're damn right I didn't. But I wasn't in a swing state—you know those states that Hillary refused to go to because she didn't want to leave the comfort of her NYC bed. The states that the unhinged moron campaigned in and won by 70,000 votes.

So admittedly you’re part of the problem

[TGW]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you the guy that didn’t vote for Hillary?

You're damn right I didn't. But I wasn't in a swing state—you know those states that Hillary refused to go to because she didn't want to leave the comfort of her NYC bed. The states that the unhinged moron campaigned in and won by 70,000 votes.

So admittedly you’re part of the problem

Aren't you in Europe somewhere?

Shut up.

[dckingsfan]

I don’t know if you guys are watching the Democratic debates but Jesus literally every single one of these candidates would be better than Donald Trump. I don’t know how you guys let this complete buffoon and unhinged moron become President.

I thought the forum was pathetic. Everyone was talking over each other and there were only a few good soundbites. Why couldn't they have broken this down into groups of 4 - the DNC is just pathetic - they are literally making the candidates look bad.

de Blasio, Ryan and Inslee were past pathetic. They would flat out lose to Trump.

[Ruzious]

I don’t know if you guys are watching the Democratic debates but Jesus literally every single one of these candidates would be better than Donald Trump. I don’t know how you guys let this complete buffoon and unhinged moron become President.

Qween Hillary Clinton and her billion dollar campaign got destroyed by an unhinged moron. Blame her. Americans did their job at the ballot box. She didn't do hers.

There's absolutely no excuse for electing Trump, and attempts to say otherwise are nothing but clownish cloddish clueless rationalizations. At best. That's the nicest way I can put it.

[TGW]

I don’t know if you guys are watching the Democratic debates but Jesus literally every single one of these candidates would be better than Donald Trump. I don’t know how you guys let this complete buffoon and unhinged moron become President.

Qween Hillary Clinton and her billion dollar campaign got destroyed by an unhinged moron. Blame her. Americans did their job at the ballot box. She didn't do hers.

There's absolutely no excuse for electing Trump, and attempts to say otherwise are nothing but clownish cloddish clueless rationalizations. At best. That's the nicest way I can put it.

There's no excuse for voting for Trump?

If I was a blue-collar truck driver or factory worker in the middle of the country, I would have disagreed with you in 2016. There was only one presidential candidate who claimed he would stop the terrible trade deals and outsourcing, and bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. The other candidate was pushing TPP.

I know you Resisters want to believe Trump supporters voted for him because he's a racist/sexist/ whatever -ist you want to call him. That's not what won him key battleground states. It was his protectionist policies (that he ultimately didn't implement, but that's another argument).

[gtn130]

Yeah, Hillary should have just lied to blue collar truck drivers and factory workers like how Trump does! That is the good and virtuous way to do politics.

[Zonkerbl]

[*]

I disagree - concentration camps are by definition what happened in Germany. And that's why all this nonsense of labeling them concentration camps gets us moving in the wrong direction. I think this type of labeling is just incredible stupidity to get us to focus on the wrong things.

:facepalm:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/concentration-camps-existed-long-before-Auschwitz-180967049/

"The same year, the British Empire extended internment to its colonies and possessions. The Germans responded with mass arrests of aliens from not only Britain but Australia, Canada, and South Africa as well. Concentration camps soon flourished around the globe: in France, Russia, Turkey, Austro-Hungary, Brazil, Japan, China, India, Haiti, Cuba, Singapore, Siam, New Zealand, and many other locations. Over time, concentration camps would become a tool in the arsenal of nearly every country.

...

By the end of [WWI], more than 800,000 civilians had been held in concentration camps, with hundreds of thousands more forced into exile in remote regions. Mental illness and shattered minority communities were just two of the tolls this long-term internment exacted from detainees.

Nevertheless, this more “civilized” approach toward enemy aliens during the First World War managed to rehabilitate the sullied image of concentration camps. People accepted the notion that a targeted group might turn itself in and be detained during a crisis, with a reasonable expectation to one day be released without permanent harm. Later in the century, this expectation would have tragic consequences."

I am using the historically accurate definition of concentration camp that any rational human being would, particularly one who had bothered to at least read, oh, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for example. *You* are the one making stuff up about concentration camps being specifically about Germany, which isn't even true in the dictionary definition you cited. There is a larger story here that you are intentionally ignoring for some reason. My take, from context, is you support the GOP and apparently believe the ends justifies the means. So rather than pivot immediately to "concentration camps is not accurate because these deliberately target children and are in fact worse but whatever the important thing is to stop our march towards fascist totalitarianism by completely dismantling the party that DEFENDS THIS" you quibble over semantics. Tell me I'm wrong. Do you think what we're doing to these kids is a human rights violation or not? Do you think intentionally caging children to punish their parents is ok? Do you think we're doing enough as a country RIGHT NOW to end this practice IMMEDIATELY? If not, why argue for ten pages about semantics? Especially because you're flat out wrong about this. Full stop.

[dckingsfan]

[*]

I disagree - concentration camps are by definition what happened in Germany. And that's why all this nonsense of labeling them concentration camps gets us moving in the wrong direction. I think this type of labeling is just incredible stupidity to get us to focus on the wrong things.

:facepalm:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/concentration-camps-existed-long-before-Auschwitz-180967049/

"The same year, the British Empire extended internment to its colonies and possessions. The Germans responded with mass arrests of aliens from not only Britain but Australia, Canada, and South Africa as well. Concentration camps soon flourished around the globe: in France, Russia, Turkey, Austro-Hungary, Brazil, Japan, China, India, Haiti, Cuba, Singapore, Siam, New Zealand, and many other locations. Over time, concentration camps would become a tool in the arsenal of nearly every country.

...

By the end of [WWI], more than 800,000 civilians had been held in concentration camps, with hundreds of thousands more forced into exile in remote regions. Mental illness and shattered minority communities were just two of the tolls this long-term internment exacted from detainees.

Nevertheless, this more “civilized” approach toward enemy aliens during the First World War managed to rehabilitate the sullied image of concentration camps. People accepted the notion that a targeted group might turn itself in and be detained during a crisis, with a reasonable expectation to one day be released without permanent harm. Later in the century, this expectation would have tragic consequences."

I am using the historically accurate definition of concentration camp that any rational human being would, particularly one who had bothered to at least read, oh, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for example. *You* are the one making stuff up about concentration camps being specifically about Germany, which isn't even true in the dictionary definition you cited. There is a larger story here that you are intentionally ignoring for some reason. My take, from context, is you support the GOP and apparently believe the ends justifies the means. So rather than pivot immediately to "concentration camps is not accurate because these deliberately target children and are in fact worse but whatever the important thing is to stop our march towards fascist totalitarianism by completely dismantling the party that DEFENDS THIS" you quibble over semantics. Tell me I'm wrong. Do you think what we're doing to these kids is a human rights violation or not? Do you think intentionally caging children to punish their parents is ok? Do you think we're doing enough as a country RIGHT NOW to end this practice IMMEDIATELY? If not, why argue for ten pages about semantics? Especially because you're flat out wrong about this. Full stop.

Well, there is the inevitable jump. I don't agree with your definition - therefore I am an R shrill and fascist. Reason #1 why I disagree with the language.

This allows an incomplete definition of the problem to be the defining and only focus on one small part of the problem. Same way that the incredibly stupid authors of the GND have derailed hope of solving that problem due to their denialist nature. Reason #2 why I disagree with the language.

In the same . The underfunded holding camps are only a very small part of the problem. The bigger problems to be solved are:
1) how to keep these folks from leaving their country
2) how to keep them alive during their trek (way more die than in camps)
3) how to keep them alive at the border (way more die than in camps)
4) how to keep them alive as they cross (way more die than in camps)
5) AND LASTLY HOW TO COME UP WITH A STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH THEM WHEN THEY ARE HERE. LAST!

By using the language you do - you let both parties off the hook. And if you want to go to this is only a Trump and R problem, that this has no historical root - then we can agree to disagree and stop talking - as you would say - full stop. Reason #3 why I disagree with the language.

And did we learn nothing from the Hillary campaign? Deplorables didn't work, it was a massive f'up in labeling. Reason #4 why I disagree with the language.

And lastly, I believe that concentration camp language should be historically linked only to Nazi camps - but this is an emotional argument. And we aren't going to agree on this through your use of logic. Not withstanding this - the above should be enough to understand why I viscerally disagree.

[Ruzious]

Qween Hillary Clinton and her billion dollar campaign got destroyed by an unhinged moron. Blame her. Americans did their job at the ballot box. She didn't do hers.

There's absolutely no excuse for electing Trump, and attempts to say otherwise are nothing but clownish cloddish clueless rationalizations. At best. That's the nicest way I can put it.

There's no excuse for voting for Trump?

If I was a blue-collar truck driver or factory worker in the middle of the country, I would have disagreed with you in 2016. There was only one presidential candidate who claimed he would stop the terrible trade deals and outsourcing, and bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. The other candidate was pushing TPP.

I know you Resisters want to believe Trump supporters voted for him because he's a racist/sexist/ whatever -ist you want to call him. That's not what won him key battleground states. It was his protectionist policies (that he ultimately didn't implement, but that's another argument).

If I was a truck driver with any color collar, I'd have voted for anyone but Trump. At some point, his tarrifs idea (which is a way for him to RAISE TAXES without Congressional approval) is eventually going to cause inflation and raise gas/diesel prices - making them lose money. And his keeping manufacturing jobs is bullshyt. He's about keeping the lowest-paying most dangerous jobs - like coal mining. Meanwhile, it was always obvious that his main goal was to lower taxes for the wealthy. And he's created an atmosphere where we now have to bail out farmers. Not to mention, he's a god damned rapist, a habitual liar, has more than a million conflicts of interest, and spends half his time tweeting at the intellectual and emotional level of a middle-schooler. The tax laws he and McConnell pushed through are almost unbelievably poorly written and poorly thought out. Nothing there is a surprise. We essentially knew what we were getting, and no amount of rationalization is going to change the fact that American voters royally and disgracefully f'd up. Own it.