Poll of the Day > "Illegal immigrant" is now considered hate speech

(+) Yeah! (+)

Honk
---

Lokarin posted...

Honk

DHS has been notified.
---

So is this just a lie to fuel the echo chambers.

We remove content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes:

Emphasis added.

Don't let lunatic echo chamber nonsense brainwash you.

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's definitely a slur when racists call anyone with a skin tone slightly more brown than bleached white rice an illegal immigrant.

Total red herring. Anything can be a slur. We've proven that with this nonsense .
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's definitely a slur when racists call anyone with a skin tone slightly more brown than bleached white rice an illegal immigrant.

Total red herring. Anything can be a slur. We've proven that with this nonsense .

You would say that you pretzel enjoyer
---

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's definitely a slur when racists call anyone with a skin tone slightly more brown than bleached white rice an illegal immigrant.

Total red herring. Anything can be a slur. We've proven that with this nonsense .

And here's another that thinks prejudging a person based on the color of their skin, the accent they have, ecterea, ecterea, is ok.
---

I feel bad for Black Pigeon Speaks. He commented on this sort of stuff and put out quality vids.

GrimCyclone posted...

Zangulus posted...

Im smelling not all the facts.

It's a new YouTube Hate Speech policy effective June 15th. That's all. CNN did an article explaining how the term "illegal immigrant" is a slur. Nothing more to it.

That sounds absolutely ridiculous. It's not a slur, it's a description. What's next? "Murderer" is a slur so we have to call them "persons conflicted by the concept of life distribution"?! I'd rather endure a third world war and potentially die myself than live in the eventual end result of this horrible version of Earth.

To be fair I wouldn't want to be called an immigrant either.
---

Well yeah, because it is a slur. The words are meaningless in any other context. Because a person is never illegal, only actions are. They are immigrants who have committed the crime of immigrating without proper authorization.

If you are labeling people and the words you're using do not make sense with any possible definition of the words, then you're just using it as an attack on them.
---

Are you a trans exclusionary radical feminist?

"ya?"

So you're a TERF

"TERF IS A SLUR!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!"
---

Lokarin posted...

Are you a trans exclusionary radical feminist?

"ya?"

So you're a TERF

"TERF IS A SLUR!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!"

Surf and terf?
---

waterdeepchu posted...

The words are meaningless in any other context. Because a person is never illegal, only actions are. They are immigrants who have committed the crime of immigrating without proper authorization.

Immigrants who have done so illegally have illegally immigrated, and so they are illegal immigrants.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

words of a colonialist

Every single one of the predecessors you praise illegally immigrated then tried to take over in order to poach someone else's natural resources or work force in order to benefit the greedy.
---

Do people not understand general opinion?

It's what dictates if gay means happy, homosexual or something negative. When it starts to majorly lean one way, that's when general opinion decides what it typically means.

All slurs can have a correct usage, but that doesn't make it right. We're not gonna start using a term for people WithOut Papers again, even if there are times it is true.

Why do some of you people feel the right to be able to label others without actually asking or polling a majority first? In essence, a bunch of white passing, US born people, should not be the ones deciding what to call anybody but themselves. You have no right. The same goes for anybody. Somebody from Italy shouldn't be the one deciding what to call a citizen from Iran.
---

pedro45 posted...

Do people not understand general opinion?

It's what dictates if gay means happy, homosexual or something negative. When it starts to majorly lean one way, that's when general opinion decides what it typically means.

All slurs can have a correct usage, but that doesn't make it right. We're not gonna start using a term for people WithOut Papers again, even if there are times it is true.

Why do some of you people feel the right to be able to label others without actually asking or polling a majority first? In essence, a bunch of white passing, US born people, should not be the ones deciding what to call anybody but themselves. You have no right. The same goes for anybody. Somebody from Italy shouldn't be the one deciding what to call a citizen from Iran.

Because if they have committed a crime they should be punished for it and not rewarded...?
---

man, i have seen some stupid topics in my time, but this one...
---

What reward? what are you talking about?
What do you think I'm talking about?
---

pedro45 posted...

What reward? what are you talking about?
What do you think I'm talking about?

If someone committed the crime of entering the country illegally they are being rewarded with free healthcare, free tuition, and free drivers licenses, at least in California. They are probably being given even more than that, but thats just off the top of my head.
---

I love how Mormons are the largest abusers of the welfare system, yet, the media loves to act like illegals are the real problem.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's definitely a slur when racists call anyone with a skin tone slightly more brown than bleached white rice an illegal immigrant.

Total red herring. Anything can be a slur. We've proven that with this nonsense .

And here's another that thinks prejudging a person based on the color of their skin, the accent they have, ecterea, ecterea, is ok.

I'm prejudging you based on your misspelling of "et cetera".
---

bulbinking posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

It's not hate speech that's dumb. It is used to dehumanize people and make committing acts that typical people find unfair seem okay, though.

I hate hot button terms like this, it stops people from being able to think straight.

So does that mean criminal is a slur now?

None of them are slurs, but to pretend language can't be used in a specific and tactical way to paint a picture that makes it easier to justify actions that otherwise wouldn't be justified it need to be taken into account.
I mean, if you call a group of people criminals specifically to justify attacking them but don't mention that most of them are harmless bread thieves it's disingenuous.

Sarcasthma posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

Kungfu Kenobi posted...

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's definitely a slur when racists call anyone with a skin tone slightly more brown than bleached white rice an illegal immigrant.

Total red herring. Anything can be a slur. We've proven that with this nonsense .

And here's another that thinks prejudging a person based on the color of their skin, the accent they have, ecterea, ecterea, is ok.

I'm prejudging you based on your misspelling of "et cetera".

I'm always post judging you for constantly trying to instigate trolling.
---

You mean you're always marking my posts for harassment.
---

what im gathering from this thread is that most of you dont actually know what the terms "slur" and "hate speech" mean

words can absolutely used to hurt and demean or dogwhistle hate-based movements without being rooted in slur usage themselves. and to pretend like words have no inherent meaning and you're just choosing to be upset with them is a misdirection and not productive in the slightest
---

Sarcasthma posted...

You mean you're always marking my posts for harassment.

Nah bill buttache does that for everyone.
---

You can't just pass the blame to poor Billy like that.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

You can't just pass the blame to poor Billy like that.

Is it passing blame when he openly admits it?
---

ASlaveObeys posted...

harmless bread thieves

Yeah. Just because you didnt work hard for your loaf doesn't mean a non thief has left after earning his bread.
Only the poor know that no crime is harmless.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

You can't just pass the blame to poor Billy like that.

Is it passing blame when he openly admits it?

But openly admitting it is just part of his gimmick.
---

bulbinking posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

harmless bread thieves

Yeah. Just because you didnt work hard for your loaf doesn't mean a non thief has left after earning his bread.
Only the poor know that no crime is harmless.

are you missing the point or ignoring the point? Because I think I know the answer, but I don't want to assume anything about you.

ASlaveObeys posted...

bulbinking posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

harmless bread thieves

Yeah. Just because you didnt work hard for your loaf doesn't mean a non thief has left after earning his bread.
Only the poor know that no crime is harmless.

are you missing the point or ignoring the point? Because I think I know the answer, but I don't want to assume anything about you.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Even people who abuse drugs. Somebody has to clean up their remains after they OD. We are all in this together and even if you disagree with the reasoning laws still have a purpose. You can be morally correct or not but an illegal action is still illegal and can be labeled as such. Changing the name doesn't affect the implications and the next new label forced on the public to use by authoritarian powers will eventually be associated with the same negative connotations people are trying to combat until society is in agreement.

You cant change somebodies feeling because you force them to express them in a different way, all that happens is you create resentment and secrets so people cant communicate how they truly feel.
---

bulbinking posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

bulbinking posted...

ASlaveObeys posted...

harmless bread thieves

Yeah. Just because you didnt work hard for your loaf doesn't mean a non thief has left after earning his bread.
Only the poor know that no crime is harmless.

are you missing the point or ignoring the point? Because I think I know the answer, but I don't want to assume anything about you.

There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Even people who abuse drugs. Somebody has to clean up their remains after they OD. We are all in this together and even if you disagree with the reasoning laws still have a purpose. You can be morally correct or not but an illegal action is still illegal and can be labeled as such. Changing the name doesn't affect the implications and the next new label forced on the public to use by authoritarian powers will eventually be associated with the same negative connotations people are trying to combat until society is in agreement.

You cant change somebodies feeling because you force them to express them in a different way, all that happens is you create resentment and secrets so people cant communicate how they truly feel.

Literally not the point being discussed. I don't care about the legality of it. I understand how crimes work. It's about words.

It's really not hard, folks. If someone doesn't like to be called something, don't call them that. That's just basic human decency.

aDirtyShisno posted...

If someone committed the crime of entering the country illegally they are being rewarded with free healthcare, free tuition, and free drivers licenses, at least in California. They are probably being given even more than that, but thats just off the top of my head.

That is BS. Not even legal immigrants get free anything, much less illegal immigrants. Go look up the requirements for Medicaid, or pretty much any other means-tested welfare. You have to be a US citizen, or you have to pay into the system for years (at which point you've lived here long enough to become a citizen, making the whole thing moot).
---

Lirishae posted...

It's really not hard, folks. If someone doesn't like to be called something, don't call them that. That's just basic human decency.

aDirtyShisno posted...

If someone committed the crime of entering the country illegally they are being rewarded with free healthcare, free tuition, and free drivers licenses, at least in California. They are probably being given even more than that, but thats just off the top of my head.

That is BS. Not even legal immigrants get free anything, much less illegal immigrants. Go look up the requirements for Medicaid, or pretty much any other means-tested welfare. You have to be a US citizen, or you have to pay into the system for years (at which point you've lived here long enough to become a citizen, making the whole thing moot).

https://www.ppic.org/publication/health-coverage-and-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/10/731311422/californias-budget-proposal-would-expand-health-care-to-some-undocumented-immigr

Just in case you wanted sources that were pro-undocumented Medi-Cal.

And against:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-oks-214-8b-budget-including-health-insurance-for-illegal-immigrants-money-for-homelessness.amp

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tammy-bruce-californias-free-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants-an-unsustainable-financial-burden.amp
---

I'm so shocked that the technocracy is coming up with more excuses to shut people down. We're rapidly becoming China and the left is rejoicing. It's pretty pathetic

Damn illegals ruining our country.

Talking about illegal drugs ofc
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

https://www.ppic.org/publication/health-coverage-and-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/10/731311422/californias-budget-proposal-would-expand-health-care-to-some-undocumented-immigr

Just in case you wanted sources that were pro-undocumented Medi-Cal.

And against:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-oks-214-8b-budget-including-health-insurance-for-illegal-immigrants-money-for-homelessness.amp

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tammy-bruce-californias-free-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants-an-unsustainable-financial-burden.amp

You indicated they were getting free healthcare right now, but that's something happening in the future, hon. And it's not means-tested welfare, which is what I was talking about. Medi-Cal is California's universal health care program, and the proposal you linked to would allow select people to access it regardless of their immigration status. So I'll amend what I said to, "Select illegal immigrants will get free healthcare in California along with everyone else, but don't get means-tested welfare like Medicaid."

OhhhJa posted...

I'm so shocked that the technocracy is coming up with more excuses to shut people down. We're rapidly becoming China and the left is rejoicing. It's pretty pathetic

You do realize there's a big difference between government censorship and the rules set by a private company, right?
---

Lirishae posted...

You do realize there's a big difference between government censorship and the rules set by a private company, right?

Ah yes the common defense of the left. These tech companies are hardly merely private companies anymore. Google literally controls all the information we receive on the internet. They snuff out competitors and control everything we get to see. They monitor all our private messages and actively listen to us every second if our phone is nearby and monitor every single thing we do on the internet. They actively censor information for various governments around the world. They are working directly with governments to control our information. The fact that the left defends them as just private companies while simultaneously decrying powerful corporations is laughable hypocrisy. This is a serious issue that we shouldnt be shrugging off

OhhhJa posted...

Lirishae posted...

You do realize there's a big difference between government censorship and the rules set by a private company, right?

Ah yes the common defense of the left. These tech companies are hardly merely private companies anymore. Google literally controls all the information we receive on the internet. They snuff out competitors and control everything we get to see. They monitor all our private messages and actively listen to us every second if our phone is nearby and monitor every single thing we do on the internet. They actively censor information for various governments around the world. They are working directly with governments to control our information. The fact that the left defends them as just private companies while simultaneously decrying powerful corporations is laughable hypocrisy. This is a serious issue that we shouldnt be shrugging off

That a handful of tech companies have extraordinary power over public discourse is a serious issue, yes. Hyperbole like "we're turning into China" isn't. If you don't understand that there's a huge difference between government censorship and censorship by private corporations, I don't know what else to tell you. The First Amendment protects you from government censoring your speech. It does not protect you from what private companies choose to do. If you don't like what large private companies choose to do, all you can do is regulate them or break them up. But right-wingers usually claim to be against both of those things. So what exactly is your solution?
---

Lirishae posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Lirishae posted...

You do realize there's a big difference between government censorship and the rules set by a private company, right?

Ah yes the common defense of the left. These tech companies are hardly merely private companies anymore. Google literally controls all the information we receive on the internet. They snuff out competitors and control everything we get to see. They monitor all our private messages and actively listen to us every second if our phone is nearby and monitor every single thing we do on the internet. They actively censor information for various governments around the world. They are working directly with governments to control our information. The fact that the left defends them as just private companies while simultaneously decrying powerful corporations is laughable hypocrisy. This is a serious issue that we shouldnt be shrugging off

That a handful of tech companies have extraordinary power over public discourse is a serious issue, yes. Hyperbole like "we're turning into China" isn't. If you don't understand that there's a huge difference between government censorship and censorship by private corporations, I don't know what else to tell you. The First Amendment protects you from government censoring your speech. It does not protect you from what private companies choose to do. If you don't like what large private companies choose to do, all you can do is regulate them or break them up. But right-wingers usually claim to be against both of those things. So what exactly is your solution?

So are you denying that companies like Google, Facebook and apple are working directly with governments to control the information that the citizens see? And you're still defending them as a "private company?"

Lirishae posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

https://www.ppic.org/publication/health-coverage-and-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/10/731311422/californias-budget-proposal-would-expand-health-care-to-some-undocumented-immigr

Just in case you wanted sources that were pro-undocumented Medi-Cal.

And against:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-oks-214-8b-budget-including-health-insurance-for-illegal-immigrants-money-for-homelessness.amp

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tammy-bruce-californias-free-health-care-for-illegal-immigrants-an-unsustainable-financial-burden.amp

You indicated they were getting free healthcare right now, but that's something happening in the future, hon. And it's not means-tested welfare, which is what I was talking about. Medi-Cal is California's universal health care program, and the proposal you linked to would allow select people to access it regardless of their immigration status. So I'll amend what I said to, "Select illegal immigrants will get free healthcare in California along with everyone else, but don't get means-tested welfare like Medicaid."

https://desertelderlaw.com/what-is-the-difference-between-medicare-medi-cal-and-medicaid/

Medicaid is a joint Federal-State program which provides (among other things) long-term care for seniors. Medi-Cal is what the Federal Medicaid program is called in California. Thus, Medicaid and Medi-Cal are essentially the same thing.

Also, Im sorry if you fail to have a grasp on English grammar rules, but being given can mean a process that is currently underway. As you would be aware if you read the included links the particular budget with the included provisions has already been passed by both houses and just needs a signature from the governor. It is highly unlikely that it would be vetoed.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Also, Im sorry if you fail to have a grasp on English grammar rules, but being given can mean a process that is currently underway. As you would be aware if you read the included links the particular budget with the included provisions has already been passed by both houses and just needs a signature from the governor. It is highly unlikely that it would be vetoed.

I stand corrected on Medi-Cal then. But if you think "California is planning to give select illegal immigrants means-tested healthcare" backs up your original assertion, it's probably not my English you should be questioning. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are not getting massive amounts of freebies, as you initially represented.
---

OhhhJa posted...

Lirishae posted...

OhhhJa posted...

Lirishae posted...

You do realize there's a big difference between government censorship and the rules set by a private company, right?

Ah yes the common defense of the left. These tech companies are hardly merely private companies anymore. Google literally controls all the information we receive on the internet. They snuff out competitors and control everything we get to see. They monitor all our private messages and actively listen to us every second if our phone is nearby and monitor every single thing we do on the internet. They actively censor information for various governments around the world. They are working directly with governments to control our information. The fact that the left defends them as just private companies while simultaneously decrying powerful corporations is laughable hypocrisy. This is a serious issue that we shouldnt be shrugging off

That a handful of tech companies have extraordinary power over public discourse is a serious issue, yes. Hyperbole like "we're turning into China" isn't. If you don't understand that there's a huge difference between government censorship and censorship by private corporations, I don't know what else to tell you. The First Amendment protects you from government censoring your speech. It does not protect you from what private companies choose to do. If you don't like what large private companies choose to do, all you can do is regulate them or break them up. But right-wingers usually claim to be against both of those things. So what exactly is your solution?

So are you denying that companies like Google, Facebook and apple are working directly with governments to control the information that the citizens see? And you're still defending them as a "private company?"

In addition, Google and YouTube have specifically been given immunity by Congress as a platform from content on their platform. What this means is that if you commit a crime on their platform they are not responsible. An easy to understand example is someone using the telephone to call in a criminal threat does not result in charges against AT&T et al for being complicit with the caller. This immunity is granted in order to ensure a level playing field. All content is supposed to be treated equally.

However, that is far from the case. YouTube specifically is operating as a publisher, specifically choosing the content that can and will be allowed on its platform, but publishers are not allowed to be granted this immunity, only platforms. YouTube is literally having its cake and eating it too by operating as both and having no negative repercussions from being either.

Google and YouTube are already being regulated by the government and as such must follow those regulations, yet they are stepping outside of the bounds they have been granted.
---

Lirishae posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Also, Im sorry if you fail to have a grasp on English grammar rules, but being given can mean a process that is currently underway. As you would be aware if you read the included links the particular budget with the included provisions has already been passed by both houses and just needs a signature from the governor. It is highly unlikely that it would be vetoed.

I stand corrected on Medi-Cal then. But if you think "California is planning to give select illegal immigrants means-tested healthcare" backs up your original assertion, it's probably not my English you should be questioning. The vast majority of illegal immigrants are not getting massive amounts of freebies, as you initially represented.

Just because two thirds of what I stated is currently underway and the final third will become true in a matter of days does not make my statement less true. Undocumented immigrants are being provided several programs free of charge. Just because not all of them can and/or will take advantage of all of those programs does not make it less true.
---

OhhhJa posted...

So are you denying that companies like Google, Facebook and apple are working directly with governments to control the information that the citizens see? And you're still defending them as a "private company?"

So, let me get this straight. The Republican-controlled executive branch is conspiring with tech companies to...censor conservatives? And if you don't think Google is a private company entitled to make its own decisions, you want the government to do what? Regulate it? Break it up? Take it over?

aDirtyShisno posted...

In addition, Google and YouTube have specifically been given immunity by Congress as a platform from content on their platform. What this means is that if you commit a crime on their platform they are not responsible.

That's not "special immunity." That's just good ol' Section 230. You're regurgitating a bogus argument that tries to claim that moderating their content means they should lose their immunity. But if platform holders lose this immunity, they will either shut down or massively censor everyone to avoid liability.

aDirtyShisno posted...

Just because two thirds of what I stated is currently underway and the final third will become true in a matter of days does not make my statement less true. Undocumented immigrants are being provided several programs free of charge. Just because not all of them can and/or will take advantage of all of those programs does not make it less true.

Here's what you said:

aDirtyShisno posted...

If someone committed the crime of entering the country illegally they are being rewarded with free healthcare, free tuition, and free drivers licenses, at least in California. They are probably being given even more than that, but thats just off the top of my head.

And here's what you proved:

"California is planning to give select illegal immigrants the option to enroll in means-tested healthcare."

Do you have any proof for your other statements?
---

Lirishae posted...

OhhhJa posted...

So are you denying that companies like Google, Facebook and apple are working directly with governments to control the information that the citizens see? And you're still defending them as a "private company?"

So, let me get this straight. The Republican-controlled executive branch is conspiring with tech companies to...censor conservatives? And if you don't think Google is a private company entitled to make its own decisions, you want the government to do what? Regulate it? Break it up? Take it over?

aDirtyShisno posted...

In addition, Google and YouTube have specifically been given immunity by Congress as a platform from content on their platform. What this means is that if you commit a crime on their platform they are not responsible.

That's not "special immunity." That's just good ol' Section 230. You're regurgitating a bogus argument that tries to claim that moderating their content means they should lose their immunity. But if platform holders lose this immunity, they will either shut down or massively censor everyone to avoid liability.

aDirtyShisno posted...

Just because two thirds of what I stated is currently underway and the final third will become true in a matter of days does not make my statement less true. Undocumented immigrants are being provided several programs free of charge. Just because not all of them can and/or will take advantage of all of those programs does not make it less true.

Here's what you said:

aDirtyShisno posted...

If someone committed the crime of entering the country illegally they are being rewarded with free healthcare, free tuition, and free drivers licenses, at least in California. They are probably being given even more than that, but thats just off the top of my head.

And here's what you proved:

"California is planning to give select illegal immigrants the option to enroll in means-tested healthcare."

Do you have any proof for your other statements?

No other publisher has that immunity. It was not intended for publishers and YouTube is overstepping its bounds by operating as one.

As to the rest, were not going to argue semantics over your inability to grasp the English language. You already agreed that I am right in principle, theres no reason to prove or disprove that I was 100% completely accurate in how it was articulated.
---

Nobody responded to my joke. ;_;
---