Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 331: Borat to the Brain

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nobody gets to say Corrik argues in good faith after that "illegals" dictionary definition shit, that he believes what he says doesn't matter when the way he cements his beliefs is disingenuous and selective in the first place. It's all bad faith because Corrik doesn't actually engage anything honestly, to him you're all just saying liberal things because you're liberals so there's no argument to even be had.

this whole damn pages long spat you're all beating to death was already countered by Corrik's very own argument backfiring on himself but you just let him stroll past that little whoopsie and just keep on trucking

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Not a joke

If you think Corrik is just a troll acting then I understand your frustration

But hes not

Not acting, definitely a troll.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

No, I probably know Corrik better than any of you, he isn't a bad faith actor. This is the product of America's education system in some parts of the country <_<

Not an actor, definitely bad faith.

Will cop to the fact that you know him better than me though

---

Corrik being legit doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible human being that should be ignored under all circumstances.

Him meaning what he says makes it worse. It would be BETTER if he was a bad faith actor.

---

Corrik7 posted...

And I was able to easily clarify I am talking about any illegal immigrant and that if you are inferring that otherwise then it is on you for assuming that's. I am talking about a status within America that any immigrant of ethnicity or nationally can have for being in America illegally.

By your logic, if the person who created that website came out and said "I don't condone or encourage harassment of Trump supporters", then whoops, your interpretation of their motives was just wrong. It doesn't matter that the website has the distinct effect of encouraging harassment...so long as the person says that wasn't their intent, they can't possibly be in the wrong?

---

https://twitter.com/arlenparsa/status/1319302033879535617?s=21

What a loser

Also:

https://twitter.com/repdonbeyer/status/1319305065514045453?s=21

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Corrik being legit doesn't change the fact that he's a terrible human being that should be ignored under all circumstances.

He means what he says makes it worse. It would be BETTER if he was a bad faith actor.

I dunno about you but I'd take Corrik over Ben Shapiro any day

---

Inviso posted...

By your logic, if the person who created that website came out and said "I don't condone or encourage harassment of Trump supporters", then whoops, your interpretation of their motives was just wrong. It doesn't matter that the website has the distinct effect of encouraging harassment...so long as the person says that wasn't their intent, they can't possibly be in the wrong?

One is a factual status and one is an opinion label. That said, yes, it would be helpful if that person came out and stated that of course.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I dunno about you but I'd take Corrik over Ben Shapiro any day

If Corrik had a Twitter he wouldn't hit double digit followers.

---

Corrik7 posted...

One is a factual status and one is an opinion label. That said, yes, it would be helpful if that person came out and stated that of course.

Again Im asking, and please think about WHY Im asking: why are you referring to them by their factual status, when youre not referencing the status of citizens of legal immigrants?

Illegal immigrants and Legal immigrants are both FACTUALLY immigrants.

Is it so hard to be consistent?

---

How many peoples arguing in here is...

Omg a factual label about status is derogatory and contemptuous because it groups people together as others.

Then go ACAB ACAB ACAB!

Like, some of you need to be more self-aware.

Youre right, ACAB is also derogatory and contemptuous, but heres the problem with your comparison: when someone here says ACAB, they intend to be derogatory toward cops. Its a purposeful insult.

I was under the impression that you are not intending to be derogatory toward illegal immigrants, which is why I would suggest not simply calling them illegals. If your goal is to be derogatory then never mind, keep doing what youre doing
---

Corrik7 posted...

One is a factual status and one is an opinion label. That said, yes, it would be helpful if that person came out and stated that of course.

"Illegal" is not a factual status. "Illegal immigrant"...sure. It's still problematic because it has been co-opted by racists as a means of attacking Latin Americans, regardless of whether or not they are, in fact, undocumented. But at least it classifies the nature of their illegality. They are an immigrant, first and foremost, and their immigration status is illegal. Whereas by dumbing it down to referring to a PERSON as an "illegal", you're saying that a human being's EXISTENCE is illegal, without any context as to what they might have done to warrant such a title. And again, I must point out that "illegal" has been co-opted as a derogatory term (per the dictionary definition you posted, it's a derogatory term) for ANYONE of Latin American descent that could fit the bill.

---

https://twitter.com/isaacdovere/status/1319360677081993216?s=21
(Short thread)

Trump is going to try to rattle Biden with this dude and Biden will have no idea who the fuck he is

---

...you can bring guests?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Again Im asking, and please think about WHY Im asking: why are you referring to them by their factual status, when youre not referencing the status of citizens of legal immigrants?

Illegal immigrants and Legal immigrants are both FACTUALLY immigrants.

Is it so hard to be consistent?

Ok I see what you are trying to say. However, counterpoint is why do you call African-Americans that instead of Americans? Aren't we all Americans? I don't see you saying Polish-Americans or such when referring to them.

If you think referring to illegal immigrants is wrong, then do you think you are wrong when you say African-Americans?

Why do you say violent criminals for violent offenders? Why not just criminals. Why do you say criminals for people who broke the law in America? Why not just Americans. Why do you say Americans for humans in America? Why not just Humans?

Your argument doesn't really hold water.

Unless you specifically just call everything the same thing then what is really your point?

The Human shot the human the other day while at the Humans Days Festival because another Human from Planet Earth was badgering the Human and his Human pals because the Human was of Human descent.



There are immigrants and a subset of immigrants who have done so illegally. If you are trying to stress you are only referring to legal immigrants you could point that out to clear any confusion. Why doesn't the word legals exist? Because it is already covered by immigrants. The expectation of immigrants is that they are of legal status. Hence the qualifier if not.

Instead of your branch being

IMMIGRANTS
^
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS / LEGAL IMMIGRANTS

It should be

IMMIGRANTS
\
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (IF NOT VALID)

---

Are we CERTAIN thats not just another Sacha Baron Cohen character
---

KamikazePotato posted...

...you can bring guests?

He has brought guests to like all of his debates. He brought monica lewinsky to his Hillary one. He brought someone to the last debate also. I forget who it was. Tara Reade I believe.

---

Mike Pence had a seat for Tupac for his debate with Kamala.

---

Uhhh I dont think he brought Monica Lewinsky
---

Corrik7 posted...

Ok I see what you are trying to say. However, counterpoint is why do you call African-Americans that instead of Americans? Aren't we all Americans? I don't see you saying Polish-Americans or such when referring to them.

If you think referring to illegal immigrants is wrong, then do you think you are wrong when you say African-Americans?

Why do you say violent criminals for violent offenders? Why not just criminals. Why do you say criminals for people who broke the law in America? Why not just Americans. Why do you say Americans for humans in America? Why not just Humans?

Your argument doesn't really hold water.

Unless you specifically just call everything the same thing then what is really your point?

The Human shot the human the other day while at the Humans Days Festival because another Human from Planet Earth was badgering the Human and his Human pals because the Human was of Human descent.



There are immigrants and a subset of immigrants who have done so illegally. If you are trying to stress you are only referring to legal immigrants you could point that out to clear any confusion. Why doesn't the word legals exist? Because it is already covered by immigrants. The expectation of immigrants is that they are of legal status. Hence the qualifier if not.

Instead of your branch being

IMMIGRANTS
^
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS / LEGAL IMMIGRANTS

It should be

IMMIGRANTS
\
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (IF NOT VALID)

The difference is that if you call an African-American an American or vice versa, those are both nouns, things a person can be.

A person cant be illegal, thats just a modifier for their status as immigrants.

Illegal is an adjective, not a noun, so by definition using it as a noun is dehumanizing.

---

https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/1319368112391802882?s=21

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Uhhh I dont think he brought Monica Lewinsky

if you're talking about Trump's debate guests - not Monica Lewinsky, but Trump attempted to bring other women accusing Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct to the debate

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/trump-planned-debate-stunt-invited-bill-clinton-accusers-rattle-hillary-n663481

"attempted" I say because ultimately the Commission prevented it

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Uhhh I dont think he brought Monica Lewinsky

Juanita Broaddrick, Kathy Shelton, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey front-and-center changes the trajectory of the campaign's last four weeks.

He brought them for one. Was spose to bring monica for a future one. Maybe he didn't tho.

---

Grimlyn posted...

if you're talking about Trump's debate guests - not Monica Lewinsky, but Trump attempted to bring other women accusing Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct to the debate

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/trump-planned-debate-stunt-invited-bill-clinton-accusers-rattle-hillary-n663481

"attempted" I say because ultimately the Commission prevented it

Why do I remember him actually bringing them?

---

Trump should invite the Ukrainian prosecutor that Biden got fired.

---

Trump did still have a separate presser with the women just before the debate IIRC

... back to google

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/donald-trump-juanita-broaddrick-paula-jones-facebook-live-2016-election/index.html

---

Corrik7 posted...

Juanita Broaddrick, Kathy Shelton, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey front-and-center changes the trajectory of the campaign's last four weeks.

He brought them for one. Was spose to bring monica for a future one. Maybe he didn't tho.

Monica Lewinsky hates Trump so that was never gonna happen

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Why do I remember him actually bringing them?

Because he actually brought them.

---

oh wait a sec the women were still attending the debate, just as regular ticket guests

from the first article

The four Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Kathy Shelton eventually sat in the audience alongside other ticketed members.
[pic]
If the plan had gone ahead, the women would have sat in the Trump family box which was in an elevated area close to the stage and in front of the cameras.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The difference is that if you call an African-American an American or vice versa, those are both nouns, things a person can be.

A person cant be illegal, thats just a modifier for their status as immigrants.

Illegal is an adjective, not a noun, so by definition using it as a noun is dehumanizing.

Sorry to tell ya bud African is an adjective above. And, as shown before, illegal as a noun is in the dictionary. Specifically referring to illegal immigrants.

O.o

---

Corrik7 posted...

illegal as a noun is in the dictionary. Specifically referring to illegal immigrants.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The difference is that if you call an African-American an American or vice versa, those are both nouns, things a person can be.

A person cant be illegal, thats just a modifier for their status as immigrants.

Illegal is an adjective, not a noun, so by definition using it as a noun is dehumanizing.

He didnt say you couldnt use it as a noun
---

Jakyl25 posted...

He didnt say you couldnt use it as a noun

He said it is not a noun. It is.

Also I am actually pretty sure it is rude to call an African-American an African also btw. Which, he could have went that way with his response, but he chose not to.

---

Merriam Webster: "sometimes disparaging and offensive"
Dictionary.com: "informal: disparaging and offensive"
Cambridge Dictionary: No classification
Oxford English Dictionary: "derogatory North American"

3/4 of those classify the term, as you're using it, as offensive.

---

Inviso posted...

Merriam Webster: "sometimes disparaging and offensive"
Dictionary.com: "informal: disparaging and offensive"
Cambridge Dictionary: No classification
Oxford English Dictionary: "derogatory North American"

3/4 of those classify the term, as you're using it, as offensive.

That's 2/4, not 3. Seems quite split.

---

Corrik7 posted...

That's 2/4, not 3. Seems quite split.

Oh my God are you seriously going to semantics the definition of "derogatory" rather than admit you're wrong?

---

oh you're all literally right back to topic 330 page 9 huh

---

https://www.allsides.com/dictionary/illegals-illegal-immigrants

I think we can just drop this here. Agree to disagree and move on from it. Going in circles at this point.

---

We could all be making Tony Bobulinski jokes instead, you know
That's also an option...!

---

Inviso posted...

Oh my God are you seriously going to semantics the definition of "derogatory" rather than admit you're wrong?

I just don't think the word sometimes hit home with you.

---

Are they muting the mics in this one? Honestly I thought the thing was cancelled until like an hour ago.

---

Just posting this for no reason at all

https://youtu.be/wSUKdxAYO_I

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Are they muting the mics in this one? Honestly I thought the thing was cancelled until like an hour ago.

They are muting the mics and Biden is worried it hurts him because the public can't hear what is distracting him.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

Are they muting the mics in this one?

For the initial two minutes of a question the other candidate is muted. There's no mute button that's being actively pushed, though.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

We could all be making Tony Bobulinski jokes instead, you know
That's also an option...!

tony b is no joke

you're gonna get whacked

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

We could all be making Tony Bobulinski jokes instead, you know
That's also an option...!

I already made the best one

And it might not even be a joke
---

I think if Trump speaks loudly enough, we should be able to hear through Biden's microphone.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I just don't think the word sometimes hit home with you.

Oh, so the word "sometimes" means it's absolutely not offensive at all. Gotcha. So I guess if a dictionary referred to the N-word as "sometimes disparaging and offensive"--which could be accurate, since a black person could refer to another black person as the N-word as a term of friendship or endearment--that would mean the N-word wouldn't be offensive anymore? Like, the article you JUST posted has the entire opening paragraph about how the people whom "illegal" refers to find the term offensive and dehumanizing. That should be enough for you and all the others who care about "strong borders" to find a term that doesn't treat human beings as subhuman.

---

Inviso posted...

Oh, so the word "sometimes" means it's absolutely not offensive at all. Gotcha. So I guess if a dictionary referred to the N-word as "sometimes disparaging and offensive"--which could be accurate, since a black person could refer to another black person as the N-word as a term of friendship or endearment--that would mean the N-word wouldn't be offensive anymore? Like, the article you JUST posted has the entire opening paragraph about how the people whom "illegal" refers to find the term offensive and dehumanizing. That should be enough for you and all the others who care about "strong borders" to find a term that doesn't treat human beings as subhuman.

If it said sometimes then I would expect you to acknowledge that the usage pertains to context and not to immediately assume it is offensive when used. Yes. I don't think that is hard to grasp.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I already made the best one

And it might not even be a joke

Maybe Rudy will be another guest
Laying back and standing by

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/us-trump-administration-signs-anti-abortion-declaration

---

https://twitter.com/ABC7Chicago/status/1319252164892631042

---