Why use words, when pictures will suffice.

Are you arguing you believe this is the Republican parties "final solution" and this is where things are headed?



This is what concentration camps mean in the world today. And there is a lot more pictures where that one came from. Do you need more illustrations, or do you get the point?

Me: asks question about circa 1934

You: posts image from over a decade later

gjge

I don't know where we are going. I don't know if we are heading towards death camps. But I do know how death camps started, and it wasn't with death camps.

Making a comp between Dachau and the US border today is some real sick false moral equivalancy and whitewashing history.

Try using words and discussing how Dachau got started rather than how it ended. Spoiler alert:

I am going to go to bed now. I think we all get the point. I will find it very amusing if Well Named has to erase Wookie's posts making equivalencies of the Holocaust and border detentions so Mason doesn't get accused of running an antisemitic hate site.

Cowardly troll and a liar about what I actually said.

Anyways, to address the issue at hand and bring it back a little; giving asylum seekers a court date and releasing them into some sort of humane living situation sounds infinitesimally better than what is currently going on, and hopefully something along these lines gets implemented sooner rather than later.

You’re basically describing the difference between politics and society. The "name calling thingy" isn’t politics. Politics assumes people have different views, beliefs, agendas, etc., some of which are in opposition and irreconcilable and seeks to provide a framework to essentially negotiate settlements, e.g., “I’ll give you some of what you want if you give me some of what I want.” In other words, there’s a lot of compromise with politics, which requires a certain degree of civility like Biden recently referred to. That’s not the case with those advocating for large-scale societal change like modern progressives. Their objective is to radically change those underlying beliefs or change minds and their modus operandi is confrontational and polarizing, with compromise not being an option because to them it’s not about finding equitable solutions or really even to “get things changed” in a political sense but rather a battle between good and evil at the overarching societal level, hence the related naming and shaming rhetoric.

Kelhus,

Children have already died in these concentration camps. We can't use the name until the death toll reaches acceptable levels for you? Aren't you all polly prissy pants about the correct names being used for things no mater who it offends and all that garbage? People, men women and children are being concentrated in camps where they are facing torture and death based on nothing more than their ethnicity. Your first thought is that the people describing these death camps are possibly being too imprecise in their language? **** off.


xnbomb,

You're not an ally in any regard so your council is of no value. **** off also.

Like if you're utterly frothing at the mouth insane over ~5 dumb college kids doing something asinine but when it comes to the caging and murder of children you go straight to the ruler and protractor set to get exact measurements for what is and isnt defined as so and so you just might be a prick.

The name isn't terribly important. For the parent of a dead child who spent their last time in life without a proper bed, soap or company of someone they knew, I don't think it is terribly important of you call it "detention center", "internment camp" or "concentration camp" on the official documents.

Any regime or government that engages in brutal practices of this type does the same thing anyway. They use language in a manner meant to reduce the ethical severity of their actions. That is how the term concentration camp was born in the first place. It later came to mean a thing of evil, when we admitted what they were used for.

And sure, we can engage in a pointless debate on the volume of deaths. The only thing that matters is if you accept that these things happen. After that, volume is just a technicality. And by accept I mean if you take it in and move on without caring, not what you answer here on this forum or any other public discussion when asked if you do.

$4.5 Billion in Emergency AID at Border Stuck in Congress Over Inside the Beltway Partisan Political BS

Standard

Yeah it seems pretty standard for Trump to say he's going to veto the bill because it includes restrictions to prevent the money that is supposed to be for humanitarian aid going to immigration enforcement instead.

It's obviously awful that this is somehow a partisan issue but given that it is Trump's rhetoric and policies that are responsible for the situation it's not surprising that some Dems are hesitant to fund more money without tight restrictions on its use when previous funding has been used to create the situation in the first place.

Jesus. The "Inside the Beltway Partisan Political BS" in this case being that dems want to restrict the money so it can only be used to feed clothe and take care of dying children and the gop want the money to be spent rounding up and killing more children. Can't these guys just find a middle ground where we murder some kids but give toothbrushes to others? Weird that 'not killing children' is such a partisan issue. I wonder which side is to blame for that?

“Infinitesimally” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

What we disagree about is everything, but why would you jump into this thread to argue against Wookie and me if you were going to immediately walk this back:

You know maybe if you weren't always kneejerking to defend reactionaries from name-calling but actually was more interested in defending victims of oppression you wouldn't need to pull this ****

Identity politics is BAD guys. Also, getting mad about our treatment of migrants is a media narrative that Kelhus is TOO SMART to fall for. But MrWookie's posts? Real sick stuff.

Fly, the fact is that we agree on pretty much everything that's important politically. You just can't see it or wont admit because you're completely stuck on your polarisation name calling thingy

Because I don't do your polarisation thingy I can disagree with you on that while recognising we agree on pretty much most political issues.

The rest of you post was nonsense, so sorry i'll leave you to do your thing about me ignoring it.

good talk

Ninja edit? They didn't enter the country illegally.

Lol

In plain English releasing kids to their families and having case workers work with them was cheaper and more effective than even ankle bracelets, but it allowed more people to present credible cases that would allowed them to stay in the US, which isn't what the Trump admin wants.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-ende...-bd506068c05c/

Yeah, I think that whole cite is just an exercise in rhetorical dishonesty.

It does not appear to me that Trump cares about immigrants at all, in either a positive or negative direction. He is just pandering to his base. And I would argue Trump's base also doesn't have any particular malicious attitudes towards migrants specifically, they are just self concerned and playing out their evolutionary conserved tribal programming against the "other."

I think ascribing malicious intent, when the truth is probably closer to lack of empathy, and being caught in instinctual emotional feedback loops, isn't doing anyone any favors.

But you do you.

"playing out their evolutionary conserved tribal programming against the 'other'" often involves malicious attitudes towards migrants specifically?

I don't want to paint with too broad a brush but it's not hard to find examples of Trump supporters who will tell you in no uncertain terms how they feel about immigrants.

Trump doesn't have to play to his particularly racist base either, but he chooses to and he chooses to say things about immigrants that would be hard to describe as agnostic or nonchalant about them.