Treating Other People With Respect

[TeapotCavalry]

People who immigrated into this country LEGALLY, but their visa has expired, are not accurately called illegal immigrants. Their legal status is in limbo.

Expiration of visa is like expiration of car insurance (or driver's licence). You're not in any kind of limbo when you have an expired insurance, you're actually not supposed to drive until you renew your insurance. And you're actually not supposed to reside in country X, when you have expired visa. Penalties apply.

Both of these things are against the law, ie illegal, and punishable.

Undocumented immigrants describes them accurately enough, more so than illegal immigrants.

Undocumented:

1. Not supported by written evidence: undocumented income tax deductions; undocumented accusations.
2. Not having the needed documents, as for permission to live or work in a foreign country.​

The second definition, I presume.
My understanding is that if you do something without the necessary paperwork that grants permission to do it, you're doing it illegally. How is this any more accurate or apt than "illegal"? It just seems to shift the focus of the denotation from law to bureaucratic paperwork.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Treat people with respect" is a truism, and therefore useless.

Everyone wants to be treated with respect, everyone thinks what they are doing is treating people with respect, and everyone assumes that we all agree what "Treat people with respect" means.

Ted uses the term "Political correctness" to mean simple basic respect, Bill uses it to describe horribly euphemistic doublespeak nonsense.

 

[Cainkane1]

Is it within the realm of possibility to make a joke of a person or a ethnicity without being offensive?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Suggested pronoun usage from the University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusiveness. Is this treating other people with respect? Or is going beyond the bounds of reason?

Wow. It almost seems like that idea may be a Poe, where some on campus pranksters got together and tried to see who could get the silliest proposal passed. And the pronouns they chose (xem, xyr,etc.) sound straight out of an Onion article.

Those who've been trained to get offended by the exclusive use of the pronouns "his" and hers" are setting themselves up for very tough lives indeed. They're going to spend an awful lot of time and energy trying to sort out things from which to take offense, the explanations on why they're offended (and everyone else should be) and that doesn't even include the actual effort in getting offended!

In short, I'd say it's political theater, drafted not to include, but to attack and denigrate those who they feel are not giving enough credence to gender studies.

SDAL's Official Ruling: Political correctness, not "treating people with respect".

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Is it within the realm of possibility to make a joke of a person or a ethnicity without being offensive?

Offensive to whom? You've got to keep in mind that you can't really do or say much of anything these days without someone claiming to be offended. It's all the rage these days.

I have lots of friends of different ethnicities and they (we) do it often. Also, the Simpsons has made a lot of jokes along these lines which I don't think reasonable* people find offensive. Example: when the Simpsons were driving through Chinatown and passed a store called Toys "L" Us.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Example: when the Simpsons were driving through Chinatown and passed a store called Toys "L" Us.

I honestly laughed out loud just reading that. Does that make me a bad person?

 

[Distracted1]

First, you never did answer my question from way back, so you have no right to complain.

Second, you clearly didn't even understand what you were responding to. Your question doesn't make sense, given the context. Your "olive branch" is merely an attempt to drop the subject without admitting you made a simple reading comprehension mistake.

ETA: And because you are having such a hard time, allow me reiterate what you claimed to be responding to:

People who immigrated into this country LEGALLY, but their visa has expired, are not accurately called illegal immigrants. Their legal status is in limbo. Undocumented immigrants describes them accurately enough, more so than illegal immigrants.

I don't see how that follows. Your own assertion runs contrary to logic.

If someone legally entered the US, they were most certainly "documented" at some point, ergo using "un"documented to describe them (along with the never-documented) is a much less accurate description than "illegal"- since both the "previously documented" and "never-documented" do not share the quality of being "un" documented. They do, however, share the quality of being aliens in violation of the law, or "illegal aliens".

Edit to add. Conceded that it is pretty silly to be arguing over what to call a group of people when it is generally agreed who the group consists of. It is semantic to the point of absurdity.

We have names for many types of violations of our laws (thief- for someone who has taken something that does not belong to them, rapist- for someone who sexually violates someone else, poacher- for someone who engages in illegal hunting etc., etc.,..) because we do not yet have already term in the lexicon for someone who is within our borders in violation of our laws it seems that that lack is sometimes being used to divert from discussion of that violation to a discussion of what it is called.
Should someone come up with a name for it like "bordering" (wherein people committing the act are "borderers") I would have no problem with that. And, honestly, if we have added " othering" to our lexicon, surely agreeing on something like "bordering" can only help to move the discussion along to something useful, no?

 

[qayak]

Is it within the realm of possibility to make a joke of a person or a ethnicity without being offensive?

Yes, Russell Peters makes a great living doing it.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Yes, Russell Peters makes a great living doing it.

But like many comedians, he has specifically called out the PC intrusions into comedy.

 

[ThunderChunky]

We have names for many types of violations of our laws (thief- for someone who has taken something that does not belong to them, rapist- for someone who sexually violates someone else, poacher- for someone who engages in illegal hunting etc., etc.,..)

A thief is a property taker, a rapist is a nonconsensual sex practitioner, and a poacher is just an undocumented hunter.

 

[newyorkguy]

The reality of illegal immigration is it's murky and complex. The news story (in another thread) about undocumented workers employed at the construction site of the Trump International Hotel in Washington revealed some of the complexities.

Interviews with about 15 laborers helping renovate the Old Post Office Pavilion revealed that many of them had crossed the U.S-Mexico border illegally before they eventually settled in the Washington region to build new lives. Several of the men, who hail mostly from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, have earned U.S. citizenship or legal status through immigration programs targeting Central Americans fleeing civil wars or natural disasters. Link to news story

When people want to flee political violence where do they go? How can they apply to their own governments to leave when in many cases it is that government they fear, that they want to get away from? Lumping them all together is wrong.

 

[phiwum]

The reality of illegal immigration is it's murky and complex. The news story (in another thread) about undocumented workers employed at the construction site of the Trump International Hotel in Washington revealed some of the complexities.


When people want to flee political violence where do they go? How can they apply to their own governments to leave when in many cases it is that government they fear, that they want to get away from? Lumping them all together is wrong.

Yes, not all illegal immigrants are equal, but we do need some term to pick out the persons under discussion. Perhaps we should specify that we mean non- refugees. Would that be satisfactory?

Notice that the term "undocumented" is just as imprecise for this purpose.

 

[The Atheist]

Is it within the realm of possibility to make a joke of a person or a ethnicity without being offensive?

Not even the Irish.

Example: when the Simpsons were driving through Chinatown and passed a store called Toys "L" Us.

If it happens on a day I've had a Chinese woman ring up seeking a job as "Leceptionist", it's very funny.

Is it ok for Ricky Gervais to make jokes about idiotic christians?

Where would you like to draw the line of non-offence in jokes?

Is it offensive when Steady Eddie makes jokes about cerebral palsy?

 

[theprestige]

A thief is a property taker, a rapist is a nonconsensual sex practitioner, and a poacher is just an undocumented hunter.

Wrong. A thief is just an undocumented property owner. Let's not other him by suggesting that he may have committed a crime.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Wrong. A thief is just an undocumented property owner. Let's not other him by suggesting that he may have committed a crime.

The moment he acquires the property he has no documentation for, he's in a kind of a legal limbo. Is he the owner? Is he not? No-one knows. Might have been a mix-up somewhere with the paperwork.

 

[arthwollipot]

None of the above is true.

The term "alien" has a fairly precise legal meaning. Calling someone an alien just means that he is not a citizen. It doesn't mean that they are in a place they don't belong. It doesn't mean they are exotic. It does mean they are different than citizens in one respect: citizens are citizens, and aliens are not.

It's true that "alien" has other meanings, and an ignorant person may interpret the word in the wrong way. This might be a reason not to use the word -- perhaps we should avoid giving ignorant persons the wrong impression.

I take exception to your labelling of people who disagree with your definition as "ignorant", which is another word that - despite its dictionary definition - is almost always used perjoratively.

I'll grant that it may be a cultural thing. There are some significant differences between the ways some words are used in America and the way I am used to hearing them. Apart from when I'm chatting with people from other countries on the internet, I virtually never hear the word "alien" applied to people at all - and when I do, the intent is never friendly. So I may be arguing about an issue of dialect. But...

But you are being ridiculous when you claim that the word "alien" means a person who is exotic, doesn't belong, etc. It doesn't. And you're being even more ridiculous when you pretend that the meaning of the word doesn't depend on the intentions of the person using it, or commonly accepted definitions. That's precisely how meaning is derived.

I disagree. Intent is one thing, but meaning is derived in the mind of the person who hears (or reads) the words. You can have the best of intentions, but you don't get to control how the person you are talking to interprets the words you use. The interpretation is up to them, and you can go blue in the face (like I imagine you are right now) trying to explain exactly what you intended to mean, but that does not prevent someone taking offence in the first place, and does little to alleviate offence once taken.

The only thing that can prevent someone taking offense at your words is to be a little more careful about alternate meanings of the words you use, stop relying entirely on dictionary definitions, and when you realise that someone has interpreted a word in a way you didn't intend, apologise and try to rephrase in a manner that is more sensitive to their cultural and linguistic background.

 

[rwguinn]

I take exception to your labelling of people who disagree with your definition as "ignorant", which is another word that - despite its dictionary definition - is almost always used perjoratively.

I'll grant that it may be a cultural thing. There are some significant differences between the ways some words are used in America and the way I am used to hearing them. Apart from when I'm chatting with people from other countries on the internet, I virtually never hear the word "alien" applied to people at all - and when I do, the intent is never friendly. So I may be arguing about an issue of dialect. But...

I disagree. Intent is one thing, but meaning is derived in the mind of the person who hears (or reads) the words. You can have the best of intentions, but you don't get to control how the person you are talking to interprets the words you use. The interpretation is up to them, and you can go blue in the face (like I imagine you are right now) trying to explain exactly what you intended to mean, but that does not prevent someone taking offence in the first place, and does little to alleviate offence once taken.

The only thing that can prevent someone taking offense at your words is to be a little more careful about alternate meanings of the words you use, stop relying entirely on dictionary definitions, and when you realise that someone has interpreted a word in a way you didn't intend, apologise and try to rephrase in a manner that is more sensitive to their cultural and linguistic background.

********! One could never carry on a conversation with a stranger under your scenario.
Unless everyone carry around a list of taboo words that will set them off, and exchanges the list with every and ny one who says "good morning " to them, discussion is not possible. This is the epitome of PC.
The alternative.is to realize that not everyone has your background and tastes, and quit being so thin *********** skinned as to assume insult is intended with every usage you disagree with.

 

[phiwum]

I take exception to your labelling of people who disagree with your definition as "ignorant", which is another word that - despite its dictionary definition - is almost always used perjoratively.

I'll grant that it may be a cultural thing. There are some significant differences between the ways some words are used in America and the way I am used to hearing them. Apart from when I'm chatting with people from other countries on the internet, I virtually never hear the word "alien" applied to people at all - and when I do, the intent is never friendly. So I may be arguing about an issue of dialect. But...

I disagree. Intent is one thing, but meaning is derived in the mind of the person who hears (or reads) the words. You can have the best of intentions, but you don't get to control how the person you are talking to interprets the words you use. The interpretation is up to them, and you can go blue in the face (like I imagine you are right now) trying to explain exactly what you intended to mean, but that does not prevent someone taking offence in the first place, and does little to alleviate offence once taken.

The only thing that can prevent someone taking offense at your words is to be a little more careful about alternate meanings of the words you use, stop relying entirely on dictionary definitions, and when you realise that someone has interpreted a word in a way you didn't intend, apologise and try to rephrase in a manner that is more sensitive to their cultural and linguistic background.

I used the word ignorance because it is a plain fact that the word "alien" commonly means non-citizen, with no pejorative overtones. If someone does not know that common meaning, then he does not know what is common knowledge, namely what this word means in this context. In that respect, he is ignorant.

Of course, once offense is taken, then it should be easy enough to fix. The speaker explains the meaning he had in mind, clarifies that it has none of the negative connotations the hearer believed, and so it is done. At least, that is how things ought to go.

If, in fact, things don't go well at this point, the fault is all on the listener, not the speaker. I can understand if someone balks when I use the word "niggardly", but if I explain its meaning and that it is etymologically unrelated to the word they were thinking of, then they have no good reason to be offended any longer.

Okay, things are slightly more complicated. I don't actually use the word "niggardly" precisely because it can lead to needless complications. There is no good reason to take offense at the word, but it is easy to mishear. Similarly, if I think that many people are literally ignorant of this meaning of "alien", I may choose to avoid it. But let us be clear: any offense taken is due to ignorant on the part of the hearer, and any such offense should be trivial to dispel with only a little explanation of what meaning was intended.

 

[This is The End]

You want respect, you earn it.

I would slightly expand on that IMO.

You start with respect. With only a logical amount of leeway. If you lose it, then you earn it back.


It's really closer to what you are saying than at first glance. In your phrasing you meet someone new and you quickly find out if they earn your respect. I meet someone new and I quickly find out if they have lost it.

 

[The Atheist]

********! One could never carry on a conversation with a stranger under your scenario.

"Stranger" is so othering! How do you expect to be inclusive if you think of people as strangers?

They are just friends you haven't met yet.