Avid reader who may not post much. Parent. Single-issue voter since 2016.
39 followers 100 following 47 posts
view profile on Bluesky
^I asked the above 4 days ago, before the new asylum filing which I haven't read yet. Maybe now the fact that he just entered the US and isn't time barred from the first entry date doesn't matter anyway because changed circumstances covers any asylum case he would file without regard to the reentry?
bsky.app/profile/laur...
I lived through the invention of the term as applying to the vast majority of people, held in one's pocket to pull out to assert that your argument opponent isn't allowed to express an opinion. And to tell some people they were never ever to mention any misfortune that had ever befallen them.
Wasn't FDR talking about a *tiny minority* - very wealthy people and the most powerful politicians? Not to middle and working class white men.
I understood and approve. But you did say "If we have to use a little bit of archaic language to do that, we got to be okay with it". I get that maybe you're being polite trying to pull 2 sides together, by labeling the **mainstream** word "archaic" ... but ... it's not. "Itinerant" is archaic.
At least (most of?) the national dems repeatedly said, no that's not what we're going to do - of course, we're not going to defund the police.
Yeah, that one was even dumber than almost all of the words on the Third Way list. It truly seemed intentionally provocative: let me say something that I could say more more clearly, accurately, reasonably, and acceptably, but let me say it in a way that's insane instead, for no reason at all.
Language is dynamic, but 3/4 of people say "homeless" and it's a much larger % among the swing voters you have a chance with. Why throw these voters away? The predominant language in the US is English, but does that mean we should insist on speaking in English to those who exclusively speak Spanish?
In this particular case, they were forcing Biden to basically apologize for using the word "illegal" to describe a man who illegally came over the border and then murdered a young woman (recently). Trump and the Republicans were all over it even before the State of the Union.
And this is why Fox etc had a field day with this and the mainstream media covered it: because a lot of people think that those trying to correct Biden's speech as if that is the most important thing should walk a day in the shoes of Laken Riley's parents. GA passed a bad law because of the murder.
Here was Biden's line at the State of the Union. "Laken Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That's right. But how many thousands of people being killed by legals? To her parents, I say, my heart goes out to you, having lost children myself. I understand," Biden said."
That would be fine. It's not what people said for decades so it still may feel foreign to people. If politicians use the term "unauthorized" or "undocumented", they shouldn't correct others if they want to win. And never get fussy about terms when a young woman was just murdered.
I always said Bernie or Liz Cheney.
He is not the one out of touch. I assume it means people who aren't consistently getting enough [nutritious] food at the right times because they're poor. Use the larger number if you want; no one expects a candidate speech to use colloquial terms in technical ways.
Speaking without communicating is useless. It's candidates' job to ensure they communicate successfully. The average American hasn't the faintest idea what you mean with the Q I A and + . So even if there is nothing meaningful in its place, it's not meaningful with them anyway.
Does that include Obama? The people who work with the homeless who use the term? 73% of people use the term "homeless", which is and been the common word for many, many decades. Also "vagrant" and "itinerant" were neutral; "bum" was always in my memory derogatory. FDR admin used "transients".
To some degree, though, it can just be morally neutral alienation. It's a foreign language and every difference between a candidate and a voter is a possible negative for candidate. (Not all differences are, of course. We may admire military service or medical doctors or whatever.)
I don't know if it makes much difference in elections. But from descriptions of RW media, they definitely make fun of the words. Some do use these words as status signals. It could PARTLY be: status humiliation --> defensiveness --> anger --> ridiculing other side and being "triggered" by words.
Other half say anyone who *doesn't* use them likes to dehumanize and strip dignity from others and lacks kindness and empathy; is dumb / incapable of learning new things; is racist, "just wants to say n-word." Some tell people to "reflect" on their [poor] choices; some offer to "educate" others. /2
Go back and read Tom's multiple recent posts on topic and the comments. Half say it's all fake, they don't know these words, they don't know anyone who uses the words, they don't think any Dems in power use the words. /1
From their POV it's either an assertion of elitist power over them, or a form of elitist condescension, for you to try to force your words on them. Why don't you use their words? Surely you're intelligent and mentally capable enough to adapt to speaking in terminology that is most commonly used.
"Homeless" is not a tiny bit archaic. Words don't become "archaic" when 75% of the people are still using them and most don't even know the arcane new word. Heck, our extremely well-educated president was using the word frequently during his presidency (9 years ago). Y'all need to get out more.
"we switched" Who is "we"?
Because they have a terrrrrrible platform and a terrrrrrible President.
Mandani seems charismatic which helps a lot, but that doesn't mean he could win in national election (President) much less in a red state.
Another problem: social media means that any crazy thing said by any "leftist", academic or activist or Russian bot, is going to be taken and run with on Fox as representing Dems. It's like with "defund the police". What could Dems do about that though? Use normal language repeatedly to counteract?
I don't have another example of a major Dem politician, but with Fox News etc., any small slip within an administration is going to be covered there and then more widely. This was one well-publicized unforced error: www.newsweek.com/biden-admin-...
Biden publicly expressed regret about his use of disfavored language ("illegal") in the State of the Union address when describing Laken Riley's killer, which was super widely covered and not good, especially in that context.
In interview after State of the Union, "Biden satisfied the Democratic Party’s far-left faction by expressing remorse for using the term 'illegal' while describing ... the killer of [Laken] Riley. 'I shouldn’t have used illegal, it’s undocumented,' he said." From NY Post, but in every major outlet
There is apparently research that suggests that people will make sacrifices in order to resist domination by people (who they perceive to be) humiliating them. And people just do lots of things based on vibes. Not well, unfortunately. And elections are so close now so...
And the long-used term is not a Republican or MAGA thing. Obama used the term "homeless" repeatedly, only recently of course. FDR admin used it, though more often used "transient". It's in Emma Lazarus' poem on the Statue of Liberty. (In my childhood, the word "bum" was the mean one.)
It really is not better. It's just the newest (well not quite, oops) thing. I see a little logic for "homeless" being better and a little logic for "unhoused" being better and a lot of rhetorical benefit for avoiding "people currently unhoused". None of these is the more dignified or humane, though.
I think we're done. Seems now that your question wasn't in good faith. Didn't realize I was dealing with the kind of activist that the other responders are saying don't exist or don't matter.I 'm not "enraged" and I'm not going over to the MAGA darkness lol in response. But goodness that is silly.
And yes, some people choose not to do so. Some are just jerks. Some didn't like having power exercised over them and overreacted. (If you don't detect the power dynamic involved in trying to make them say those words at the beginning, well, they did.) Some use it to manipulate others (Rufo).
You're probably < 50 or verbally gifted. Educated far above average. Interacted with people who use these terms. You're not average! Those people maybe did that. And then they're screamed at for not using the even newer term. Or for not knowing a second term. And then they feel alienated / annoyed.
They say people love or at least tolerate gold-toilets billionaire Trump because he doesn't seem well-educated and vibes with or even (pretends to) "love" the poorly educated. A post-grad degree, educated enough to say "unhoused"? Yep, sorry, you're part of the "elite" that matters now.
Did you learn the term "unhoused" in a (taboo-word-coming alert!) ghetto? In the Army? If not, that's your answer, isn't it? (Thank you for serving, sincerely. And yes, a shitty war.)
Soon the cool, made-for-social-science-lecture-and-social-media-flame term will be "experiencing homelessness"; yours will be declared "dehumanizing". And so on, through the euphemism treadmill. Chris Rufo always knows the terms and capitalizes on the resentment and bemusement of those who didn't.
For sure. And saying that someone who doesn't know the word "unhoused" wants to dehumanize people, dehumanizes that person, dontcha think?
So I don't think that it's necessarily that it "enrages" people (at least, at first, before all of the abuse their perceiving), or that people are claiming that it does. (With respect, maybe consider why you yourself picked that particular word? Maybe it means nothing, but just a suggestion.) /4
Even if someone doesn't feel poorly treated by another's use of artificial (to them) language, it can be alienating to hear someone speak very differently from you and those you know. So people working in other cultures usually try learn some of the customs of those cultures, to better bond. /3
Or when someone, like another responder to your question does, uncharitably attacks them as trying to "[de]humanize people" (!!) because they don't know and remember to use the secret words or don't want to devote constant mental effort to policing themselves (code-switching is tiring). /2
It's more that people feel attacked, condescended to, humiliated when they are corrected by high status people for not using or even knowing the words that the high status people have the leisure to create, learn, and then use as a symbol of status, sometimes against those lower status people. /1
Can you explain why he can't file an asylum claim now? That claim was time-barred in his original hearing before an immigration judge, but the clock doesn't start running again when he reentered the US after CECOT?
Another thought: I'm the opposite of an expert ... but while its NG is under state control, can't governor legally use NG training times (monthly & long one in summer?) to emphasize relevant laws, proper interactions w/ US residents, and the duty to disobey unlawful orders?
It's on the paid docket, per my AI. I didn't look up the lawyer, but there's gotta have been many firms / think tanks / academics out there looking for a "sympathetic" case, with the Free Exercise Clause issue intertwined, to do pro bono.
Ackshually a tsnuami reached North Dakota, at the Tanis site, about 66 million years ago. Are you ridiculing the good people of North Dakota because they haven't mastered the specifics of world geography 66 million years ago? www.science.org/content/arti...