The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[Sander 001]

So we invaded Mexico and other countries than sent people to these camps with the sole intention of killing them? Not to mention also sending Hispanic people legally here to the camps for the same thing? I'm going to need a source for that.

Again, I don't like these camps either, but you have to ignore a lot of things and twist some others to make them parallel with the final solution.

You have to ignore even more things not to.

Hopefully it doesn’t go further even though you can say without much consternation that stage 8 has been underway for a long time though unofficially.

 

[Danoff]

You have to ignore even more things not to.

Hopefully it doesn’t go further even though you can say without much consternation that stage 8 has been underway for a long time though unofficially.

Oh I don't know about stage 7 there. Holding people who are trying to cross the border does not constitute removing or relocating people to those holding cells. Stage 7 looks more like Japanese internment camps than it does illegal immigration holding. You're doing exactly what I cautioned you against in the America thread, which is to over-step your accusations, damaging your credibility. There's plenty of criticism to throw at the illegal immigration situation (and I've done a lot of it) without, as @TexRex said, diminishing what happened under Nazi Germany and making statements that can't be supported.

TBH, I'm not sure about stages 2 and 3 either. 4 is also overly broad, catches too many countries at too many times.

Really the "stages" of genocide here is stage 9.

 

[Downhill Dino]

Why is there such a huge leap between (7) Preperation and (8) Persecution? I don't see any forced labor in that list. I also feel Symbolism is too early there since this seems only representative of Germany's genocide. Otherwise I don't think other genocides through history bothered with that step... or nearly all of them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Oh I don't know about stage 7 there. Holding people who are trying to cross the border does not constitute removing or relocating people to those holding cells. Stage 7 looks more like Japanese internment camps than it does illegal immigration holding. You're doing exactly what I cautioned you against in the America thread, which is to over-step your accusations, damaging your credibility. There's plenty of criticism to throw at the illegal immigration situation (and I've done a lot of it) without, as @TexRex said, diminishing what happened under Nazi Germany and making statements that can't be supported.

TBH, I'm not sure about stages 2 and 3 either. 4 is also overly broad, catches too many countries at too many times.

Really the "stages" of genocide here is stage 9.

I think that Stanton was getting at the idea that a certain type of societal norm has to be established for genocide to occur. Countries can, as you effectively said, be at the early stages without subsequently escalating to a level where they commit genocide. The higher up the stages a country/society goes the more we should be alarmed.

 

[TexRex]

There's plenty of criticism to throw at the illegal immigration situation (and I've done a lot of it) without, as @TexRex said, diminishing what happened under Nazi Germany and making statements that can't be supported.

I gather mentioning me here was a slip, with @Northstar being the user you intended to mention. No harm done.

However, respectfully, I don't agree with the initial objection. Neither propaganda nor concentration camps came and went with the Nazis, and I don't see how noting similarities diminishes anything.

The fact is that ICE tweeted that photo, and with the image issues that they have right now, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover ICE staged that photo. Their tweeting the photo sure strikes me as propaganda, and that they did so along with others and comments intended to appease individuals and groups of a particular bent during a specific time they've chosen to celebrate who they are (this was tweeted during Pride Month), to me, makes it all the more tasteless.

As for that objection--and I'll preface by saying that I haven't seen anything here to suggest this motivation--when those who support (and initiated) this action suggest bringing up similarities diminishes anything, it strikes me as them trying to suppress opposition by saying "you don't get to do that because people died" so that they can carry on carrying on.

I'll again bring up this bit of satire addressing the use of the term "concentration camps", because I think it's topical:

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles...-because-technically-auschwitz-is-trademarked

 

[Danoff]

I gather mentioning me here was a slip, with @Northstar being the user you intended to mention. No harm done.

Yup. Careless on my part, I blurred your very short post under his together with his.

However, respectfully, I don't agree with the initial objection. Neither propaganda nor concentration camps came and went with the Nazis, and I don't see how noting similarities diminishes anything.

...because the similarities are superficial compared to the actual misdeeds. It's like saying that a shoplifter is similar to Charles Manson because they both broke the law.

 

[Sander 001]

Oh I don't know about stage 7 there. Holding people who are trying to cross the border does not constitute removing or relocating people to those holding cells. Stage 7 looks more like Japanese internment camps than it does illegal immigration holding. You're doing exactly what I cautioned you against in the America thread, which is to over-step your accusations, damaging your credibility. There's plenty of criticism to throw at the illegal immigration situation (and I've done a lot of it) without, as @TexRex said, diminishing what happened under Nazi Germany and making statements that can't be supported.

TBH, I'm not sure about stages 2 and 3 either. 4 is also overly broad, catches too many countries at too many times.

Really the "stages" of genocide here is stage 9.

The irony of your defence for concentration camps coupled with the Ayn Rand signature(who condoned the genocide of the Native Americans) is absolutely marvellous

 

[TexRex]

...because the similarities are superficial compared to the actual misdeeds.

Similarities between situations can an and do exist in the absence of other similarities. In spite of horrendous things it has done, I don't actually believe our government is carrying out the more atrocious acts that the Third Reich did, but the two did publish photos of a woman gardening while detained.

It's like saying that a shoplifter is similar to Charles Manson because they both broke the law.

Is it though? I didn't get that at all when I read the tweet.

[Edit] On the topic of things that I don't get at all:

your reprieve for concentration camps

You're really not helping your case, which currently, at least in part, also happens to be my case. Please stop.

 

[Danoff]

The irony of your reprieve for concentration camps coupled with the Ayn Rand signature(who condoned the genocide of the Native Americans) is absolutely marvellous

You're doing exactly what I've been cautioning you against in order to avoid straining your credibility - which is to make statements that aren't supported. Please provide cited evidence that I offered a reprieve for concentration camps and additionally that Ayn Rand condoned the genocide of native Americans. I don't know if it was you that I discussed the latter topic with before, but I have yet to see anyone successfully provide that evidence.

Similarities between situations can an and do exist in the absence of other similarities. In spite of horrendous things it has done, I don't actually believe our government is carrying out the more atrocious acts that the Third Reich did, but the two did publish photos of a woman gardening while detained.

Yes this is what I'm describing as a superficial similarity compared with genocide and slavery.

 

[TexRex]

Yes this is what I'm describing as a superficial similarity compared with genocide and slavery.

Why should it not be pointed out? I'd understand (and be completely on board) if the remarks suggested other similarities, particularly to genocide and slavery, without substantiating them, but that's not what happened here.

I mean...I suppose there are those out there whose prerogative it is to broad-brush this opposition as "Trump is literally Hitler" in an effort to render it unfounded and suppress said opposition, but I certainly don't think that's a reason to not point out this sort of propaganda when it's offered up.

 

[Danoff]

Why should it not be pointed out? I'd understand (and be completely on board) if the remarks suggested other similarities, particularly to genocide and slavery, without substantiating them, but that's not what happened here.

I mean...I suppose there are those out there whose prerogative it is to broad-brush this opposition as "Trump is literally Hitler" in an effort to render it unfounded and suppress said opposition, but I certainly don't think that's a reason to not point out this sort of propaganda when it's offered up.

I think it's fine to claim that it is propaganda. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be called that. My problem is with the comparison between the illegal immigrant holding centers and concentration camps generally. It's not supported by superficial examples of propaganda (or otherwise). In the US we've come closer to Nazi concentration camps with our Japenese internment camps (still not necessarily what I would call close, but far closer). My point with all of this is that we should avoid straining credibility.

 

[TexRex]

I think it's fine to claim that it is propaganda. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be called that. My problem is with the comparison between the illegal immigrant holding centers and concentration camps generally. It's not supported by superficial examples of propaganda (or otherwise). In the US we've come closer to Nazi concentration camps with our Japenese internment camps (still not necessarily what I would call close, but far closer). My point with all of this is that we should avoid straining credibility.

I get that that's your point, and it has been a lot lately, but how is credibility strained when actual parallels are presented, particularly in the absance of other [unfounded] parallels?

And that's closer than I'd ever have expected to you saying that concentration camps aren't concentration camps unless they're Nazi concentration camps.

Edit: I think a lot of people are somehow simultaneously missing and acknowledging the key differences between concentration camps and death camps.

 

[Danoff]

I get that that's your point, and it has been a lot lately, but how is credibility strained when actual parallels are presented, particularly in the absance of other [unfounded] parallels?

Because people have been claiming that those camps are concentration camps for a while now and they're not. It's the context in which this information is presented. The context is not "Apropo of nothing, here's a similarity, please don't draw any other similarities merely because of this".

And that's closer than I'd ever have expected to you saying that concentration camps aren't concentration camps unless they're Nazi concentration camps.

Edit: I think a lot of people are somehow simultaneously missing and acknowledging the key differences between concentration camps and death camps.

I'm not sure that there is a distinction between concentration camp and death camp today. You might be able to find a technical distinction (for example calling the Japanese internment camps "concentration" camps as opposed to "death" camps because the Japenese were "concentrated" there), but I think that doing so ignores the prevailing use of the term today... which is as a death camp.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because people have been claiming that those camps are concentration camps for a while now and they're not.

By their very definition they are. You don't need the comparison to death camps for that to be true, just to have camps where concentrated numbers of people are detained, some definitions require "poor conditions" (definitely satisfied for some of these camps) and some definitions note that the detainees may be awaiting execution. Internees awaiting death isn't a prerequisite for being a concentration camp, not all Nazi concentration camps were death camps. Not all Russian concentration camps were death camps. The same is true of US and British camps.

 

[Dylan]

 

[ScottPuss20]

View attachment 836342

Wait they really said that? What hypocrites they are; I mean what Donald said wasn't that bad and kinda true in a sense.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wait they really said that? What hypocrites they are; I mean what Donald said wasn't that bad and kinda true in a sense.

What he said was to "go back where they came from", slightly different to his much later statement. In any case, freedom to dissent is the American way.

 

[Danoff]

By their very definition they are. You don't need the comparison to death camps for that to be true, just to have camps where concentrated numbers of people are detained, some definitions require "poor conditions" (definitely satisfied for some of these camps) and some definitions note that the detainees may be awaiting execution. Internees awaiting death isn't a prerequisite for being a concentration camp, not all Nazi concentration camps were death camps. Not all Russian concentration camps were death camps. The same is true of US and British camps.

At some point, the way a term is used by the general population is what it means.

 

[TenEightyOne]

At some point, the way a term is used by the general population is what it means.

Exactly, so they're concentration camps. It's normal to refer to places like Auschwitz-Birkenau as "death camps" to differentiate them from "ordinary" concentration camps. In the 1996 war there were notorious concentration camps on each side but nobody called those death camps. With that said the Serbs had made their intentions quite clear right on the streets.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

The people being held in the ICE detention camps are ILLEGAL aliens that broke the laws by illegally entering our countries borders. People who immigrate to this country via legal means are not put into detention only those that have chosen that our countries laws do not apply to them.

BY ILLEGALLY CROSSING OUR BORDERS THEY ARE THEREFORE CRIMINALS AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO DETENTION AND DEPORTATION.

This country does have legal means and avenues to immigrate into this nation and those being detained do not think those rules apply to them.

Calling an illegal alien an undocumented immigrant is the same as calling your neighborhood corner heroin and meth drug dealer an undocumented pharmacist.

A citizen of this country that breaks this countries laws pays the consequences for the laws they break but it seems that certain left leaning individuals apparently think that illegal aliens should not be held to the same requirements of the citizens as far as the laws of this country are concerned.

 

[TexRex]

Because people have been claiming that those camps are concentration camps for a while now and they're not.

Sure they are.

Webster defines it as "a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard..."

I've cut the definition off, but I intend to address the rest of it as I address something else, since it's rather keyed into that.

It's the context in which this information is presented. The context is not "Apropo of nothing, here's a similarity, please don't draw any other similarities merely because of this".

Of course it is. No, it's more along the lines of "Our government did this thing. You know who else did this thing? Wink, wink; nudge, nudge."

But I should say that one doesn't get there without reading what isn't written; one doesn't get there objectively.

I'm not sure that there is a distinction between concentration camp and death camp today. You might be able to find a technical distinction (for example calling the Japanese internment camps "concentration" camps as opposed to "death" camps because the Japenese were "concentrated" there), but I think that doing so ignores the prevailing use of the term today... which is as a death camp.

Okay, so what the Third Reich did is so heinous that it left an indelible mark, but that mark doesn't actually overwrite other things.

"...used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners"

It's used especially, but not exclusively.

I mean what Donald said wasn't that bad and kinda true in a sense.

What's kinda true? That they can leave if they don't like it? The traitorous critic fallacy? Is that what's kinda true?

No, it's a logical fallacy for a reason.

For one, "can" is a loaded word. Sure, the only thing really keeping you in the same place is your feet not doing their thing, but have you ever really pondered what it would mean to...leave? Home. Work. Friends and family. Credit. Did that last one actually occur to you in your pondering? Maybe you don't have anything anchoring you, but what of others?

Another issue is the assumption that one actually has the desire to leave. It's possible for one to love their country without approving of everything about it.

The traitorous critic fallacy is classed as an ad hominem. It's an attack on the critic, questioning loyalty rather than addressing criticism. It's easier, but that doesn't make it kinda right.

I will say that it's not terribly surprising that Trump would employ the traitorous critic fallacy, as he seems to so revel in accusing his critics of treason.

What he said was to "go back where they came from", slightly different to his much later statement.

Sure, but then so many words in there were misrepresented. I suppose that's the privilege of the editorial cartoonist.

In any case, freedom to dissent is the American way.

The people being held in the ICE detention camps are ILLEGAL aliens that broke the laws by illegally entering our countries borders. People who immigrate to this country via legal means are not put into detention only those that have chosen that our countries laws do not apply to them.

BY ILLEGALLY CROSSING OUR BORDERS THEY ARE THEREFORE CRIMINALS AND SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO DETENTION AND DEPORTATION.

This country does have legal means and avenues to immigrate into this nation and those being detained do not think those rules apply to them.

Oh, the perils of ignorance.

Under current U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services guidelines, one must be present in the United States in order to be eligible for affirmative asylum, and it does not matter how one came to be in the United States.

WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS DOES NOT MAKE YOUR REMARKS VALID.

 

[Danoff]

Exactly, so they're concentration camps. It's normal to refer to places like Auschwitz-Birkenau as "death camps" to differentiate them from "ordinary" concentration camps. In the 1996 war there were notorious concentration camps on each side but nobody called those death camps. With that said the Serbs had made their intentions quite clear right on the streets.

Sure they are.

Webster defines it as "a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard..."

I've cut the definition off, but I intend to address the rest of it as I address something else, since it's rather keyed into that.

When you say "concentration camp", the mental image you invoke in your target is a death camp. Technically this is a concentration camp:

But if you call it one, you're not going to get a lot of parents of ADHD kids signing up. If you wanted to use an incendiary term that would spark some rage over illegal immigrant holding areas, you could use "internment camp" which would spark a similar mental image without the death chambers and forced labor.

Communication requires two parties, and both parties have to be willing to understand how the other side is going to receive their words and interpret them.

As far as the technical argument goes, they're not concentration camps. As far as actual language and communication is concerned, the use of the phrase concentration camp is designed to compare illegal immigration detention to Nazi Germany, and it's not going to win over or convince anyone.

Of course it is. No, it's more along the lines of "Our government did this thing. You know who else did this thing? Wink, wink; nudge, nudge."

But I should say that one doesn't get there without reading what isn't written; one doesn't get there objectively.

As with the above, communication involves a great deal of context.

 

[TexRex]

When you say "concentration camp", the mental image you invoke in your target is a death camp. Technically this is a concentration camp:

But if you call it one, you're not going to get a lot of parents of ADHD kids signing up.

Presumably the armed guards would deter them as well. Unless...well, unless there are none, but then that would surely conflict with the notion that they're concentration camps.

For what it's worth, my first thought on the subject of concentration camps is that of concentration camps, with death camps being something else.

If you wanted to use an incendiary term that would spark some rage over illegal immigrant holding areas, you could use "internment camp" which would spark a similar mental image without the death chambers and forced labor.

Communication requires two parties, and both parties have to be willing to understand how the other side is going to receive their words and interpret them.

As far as the technical argument goes, they're not concentration camps. As far as actual language and communication is concerned, the use of the phrase concentration camp is designed to compare illegal immigration detention to Nazi Germany, and it's not going to win over or convince anyone.

What is an internment camp?

Internment is the imprisonment of people, commonly in large groups, without charges or intent to file charges, and thus no trial. The term is especially used for the confinement "of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects". Thus, while it can simply mean imprisonment, it tends to refer to preventive confinement, rather than confinement after having been convicted of some crime. Use of these terms is subject to debate and political sensitivities.

Interned persons may be held in prisons or in facilities known as internment camps, also known as concentration camps. This involves internment generally, as distinct from the subset, extermination camps, popularly referred to as death camps.

Internment also refers to a neutral country's practice of detaining belligerent armed forcesand equipment on its territory during times of war under the Hague Convention of 1907.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rightsrestricts the use of internment. Article 9 states that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

I can't help but notice that it recognizes internment camps as facilities meant to intern peoples, and therefore distinct from the specific subset that are death camps.

Proponents of the facilities being used here and now say they're processing facilities while the matter of asylum is individually addressed (all the while an effort is being made to change how the matter of asylum is addressed; it seems to me they're actually just delaying processing until a change is made so that asylum can be denied, full stop), but that means they're being held without indictment or trial. They're ostensibly being held as a preventative measure, so that they don't run free while their asylum application is being processed, only to not appear for subsequent hearings. Remember that rhetoric?

Concentration camp, internment camp, detainment camp, processing camp, refugee camp, summer camp...dizzy yet?

Serious question: can these people leave these facilities to return home rather than seek a place in this country? I honestly don't know, and it's amazingly difficult to find an answer right now when it may not have been two years ago.

Back to the camps. It seems to me that you're giving what the Nazis did entirely too much power, or certainly suggesting that the public gives it too much power. We should never forget those atrocities so that they may not be repeated, not allow them to blind us to other atrocities that can then be repeated freely.

And one [hopefully] final word on the subject of definitions: it seems like you and I are waging an encyclopedic war, cherrypicking sources for definitions that are in service to our respective preferred narratives. I genuinely don't think I'm doing this (though that doesn't rule out subconscious effort) and I'd genuinely like to think you're not, but that sure is how it seems.

As with the above, communication involves a great deal of context.

Reading what isn't written and/or hearing what isn't said. Of course what isn't written/said also depends heavily on the one doing the reading/hearing. And I dare say the reader/listener has the opportunity to abuse this dynamic and represent what wasn't written/said as something to further their preferred narrative. It's all rather subjective.

 

[Danoff]

Presumably the armed guards would deter them as well. Unless...well, unless there are none, but then that would surely conflict with the notion that they're concentration camps.

Except it's a camp for kids having trouble with concentration, so it's a concentration camp. Literally. My point is that nobody would call it that because it isn't effective communication.

What is an internment camp?

A place where the US government rounded up Japenese people and didn't murder and enslave them.

Concentration camp, internment camp, detainment camp, processing camp, refugee camp, summer camp...dizzy yet?

Lots of options to choose from to communicate effectively.

Serious question: can these people leave these facilities to return home rather than seek a place in this country? I honestly don't know, and it's amazingly difficult to find an answer right now when it may not have been two years ago.

I don't know the answer to that.

Back to the camps.

It seems to me that you're giving what the Nazis did entirely too much power, or certainly suggesting that the public gives it too much power.

It was pretty powerful, and the speaker should be aware that the phrase "concentration camp" is going to invoke that power.

We should never forget those atrocities so that they may not be repeated, not allow them to blind us to other atrocities that can then be repeated freely.

I don't think it does. The fact that we refer to the US camps for Japanese as internment camps instead of concentration camps does not blind us to them, it helps differentiate them.

And one [hopefully] final word on the subject of definitions: it seems like you and I are waging an encyclopedic war, cherrypicking sources for definitions that are in service to our respective preferred narratives. I genuinely don't think I'm doing this (though that doesn't rule out subconscious effort) and I'd genuinely like to think you're not, but that sure is how it seems.

I just typed in a generic google search and picked the first one that actually talked about something like the application of the word to illegal immigration and refugees. The point was not to prove what is or is not technically a concentration camp, but to demonstrate that the meanings of these phrases are intertwined with their historical use.

Reading what isn't written and/or hearing what isn't said. Of course what isn't written/said also depends heavily on the one doing the reading/hearing. And I dare say the reader/listener has the opportunity to abuse this dynamic and represent what wasn't written/said as something to further their preferred narrative. It's all rather subjective.

The potential for abuse might exist, but that's not something you can remove. It is indeed all subjective, which is part of what makes communication fun and squishy. In this case, I think the abuse is to insist on the term "concentration camp" for use with illegal immigration detention centers in the US today, precisely because the speaker knows that it will bring up mental images of Nazi Germany.

 

[TexRex]

Except it's a camp for kids having trouble with concentration, so it's a concentration camp. Literally. My point is that nobody would call it that because it isn't effective communication.

Okay, that slipped by me.

A place where the US government rounded up Japenese people and didn't murder and enslave them.

That's an example, not a definition.

It was pretty powerful, and the speaker should be aware that the phrase "concentration camp" is going to invoke that power.

If the audience lets it.

I don't think it does. The fact that we refer to the US camps for Japanese as internment camps instead of concentration camps does not blind us to to them, it helps differentiate them.

Or it's just spin.

"We're holding these people against their will, under threat of execution by armed guard, even though they didn't do anything wrong. But we're definitely not holding them in a concentration camp. No, this is an internment camp. It's an entirely different word with different spelling and everything."

I just typed in a generic google search and picked the first one that actually talked about something like the application of the word to illegal immigration of refugees. The point was not to prove what is or is not technically a concentration camp, but to demonstrate that the meanings of these phrases are intertwined with their historical use.

Okay, so the first recognized implementation of a concentration [or "reconcentración"] camp occurred more than a century ago as Cuba fought for independence from Spain. A governor-general serving Spain in Cuba proffered a means for Spain to win this hard-fought battle with rebels would be to remove protections for them offered by otherwise law abiding Cuban citizens by detaining those citizens. But this governor-general, Arsenio Martínez Campos, was conflicted; the rebels Spain was fighting were merciful and returned Spanish prisoners of war unharmed, and so he was unwilling to execute this plan, instead he offered to surrender his post. The idea flew, and Spain recalled Campos to be replaced by someone who was willing to execute the plan...a General Valeriano Weyler, nicknamed "The Butcher". The plan was executed without the intent to execute those interned, however many thousands died anyway as a result of living conditions and lack of food and clean water.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/concentration-camps-existed-long-before-Auschwitz-180967049/

In this case, I think the abuse is to insist on the term "concentration camp" for use with illegal immigration detention centers in the US today, precisely because the speaker knows that it will bring up mental images of Nazi Germany.

If the audience lets it. Or even wants it to.

Concentration camps didn't begin and end with Nazi Germany. They took it a step beyond, specifically to the point of death camps.

 

[Danoff]

Concentration camps didn't begin and end with Nazi Germany. They took it a step beyond, specifically to the point of death camps.

I understand that that's how you think of the term. I even understand that that's how the term was historically used prior to WWII. I can even see a technical argument for the literal phrasing of the term when dissecting the word "concentration" for example (as I tried to illustrate above with my tongue in cheek example). I realize I'm beating a dead horse here because you've long since gotten my point, but just in case, I'll hit it once more.

That's not what people think of when you say concentration camp, so it's not effective communication. They think death camp and forced labor.

 

[TexRex]

That's not what people think of when you say concentration camp, so it's not effective communication. They think death camp and forced labor.

They're wrong.

 

[Danoff]

They're wrong.

That's not really how language works.

 

[TexRex]

That's not really how language works.

Why should the speaker pander to the misinformed who don't grasp the defining difference between a concentration camp and an extermination camp?

 

[Danoff]

Why should the speaker pander to the misinformed who don't grasp the defining difference between a concentration camp and an extermination camp?

In order to communicate.

This is not a problem which is unique to this particular subject. A similar example occurs in the God thread all the time, where religious people use the term "believe" or "faith" in a colloquial sense, and abuse the informal understandings of these terms against the technical interpretation of them. Nobody is "right" in that case. It's not that there is a single absolute definition of belief, or faith, or even theory. There are lots of sloppy uses of those words.

If I proceed in those threads as though this were not the case, as though there was no alternative meaning, and insisted that mine was the only meaning (even though many people, maybe even the majority of people do not understand a rigorous definition for those words), then I am not going to communicate effectively and the fault will be mine. Because I knew that these alternative meanings and uses for those words existed, and I knew that I would invoke the wrong mental imagery in my intended conversation recipient, and I proceeded anyway.

As a result, in that thread I've had to take great care to explain the meanings of those terms with each new person - to make sure that I'm communicating effectively.

In this case, the people using the phrase "concentration camp" know damned well that they're invoking Nazi Germany with the term, and are doing so precisely for that reason. That is what I would call deception, even if they can fall back on a technical argument. But even if they did not intend that their words would be received in this way, they should still clarify the meaning of the term when they know that their audience's interpretation of their words is not their intended meaning, because their goal should be to communicate effectively.

If that happens time and again, the meaning of the phrase "concentration camp" could be reclaimed from the Nazi implementation. But as of right now, I don't believe it has been.