The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[TexRex]

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 know 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.

Yeeeeeaaahh...I'm going to make it very clear that I think the notion--that one individual or group's actions, no matter how heinous, get to change the meaning of a word that was used before and after those actions simply because the applications before and after were in reference to actions that weren't as heinous and therefore don't stand out in the minds of the ignorant (used here as it's defined rather than as a pejorative)--is ridiculous.

Edit: If people want to be offended by a particular parallel being highlighted, they really ought to be sure they're informed first.

 

[Danoff]

Yeeeeeaaahh...I'm going to make it very clear that I think the notion--that one individual or group's actions, no matter how heinous, get to change the meaning of a word that was used before and after those actions simply because the applications before and after were in reference to actions that weren't as heinous and therefore don't stand out in the minds of the ignorant (used here as it's defined rather than as a pejorative)--is ridiculous.

That's literally how language works - it changes based on the way words get used and interpreted over time. Just ask the NAACP.

Edit: And just to be clear, I don't mean literally as figuratively, which is included in its meaning these days.

 

[TexRex]

That's literally how language works - it changes based on the way words get used and interpreted over time. Just ask the NAACP.

Words have meanings. Other words have other meanings. "Concentration" and "extermination" don't actually mean the same thing. If I have an insect problem in my residence, calling a concentration specialist isn't actually going to help...unless I want an ant farm.

 

[Danoff]

Words have meanings. Other words have other meanings. "Concentration" and "extermination" don't actually mean the same thing. If I have an insect problem in my residence, calling a concentration specialist isn't actually going to help...unless I want an ant farm.

Successful communication requires two people, each of which being willing to understand how the meaning of the words they choose will be interpreted by the recipient, otherwise it doesn't work. No word has a fixed intrinsic meaning, it's all made up.

 

[ryzno]

"We're holding these people against their will, under threat of execution by armed guard,

Yeah but they aren't killing people and they aren't drinking water from a toilet.
Jails/Prisons have efficiently designed toilets where the sink just happens to be built into the toilet.
Y'all must've never seen a jail intake, even when I got off I still had to sit for some days and wait, cry me a river...

 

[PeterJB]

Considering the politicians pushing the concentration camp narrative are the same ones that regular make Hitler comparisons of Trump chances are the German variety of concentration camps are the ones they're thinking of.

 

[ScottPuss20]

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.

But attacking their own country is an attack on patriotism and Trump doesn't like that. Hence why he made such a comment. Whether he was right to do so is questionable, especially in these times. Look I understand how hard it would be to leave everything behind, so if you aren't prepared to do that, you should probably shut up. That's just what I think but if your logic is anything to go by, people have the right to express criticism against their country. But to say that the US has concentration camps is a gigantic stretch indeed.

 

[TexRex]

But attacking their own country is an attack on patriotism and Trump doesn't like that.

Criticism isn't an attack, it's criticism. Someone as fragile as Trump perceives it as an attack and attacks right back rather than addressing criticism.

I ****ing love my country. I support the armed forces. I don't love everything my country does. I don't support everything the armed forces are tasked with doing. A real patriot doesn't kowtow to injustices perpetrated through policy; a real patriot speaks up.

Hence why he made such a comment.

Oh I'm well aware of his motivations for saying what he did. It's easier to attack than address.

Whether he was right to do so is questionable, especially in these times.

He wasn't...regardless of the times. Traitorous critic fallacy, ad hominem; attack the critic instead of addressing the criticism.

Look I understand how hard it would be to leave everything behind, so if you aren't prepared to do that, you should probably shut up.

Nope.

That's just what I think but if your logic is anything to go by, people have the right to express criticism against their country.

If? Why shouldn't an individual's criticism be received?

I'm prepared to consider what you have to say on the matter. Are you prepared to elaborate?

But to say that the US has concentration camps is a gigantic stretch indeed.

Large group of people with a common broad [Latin-American] ethnicity held captive under threat of execution by armed guard without indictment or trial in a court of law. What's the stretch?

 

[ScottPuss20]

Criticism isn't an attack, it's criticism. Someone as fragile as Trump perceives it as an attack and attacks right back rather than addressing criticism.

I ****ing love my country. I support the armed forces. I don't love everything my country does. I don't support everything the armed forces are tasked with doing. A real patriot doesn't kowtow to injustices perpetrated through policy; a real patriot speaks up.


He wasn't...regardless of the times. Traitorous critic fallacy, ad hominem; attack the critic instead of addressing the criticism.


I'm prepared to consider what you have to say on the matter. Are you prepared to elaborate?


Large group of people with a common broad [Latin-American] ethnicity held captive under threat of execution by armed guard without indictment or trial in a court of law. What's the stretch?

I must be pretty stupid if I think a criticism is an attack... Also, concentration camps were made to exterminate people, and how these Latin Americans being put to death? Yes, the threat is present but that's all it is... Isn't it?

 

[TexRex]

I must be pretty stupid if I think a criticism is an attack...

I didn't call you stupid or even say you think that criticism is an attack, rather I addressed what you said. In turn you've opted to play the victim and allege that I attacked you--which is itself an attack--instead of addressing what I said. Would you like to try a different approach?

Also, concentration camps were made to exterminate people,

Concentration camps, from their conception, were made to hold people in concentration, often with minimal input on the front end thanks to the advent of barbed wire and the machine gun.

Extermination camps were made to exterminate people. Full stop.

Not all prisons were built with the facilities to execute those who have been sentenced to execution in a manner deemed acceptable by the criminal justice system. These prisons were not built to provide this "service". Other prisons were. This one distinction separates the two types of facility.

and how these Latin Americans being put to death?

At what point did I assert that they are?

Yes, the threat is present but that's all it is... Isn't it?

Can you guarantee that someone who makes an effort to escape...because they just have to get out of there even if it means not being granted a life in the United States...doesn't risk being shot for doing so? What's the point in having armed guards if such a scenario isn't possible? That's kinda the whole point of holding someone captive under threat of execution by armed guard.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I didn't call you stupid or even say you think that criticism is an attack, rather I addressed what you said. In turn you've opted to play the victim and allege that I attacked you--which is itself an attack--instead of addressing what I said. Would you like to try a different approach?

I was saying that about myself.

Can you guarantee that someone who makes an effort to escape...because they just have to get out of there even if it means not being granted a life in the United States...doesn't risk being shot for doing so? What's the point in having armed guards if such a scenario isn't possible? That's kinda the whole point of holding someone captive under threat of execution by armed guard.

Oh so they COULD shoot if they needed to. But they haven't, so what's the problem? Also, are you talking about the Latin Americans currently living in the US or the immigrants being held at the border?

 

[TexRex]

I was saying that about myself.

Yeah, okay, whatever. Onward...

Oh so they COULD shoot if they needed to.

The threat makes it possible to hold a large number of people against their will with a relative minimal armed force, as has been the case since the idea was conceived.

Still, I asked you something and you've deflected. What's the point of having armed guards if not to make that threat very clear? What happens in the event that one of these people decides they really don't want to be held anymore and attempts to escape? Can you guarantee one or more of these armed guards doesn't shoot and kill this individual? If so, how?

But they haven't, so what's the problem?

That they're being held under threat of execution by armed guard without indictment or criminal trial. They're ostensibly being held because they've committed the act of unlawful entry (which is necessary to apply for affirmative asylum when lawful entry is deemed not possible, and by law they can't be discriminated against because of their means of entry when applying for affirmative asylum) but there have been no criminal proceedings. Unless you can demonstrate that there have.

Also, are you talking about the Latin Americans currently living in the US or the immigrants being held at the border?

I mean...you have a 50/50 shot at guessing and I dare say you really don't need a coin.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Also, concentration camps were made to exterminate people

That isn't the function of all concentration camps. They're simply temporary (or semi-temporary) prisons in which large numbers of people are kept pre-judice by the state. If you pretend that the Nazi camps are the only concentration camps of the last 150 years then your claim still doesn't work.

 

[Liquid]

On the subject of language, as Sean Lock once said:

Waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay sounds really fun if you don't know what either of those two things is.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

This whole tweet thing is ridiculous. There was nothing racist in those tweets.

'America, love it or leave it'

That saying (maybe the first meme) has been around my whole life (and I remember watching the first moon landing as a little kid). It is a figure of speech.

I watched as ABC News reporters called the tweets racist and even Inside Edition (really?). They were not racist.

These women say Trump is running concentration camps for Christ's sake. Screw them.

 

[JKgo]

....I heard about this tweet thing through a Youtube clip of The View (of all things) yesterday.

I've heard that "Go back to your country" thing plenty enough times to tell you, it's inherently racist in nature - the whole premise is based on the assumption that you aren't a fellow (insert country)-man due to your skin colour or the way you speak.

Having said that, I read the offending tweet in question, and his Donaldness seems to have left himself a backdoor in case things went sideways - he immediately followed the "go back" comment with "...then come back and show us how it's done."

Sometimes, I just can't tell whether he's really smart or just spontaneously stupid.

 

[Dennisch]

American politics in the first place is about making your opponents look bad, and he is the absolute king when it comes to flapping his big mouth. But in the process he also makes himself look a bit (quite a bit) dumb from time to time.

But the wallets of the majority of the people stay filled, and that will keep him in the seat.

 

[Liquid]

'America, love it or leave it

The problem with that saying is that people's idea of "America" is very different; significant amounts of people hold different views of what the United States should be and can independently love the United States but not the United States their opposition loves, their vision of the United States.

 

[Danoff]

This whole tweet thing is ridiculous. There was nothing racist in those tweets.

'America, love it or leave it'

If he'd said that then sure. But he didn't.

 

[TenEightyOne]

These women say Trump is running concentration camps for Christ's sake. Screw them.

Based on the fact EDIT: my observation that it's largely Americans who don't see that the border camps are concentration camps by definition: do you think Americans-in-general are aware of any historical concentration camps aside from the Nazi death camps?

 

[Danoff]

As far as the technical argument goes, they're not concentration camps.

Based on the fact EDIT: my observation that it's largely Americans who don't see that the border camps are concentration camps by definition: do you think Americans-in-general are aware of any historical concentration camps aside from the Nazi death camps?

They're not by definition. Unless you're dissecting the word to mean a camp and something about concentration, in which case I'm pretty sure Burning Man is a concentration camp.

Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons.

Edit:

Also, just to ride this train of thought for a second, if Americans have a different idea of what a concentration camp is than people outside of America, it still doesn't do to tell Americans that the camp in America is a concentration camp, since that's not what the term means to them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

They're not by definition. Unless you're dissecting the word to mean a camp and something about concentration, in which case I'm pretty sure Burning Man is a concentration camp.

If it's operated by the authorities for the purposes of detention then yes. Obviously I know it isn't.

 

[Danoff]

If it's operated by the authorities for the purposes of detention then yes. Obviously I know it isn't.

I think you might have missed my point (or I missed yours). If you're breaking the phrase "concentration camp" into its literal bits, you can call lots of things (including Burning Man and the ADHD summer camp I posted earlier) a concentration camp. If you're not breaking the phrase into its literal bits, then you're subscribing to a socially understood meaning that goes beyond the socially understood meaning of the components. The phrase is more than the sum of its parts, and in that case, it might mean something pretty specific. In this case at least one authority on meanings of phrases says that that specific meaning does not include the temporary detention center for displaced person, or for people who are held for civil crimes.

But regardless, if Americans generally think concentration camp means death camp, then to Americans that's what it means. Taking it to mean something else should be done explicitly.

Bottom line, they're being called concentration camps so that we can pretend that the Trump administration is Hitler.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Sander 001]

 

[Danoff]

@Sander 001 gold

 

[Sander 001]

Don’t mean to be hogging the thread but this was too poignant to not post:

 

[Northstar]

Of course it's not about illegal immigration, it's about keeping attention off the 2020 election while still keeping Trump in the news.

 

[Sander 001]

Of course it's not about illegal immigration, it's about keeping attention off the 2020 election while still keeping Trump in the news.

No, it’s very closely related to this

and this

 

[Northstar]

No, it’s very closely related to this

Perhaps I should elaborate as it's pretty obvious what Trump is doing once you really look at it.

None of the 4 women he went after are running against him, so the more the media focuses on them, the less time they focus on his actual opponents. The media really has no choice but to play along as well since if they just brush off anything Trump says they will be accused of censoring him. The topics he posts about don't really matter, because what Trump's base will focus on is the reaction they get from the "liberal media". So oddly, by MSM being viewed as biased and having an agenda, they are playing right into Trump's hand.

This is the exact same thing he pulled in 2016 and unfortunately it seems to be working again in round 2. The media may not have a choice in the matter, but everyone else does. If you really want Trump to lose, stop giving him the reaction he is seeking!