this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
24 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3228 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eatthecake@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

From the transcript of the speech:

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: What about Laken Riley?

(Cross-talk.)

AUDIENCE: Booo —

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: Say her name!

THE PRESIDENT: (The President holds up a pin reading “Say Her Name, Laken Riley.”) Lanken — Lanken (Laken) Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed.

REPRESENTATIVE GREENE: By an illegal!

THE PRESIDENT: By an illegal. That’s right. But how many of thousands of people are being killed by legals?

I don't see the problem. His response rightly points out that murders happen regardless of the perpetrators legal status.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 6 points 8 months ago (10 children)

It's just how propaganda works.

At any given time, there are a few different anecdotal-type "talking points" that are the new thing everyone's talking about. You're going to be hearing about Biden saying "an illegal" for a little while, even though as your transcript notes, it wasn't even him that chose the wording. People form their picture of the world through these little gestalt-facts, and if you can pick one that will shape the narrative you want to present, and arrange for people to hear it over and over from a variety of sources, and do that in a constant stream that all points to the same types of conclusions, it actually does a pretty good job at controlling how they'll perceive the totality of the situation.

It's almost exactly the same as how you will hear over and over that:

  • We broke a record for fossil fuel extraction in 2023
  • Biden's climate bill includes giving money to oil and gas companies

... and then all this weight of emotion behind how bad Biden is for the climate, how he's just the same, how it's such a shame that I as a good climate-change person can't support him... etc etc. Because the little factoids are in fact accurate, and properly sized and shaped to stick in your brain, they count as "supporting evidence" for Biden being bad on the climate.

The reality is, the way to analyze Biden's performance on the climate is to ask what's the total content of the climate bill he got passed, and what impact it's expected to have. That's it. Just like the reality is that how he performs on immigration has nothing at all to do with whether he said "an illegal" in this specific context.

If you hear someone repeating one of these specific little factoids, or if you start to see one specific one that is commonly repeated, my advice is to become suspicious of the message on top of which it is being placed, like a little evidence-cherry.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

Always be wary of the Concern Troll.

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

>You're going to be hearing about Biden saying "an illegal" for a little while, even though as your transcript notes, it wasn't even him that chose the wording.

why isn't he accountable for the words that come out of his mouth?

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Dude just give it a rest. The transcript speaks for itself and you or me or any other person can just read it and form their conclusions. If you read it and your conclusions are some specific way, then of course you're welcome to that opinion.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

The only real problem is he gave them a sound bite.

Which, I mean, even if he didn’t, they’d try and manufacture something anyhow.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Ugh, the liberal handwringing over this term is how we make more Republicans. Is that term all that significant in contrast with what the policies will be? No.

[–] sailingbythelee@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Correct. I'm pretty sure that "illegal" is just the short form of "illegal alien". And is that the accepted legal term for a foreign national who is in the US illegally, right?

Honestly, all of this language policing just turns the average person right off. I mean, I suppose it wouldn't be necessary if the Republicans weren't constantly sneering at people, but still. It is better to reclaim terms the Republicans abuse rather than try to language-police hundreds of millions of people. It is very, very off-putting.

[–] scottywh@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

This article and, from the sounds of it, Biden's interview from yesterday both sound like a great refute to trump's putting down / making fun of Biden for "apologizing" for referring to the man as "an illegal".

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Note that in all this, there is not a single word of censure across the board, by anyone, including herself, for Marjorie Taylor Greene, the embarrassment of a representative that originally used the word "illegal" in reference to a human being that Biden repeated as she heckled him from across the chamber floor.

Note also that Biden takes 100% responsibility for what comes out of his own mouth, regardless of the circumstances, doesn't use being led into it by a howler monkey as an excuse, and instead acknowledges that "illegal" is a hurtful term and he used it and wishes he hadn't and that's all that matters.

This, in a nutshell, is where the rubber meets the road between a person with a working conscience and one without.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] heavy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 8 months ago

I mean, I get it, we should hold the president to higher standards and be more inclusive overall. All I'm saying is don't forget that Biden, much like all of us, are products of our environment, and that includes our time. At the end of the day he has been far more cognizant and considerate of the diversity in America than his predacesors and many others currently in government. Look no further than that house inquiry to TikTok and how that representative didn't know the difference between China and Singapore.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


President Joe Biden in a wide-ranging interview with MSNBC on Saturday defended his direct criticism of the Supreme Court for its 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health and said that he regrets having referred to an undocumented immigrant as an “illegal.”

In the statement, a campaign spokesperson responded to news about the passage of a fetal personhood bill in the Iowa state House that could have negative implications for patients seeking in vitro fertilization treatments.

Trump’s record speaks for itself: his Supreme Court pick Amy Coney Barrett refused to say if she would oppose criminalizing IVF,” senior campaign spokesperson Lauren Hitt said in the statement.

Biden said Saturday that in his speech to Congress, he was attempting to highlight the differences between rhetoric offered by himself and former President Donald Trump about the border, pledging not to “treat any of these people with disrespect.”

The president added, “I don’t share [Trump’s] view at all,” saying that immigrants “built the country, [are] the reason our economy is growing,” but still, “we have to control the border and more orderly flow.”

Still, Biden was firm that Israel “cannot have 30,000 more Palestinians dead as a consequence of going after [Hamas],” likely citing figures showing that more than 30,000 people in Gaza have been killed, according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry.


The original article contains 759 words, the summary contains 219 words. Saved 71%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I really dislike the newspeak about "undocumented immigrants" vs "illegal immigrants". The problem isn't that they don't have documents. The problem is that they entered the country illegally.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, they committed a misdemeanor. So when you jaywalk you’re an illegal pedestrian, and when you do a rolling stop at a stop sign you’re an illegal driver.

So what kinds of illegal are you? I’d assume at the very least an illegal pedestrian, likely also an illegal driver. Are you by chance an illegal shopper as well?

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

So when you jaywalk you’re an illegal pedestrian

Sure, that's not a term anybody really uses though.

when you do a rolling stop at a stop sign you’re an illegal driver

No, an illegal driver is a driver without a license. It's a pretty widely used term. There's also "illegal doctor" for people who are practicing medicine without a license. Normally when the term is used it's not for a brief violation of the law, but for a persistent status.

So what kinds of illegal are you?

If you think "illegal pedestrian" is a thing, I've been that pretty often, but I've never been caught. Was this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Illegal driver" and "illegal doctor" are also terms that nobody uses.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

They're not common, but they most definitely are used, and nobody objects because it accurately describes the situation.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The point is that an illegal immigrant makes it sound like the human being themselves is illegal. Literally the law they broke is on the same level as jay walking. That’s why people shouldn’t be using the dehumanizing term illegal immigrant.

However, I think you already understood that.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (6 children)

an illegal immigrant makes it sound like the human being themselves is illegal

No it doesn't, that's why the word "immigrant" is there, to describe what the illegal thing was. So, an illegal doctor is a doctor who doesn't have a license. An illegal motorist is someone who is driving a car without a license. Nobody thinks that the human being is "illegal" whatever that means, it's the immigration that was illegal.

Literally the law they broke is on the same level as jay walking

No, it's not. Has anybody ever been removed from a country when they've been caught jay walking? Even a fine is extremely rare. Being in a country illegally is a more serious offense by a pretty large margin.

However, I think you already understood that.

I understood that some people trot out those terrible arguments, but I don't think even they actually believe them.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it does. That's the whole point of why it's bad to use the word "illegal" as a noun to describe people. And that's why people do so. Dehumanization. They're not an illegal immigrant. They're "an illegal". Barely even a person.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

That’s the whole point of why it’s bad to use the word “illegal” as a noun

We're talking about using the word illegal as an adjective: "illegal immigrant". Immigrant is a noun, illegal is an adjective.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Nobody thinks that the human being is "illegal" whatever that means, it's the immigration that was illegal.

If you honestly think this, you’re not paying attention.

Has anybody ever been removed from a country when they've been caught jay walking?

What kind of argument is this? Jay walking and littering are on the same level, has a jay walker ever been forced to go back and pick up their litter? Cmon, you’re smart enough to understand that different crimes can be at the same level, and still have different punishments.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you honestly think this, you’re not paying attention.

I'm aware that there is a lot of discrimination against immigrants, both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. But, that discrimination isn't caused by referring to them by an accurate term.

What kind of argument is this?

It's a response to the stupid statement "Literally the law they broke is on the same level as jay walking", which is clearly not true.

has a jay walker ever been forced to go back and pick up their litter

What does litter have to do with jay walking. Do you even understand what jay walking is?

different crimes can be at the same level, and still have different punishments

No.... that's what makes the "level" different. A crime that is punished more severely is at a more severe "level" than one that isn't. Come on, this isn't rocket surgery...

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Oh lordy.

So the dehumanizing term should be used because it’s not the reason people are dehumanizing the people.

Are you can fan of racial slurs by chance? Because “it’s just an accurate word for black people” is something racists say about certain words as well.

What does litter have to do with jay walking.

What does leaving the country have to do with jay walking?…

I’m simply using your own flawed logic. And you’re proving my point.

How exactly is rectifying the law broken a harsher punishment? How would it make any sense to just charge them a fine and let them be on their way? That’s like saying you should just fine someone littering and then ignore the fact that they are continuing to actively litter.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

So the dehumanizing term

It's not a dehumanizing term. That's ridiculous.

What does leaving the country have to do with jay walking?…

Nothing. Is your brain mushy?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] juergen@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I dislike Biden immeasurably less than Trump, and I plan to vote for him in November, yet:

“It is a red line," Biden said, adding, “but I’m never gonna leave Israel. The defense of Israel is still critical.”

That sounds to me like there is, in fact, not a red line.

Drawing a line without any consequences for crossing it is worse than not drawing a line at all (source: my pedagogy prof, many, many moons ago).

I realize that Biden did not, in fact, say that there were not going to be any consequences at all - but the other thing with lines is that the consequences need to be known in advance, and they need to be adhered to. From all I'm hearing in interviews, the US government seems very hesitant to commit to any consequences, and if the slaughter keeps going, it may save Netanyahu's political career, but seriously bite Biden in the tush come election day.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Didn't he say something about a 2 state solution being the eventual goal?

[–] juergen@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 8 months ago (9 children)

Yes, he has been saying this. What is lacking is a plan to get there. Against the opposition of the current Israeli government.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The two state solution here seems to be a border with Israel on one side and Egypt on the other.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Furbag@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

For as good as the SOTU address was, I agree that that one line where he used the term "illegal" came off very wrong when I heard it. I thought it was very out of character for him to use the same language that Republicans use to dehumanize people. I'm glad he at least recognizes that it was wrong.

load more comments
view more: next ›