Technically, nothing. In the same way that “person who committed thievery” is a correct term for “thief.” People may not be illegal, but we call them criminals all the time.
But you realize that’s not what’s in the headline, right?
Like, if you’re trying to actually learn I’m down to clarify, but it feels like you just want to argue the line as close to dehumanizing these people as you can…
No, I just don’t find much point in the “no human is illegal” thing. Nobody is saying that being a human is illegal, or that they are innately illegal. But people can be criminals. Do you prefer the term “criminal foreigner” rather than “illegal foreigner”?
Nobody is saying that being a human is illegal, or that they are innately illegal.
The headline:
Illegal foreigners
But in case you’re honestly trying to learn:
Use an adjective to describe a person. Don’t use a noun to label to them.
Christian’s are the exception because they “took it back” like over a thousand years ago when they became the majority, it’s perfectly fine for them to prefer that. But it doesn’t effect any other group.
And it’s not just religions, literally every group in every conversation;
Christians are different for the reason I already mentioned…
Christian’s are the exception because they “took it back” like over a thousand years ago when they became the majority, it’s perfectly fine for them to prefer that. But it doesn’t effect any other group.
I know you said you’re legitimately trying to understand.
Thinking it’s not okay to describe someone as Muslim or Buddhist is pretty funny. I wonder if nationalities are okay, can I be a Finn or should I be “a person of Finnish citizenship” lmao. Come on. Wikipedia uses the term “Muslim”, pretty sure Muslims call themselves Muslims, everyone calls them Muslims.
But I’m not spending anymore time helping.
There’s a bazillion nouns used about people, thinking that as a general rule you shouldn’t use a noun, I just have hard time you are being serious about this.
Technically, nothing. In the same way that “person who committed thievery” is a correct term for “thief.” People may not be illegal, but we call them criminals all the time.
But you realize that’s not what’s in the headline, right?
Like, if you’re trying to actually learn I’m down to clarify, but it feels like you just want to argue the line as close to dehumanizing these people as you can…
No, I just don’t find much point in the “no human is illegal” thing. Nobody is saying that being a human is illegal, or that they are innately illegal. But people can be criminals. Do you prefer the term “criminal foreigner” rather than “illegal foreigner”?
The modern American right wing would like to object.
The headline:
But in case you’re honestly trying to learn:
Use an adjective to describe a person. Don’t use a noun to label to them.
Christian’s are the exception because they “took it back” like over a thousand years ago when they became the majority, it’s perfectly fine for them to prefer that. But it doesn’t effect any other group.
And it’s not just religions, literally every group in every conversation;
Use adjectives.
Not nouns.
You don’t think it’s okay to refer to people as Muslim or Buddhist but Christian is fine?
Someone who is…
Christians are different for the reason I already mentioned…
I know you said you’re legitimately trying to understand.
But I’m not spending anymore time helping.
Thinking it’s not okay to describe someone as Muslim or Buddhist is pretty funny. I wonder if nationalities are okay, can I be a Finn or should I be “a person of Finnish citizenship” lmao. Come on. Wikipedia uses the term “Muslim”, pretty sure Muslims call themselves Muslims, everyone calls them Muslims.
There’s a bazillion nouns used about people, thinking that as a general rule you shouldn’t use a noun, I just have hard time you are being serious about this.