TheThrowaway
No bio...
User ID: 2171
TheThrowaway
1mo ago
As above, I think that's fair, and that was the example I had in mind. FWIW, with respect to voluntary migrants coming, I wouldn't use the phrase myself or think it accurate. I probably also wouldn't object to the same kind of gentle "hey, that's more heat than light, please don't" in response. It seems a bit of a closer case that "ICE is kidnapping us" to me, but it's the same kind of thing.
I do disagree that it's a hugbox kind of issue, though - I think they're both good examples of inflammatory language that obscures discussion of the actual scope of the underlying issues.
TheThrowaway
1mo ago
Totally fair - I suppose i'd like to see our discussions here stay a bit above that level.
TheThrowaway
1mo ago
I'd certainly be willing to entertain that argument, depending on the context - it's a less precise word so i'd probably (perhaps due to my legal-adjacent background) be more permissive around it, but I could definitely envision cases where it's so over-the-top that it would be worth at least a "hey, please knock it off, that's completely disconnected from reality" kind of response. In this particular case, at least if what we're talking about is the generic ICE apprehension, "kidnap" just seems like a boo-word for an agency that people happen to dislike but which is (despite some people's fervent beliefs) an actual law enforcement with agency with actual law enforcement agency powers enforcing actual immigration laws. If you want to argue against the current actual state of ICE or immigration law, no problem - but using "kidnap" to describe the modal immigration enforcement action is effectively the same as saying the police want to "kidnap" those suspected of felonies.
TheThrowaway
1mo ago
I'm not asking for the post to be modded, but I strongly agree with @zeke5123a's argument here (and disagree with yours). "Kidnap" is an actual verifiable crime with specific elements. Using it explicitly and repeatedly to describe the actions of a real, actual (whether you like them or not) law enforcement agency engaged in their real, actual work of law enforcement within their permitted scope is, at a minimum, maximally antagonistic and nearly definitionally an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence. Asking that it not be used to generically describe what ICE does in the extraordinarily vast majority of cases is not asking you to adjudicate the truth of claims, it's asking you to apply the rule against being antagonistic and uncharitable and hew to the rules of this place (reasoned discourse tuned for light instead of heat). Unless the argument is that ICE is somehow not statutorily properly constituted or has not properly had powers of immigration enforcement delegated to them, "kidnapped" is pure heat and zero light.
TheThrowaway
7mo ago
Are cradle Orthodox accepted? Count me in if so.
TheThrowaway
8mo ago
Answering as my younger self, i'd probably do some initial sort to eliminate ones with some particularly off-putting personality trait or very gross physical features that would mean the baseline amount of sexual attraction just wouldn't be there. Above the minimum physical attraction threshold, basically not at all concerned with trying to pick the "hottest" as then it's more important to find both a personality, philosophly/values, and commitment match.
I may be highly unrepresentative, but I would sleep with precisely zero of them before getting to know them and, at a minimum, not suspecting or knowing they weren't marriage material. Sleeping with someone I would not consider a potential serious long-term partner seems actively repellant, and I strongly dislike other men who have a significantly different outlook on relationships and women.
I agree. I was about to make a similar comment in this weeks's thread as well (and, to be clear, i'm not a fan of ICE as such and i'm not upset by the language in a "personal" kind of way). And my objection isn't specifically that it upsets people - it's that it upsets people while being factually unsupportable in any reasonable sense (hence the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" statement above), and as such actually degrades accuracy (though, I admit, it does promote openness in the "I can say exactly what I feel" sense).
More options
Context Copy link