RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'd pay good money to see him presented with a world map, a marker pen and a request to draw a line where he thinks the Great Wall is

He would sign the map. We all know this to be true.

Puja

Across the bit that's China? Or would he opt for perhaps India, or maybe even Australia?

It would just be where the pen happened to land first. I wouldn't guarantee that he'd even be able to recognise it as a representation of the planet.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
He would sign the map. We all know this to be true.

Puja

Across the bit that's China? Or would he opt for perhaps India, or maybe even Australia?

It would just be where the pen happened to land first. I wouldn't guarantee that he'd even be able to recognise it as a representation of the planet.

Puja

Tbf whilst I've got some idea where I'd start to draw the wall on China's east coast, I'm not quite sure how closely it runs to the border, nor quite how far through the country it runs beyond it goes a long way

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
Across the bit that's China? Or would he opt for perhaps India, or maybe even Australia?

It would just be where the pen happened to land first. I wouldn't guarantee that he'd even be able to recognise it as a representation of the planet.

Puja

Tbf whilst I've got some idea where I'd start to draw the wall on China's east coast, I'm not quite sure how closely it runs to the border, nor quite how far through the country it runs it goes a long way

start in North China and essentially scribble. It's more a lot of walls, rather than a wall...
I think

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
It would just be where the pen happened to land first. I wouldn't guarantee that he'd even be able to recognise it as a representation of the planet.

Puja

Tbf whilst I've got some idea where I'd start to draw the wall on China's east coast, I'm not quite sure how closely it runs to the border, nor quite how far through the country it runs it goes a long way

start in North China and essentially scribble. It's more a lot of walls, rather than a wall...
I think

Fine, nonetheless if presented with my own challenge I'd be drawing one line that sort of follows the border more than half way across the country but I'm not quite sure how far, nor where it loops, nor...

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Tbf whilst I've got some idea where I'd start to draw the wall on China's east coast, I'm not quite sure how closely it runs to the border, nor quite how far through the country it runs it goes a long way

start in North China and essentially scribble. It's more a lot of walls, rather than a wall...
I think

Fine, nonetheless if presented with my own challenge I'd be drawing one line that sort of follows the border more than half way across the country but I'm not quite sure how far, nor where it loops, nor...

It doesn’t matter, all you need to remember is that it was bigly successful and there are vanishingly few Mexicans in China.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:start in North China and essentially scribble. It's more a lot of walls, rather than a wall...
I think

Fine, nonetheless if presented with my own challenge I'd be drawing one line that sort of follows the border more than half way across the country but I'm not quite sure how far, nor where it loops, nor...

It doesn’t matter, all you need to remember is that it was bigly successful and there are vanishingly few Mexicans in China.

I do recall the video celebrating it was okay to have America first but could they please have Holland 2nd, and the Dutch had built a great ocean wall to keep out the Mexicans

morepork wrote:Fuck him and his platoon of red hat wearing ignorant crackers.

FHAHPORHWIC

Come on... insult us without using racial slurs... you can do better... thats weak Porky.

Please....

cashead wrote:You support a government that rips children away from their parents, has caused literal children to die in literal fucking concentration camps, and has withheld hygiene products from children. But hey, "he called me a cracker." Get fucked.

You keep using this word literal, I don't think it means what you think it means

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:You support a government that rips children away from their parents, has caused literal children to die in literal fucking concentration camps, and has withheld hygiene products from children. But hey, "he called me a cracker." Get fucked.

You keep using this word literal, I don't think it means what you think it means

What's wrong with the use of it there?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:You support a government that rips children away from their parents, has caused literal children to die in literal fucking concentration camps, and has withheld hygiene products from children. But hey, "he called me a cracker." Get fucked.

You keep using this word literal, I don't think it means what you think it means

What's wrong with the use of it there?

Puja

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the purpose of the camps isn't to concentrate on fucking

Also why literal children? Are there children who we wouldn't deem literal?

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
You keep using this word literal, I don't think it means what you think it means

What's wrong with the use of it there?

Puja

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the purpose of the camps isn't to concentrate on fucking

Also why literal children? Are there children who we wouldn't deem literal?

That is a new high in pedantry, considering that it's obvious to even a casual observer that literal modifies concentration camp and fucking is an intensifier rather than a verb. And while you are technically correct that all children are literally children, the effect here is to expressly confirm that the use of the word children isn't hyperbole but referring to genuine minors. These are perfectly valid uses of the English language that might be difficult for a software program to parse, but not for a native speaker of the language with half a brain.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
What's wrong with the use of it there?

Puja

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the purpose of the camps isn't to concentrate on fucking

Also why literal children? Are there children who we wouldn't deem literal?

That is a new high in pedantry, considering that it's obvious to even a casual observer that literal modifies concentration camp and fucking is an intensifier rather than a verb. And while you are technically correct that all children are literally children, the effect here is to expressly confirm that the use of the word children isn't hyperbole but referring to genuine minors. These are perfectly valid uses of the English language that might be difficult for a software program to parse, but not for a native speaker of the language with half a brain.

Puja

The casual user of English is literally far too keen to use words like literal when they're literally not needed.

Also a new high in pedantry? This is a great moment for me, I'd like to thank so many people who made this possible...

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm going out on a limb to suggest the purpose of the camps isn't to concentrate on fucking

Also why literal children? Are there children who we wouldn't deem literal?

That is a new high in pedantry, considering that it's obvious to even a casual observer that literal modifies concentration camp and fucking is an intensifier rather than a verb. And while you are technically correct that all children are literally children, the effect here is to expressly confirm that the use of the word children isn't hyperbole but referring to genuine minors. These are perfectly valid uses of the English language that might be difficult for a software program to parse, but not for a native speaker of the language with half a brain.

Puja

The casual user of English is literally far too keen to use words like literal when they're literally not needed.

Also a new high in pedantry? This is a great moment for me, I'd like to thank so many people who made this possible...

Except it literally is needed here, as people will oft argue that it's an exaggeration to call them concentration camps or to suggest that actual children are put in them.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
What's wrong with the use of it there?

Puja

I'm going out on a limb to suggest the purpose of the camps isn't to concentrate on fucking

Also why literal children? Are there children who we wouldn't deem literal?

That is a new high in pedantry, considering that it's obvious to even a casual observer that literal modifies concentration camp and fucking is an intensifier rather than a verb. And while you are technically correct that all children are literally children, the effect here is to expressly confirm that the use of the word children isn't hyperbole but referring to genuine minors. These are perfectly valid uses of the English language that might be difficult for a software program to parse, but not for a native speaker of the language with half a brain.

Puja

I would actually disagree with the use of literal in this case as a modifier. It's use is the same as the fucking: it's an intensifier.

Which is incorrect, but not in the way Digby suggests, and not in a way that makes the sentence unintelligible or reduces the point. In fact, the only reason I can see for pulling it up is to try and deflect attention from the actual point.

Which is something old Diggers likes to do a lot and often succeeds.

So, to get back to the point...

Yes, Trump's government have literally taken children away from their mothers and put them into "holding camps". These holding camps do not bear any differences whatsoever from concentration camps.

These children belong only to ethnic or social groups different from that of the government.

Therefore it is quite fair to compare Trump's government to the Nazis.

Is that something you really want to support?

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
That is a new high in pedantry, considering that it's obvious to even a casual observer that literal modifies concentration camp and fucking is an intensifier rather than a verb. And while you are technically correct that all children are literally children, the effect here is to expressly confirm that the use of the word children isn't hyperbole but referring to genuine minors. These are perfectly valid uses of the English language that might be difficult for a software program to parse, but not for a native speaker of the language with half a brain.

Puja

The casual user of English is literally far too keen to use words like literal when they're literally not needed.

Also a new high in pedantry? This is a great moment for me, I'd like to thank so many people who made this possible...

Except it literally is needed here, as people will oft argue that it's an exaggeration to call them concentration camps or to suggest that actual children are put in them.

Puja

I don't think you'd find those denying the camps hold children, separate families and even meet some definitions of a concentration camp (though not as bad as all) are going to be swayed by the use of literal. They're going to ignore the facts, say what about Hillary/Obama, or perhaps conclude young snowflakes who like to pepper their conversation with words like literally, and like, can happily be ignored

Though mostly as this is a rugby board I was just amused by the notion that saying children could imply children who weren't literal and that there was a focus on concentration whilst fucking at the camps.

Digby, I think you may be on the spectrum....

Meanwhile, still waiting for some leadership to deal with the increasingly significant problem of nationalists with easy access to weapons:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49391343

This is not OK, and the idiot at the helm does not comprehend the impact of his words in this context. This cancer touched down in NZ earlier this year, so yes, people from other countries can justifiably contribute to this narrative. There really is however no justification whatsoever for this weak leadership, not even a tax cut for the top 10% of earners in the USA. What is it going to take for Americans to front up to this?

The full 48k with rubber keys and all. Still youngsters do use words like literally and like far too often, and if we're going to have concentration camps they do seem the sort of place you'd want to send people using literally for like literally no reason, that would be a public service

Well, that's just like, your opinion man.

Stom wrote:Which is incorrect,

Whilst I'm loving the pedantry debate - I feel that this is harsh. I've not even made my views know yet!

Said opinion would be that thee first "literal" was fine where it was, or could have been used 2 words later "has caused literal children to literally die..."
The second use of "literal" is clearly an intensifier; but would equally be fine without the "fucking"

I generally hate the overuse (and totally incorrect use) of the word literally, but it seemed fairly clear Cashead’s use of it was because people are refusing to acknowledge that children dying in concentration camps is a real thing and not just some liberal media spin-job.

The only defence, beyond them being brown/foreign, seems to be that they’re not really children or not really concentration camps.

I have no idea why I bothered typing that. I’m sure Digby knows, but doesn’t give a shit. Likewise Coco. Oh well.

cashead wrote:And I wonder how long before Sandydragon comes in here and says we all have to play nice with the people white knighting for concentration camps, like the spineless turd that he is.

After all, we all have to also be nice to racists too, right?

Give them a chance to come out and do that before we get riled up though, yeah? Common sense dictates the practice as indefensible, and the overwhelming consensus on this thread is that it is indeed indefensible. Myself, I am very concerned at the volume of young men apparently motivated by this state of affairs that are getting fluffed online to go out and commit atrocities. As I said before, it landed in NZ , and it annoys the pissing fuck out of me having the whole world having to deal with the fallout from stupid commentary and poor leadership from the USA, the place where most of the weapons come from.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:even meet some definitions of a concentration camp (though not as bad as all)

Here's a list of Holocaust and genocide experts who have signed an open letter published in the New York Review of Books, who have stated the camps are concentration camps.



And "not as bad." Go fuck yourself, you repugnant piece of shit.

You're a strange sausage. I say not all as they're not for instance specifically setting out to use those rounded up as slave labour, they're not setting out to feed them into gas chambers, and in such instances they don't meet all the conditions of a concentration camp, but you don't have to meet all the conditions to be called a concentration camp, simply rounding groups such as refugees up is enough.

Fwiw I'd probably refer to what Trump has as detention camps rather than concentration camps, if people are going to call them concentration camps I'm not too fussed about that, I think it's setting up an argument that those who're pro Trump can set off on an argument they're not Nazi's, and that deflection/argument can be happening in important places (rather than on an utterly meaningless rugby message board) but whatever.

As for going and fucking myself, well fine, happily even. It's nothing I've not done before.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:

cashead wrote:
Here's a list of Holocaust and genocide experts who have signed an open letter published in the New York Review of Books, who have stated the camps are concentration camps.



And "not as bad." Go fuck yourself, you repugnant piece of shit.

You're a strange sausage. I say not all as they're not for instance specifically setting out to use those rounded up as slave labour, they're not setting out to feed them into gas chambers, and in such instances they don't meet all the conditions of a concentration camp, but you don't have to meet all the conditions to be called a concentration camp, simply rounding groups such as refugees up is enough.

Fwiw I'd probably refer to what Trump has as detention camps rather than concentration camps, if people are going to call them concentration camps I'm not too fussed about that, I think it's setting up an argument that those who're pro Trump can set off on an argument they're not Nazi's, and that deflection/argument can be happening in important places (rather than on an utterly meaningless rugby message board) but whatever.

As for going and fucking myself, well fine, happily even. It's nothing I've not done before.

For a tedious pedant, it's funny how you actually don't know what a concentration camp is. A concentration camp IS for the detention of a group of people without giving them due process, you absolute tool.

Being a pedant about it I did note the camps meet some of the definitions/standards of being a concentration camp, thus my saying 'you don't have to meet all the conditions to be called a concentration camp, simply rounding groups such as refugees up is enough.'

I'm only saying because they're not using the camps for forced labour and/or execution then myself I'd call them detention camps, as I'd rather address the disgusting situation as is then allow for a deflection argument that Trump isn't a Nazi because they're not inducting families into forced labour and/or seeking their extermination.

If concentration camps as a term wasn't so synonymous with the persecution of the Jews under Hitler then I'd be using the term myself rather than detention camp. But to avoid that deflection argument that Trump is being conflated with Hitelr when he's obviously not as bad then simply for myself I'd avoid saying concentration camp, but I'm not going to jump up and down about others saying concentration camp.

I must admit - this thread is the first time I've read that concentration camps have to be for the express purposes of forced labour or death. whilst most famously associated with the Nazi regime - I never thought they were synonymous either. I'd always learnt that they were invented by the British*, in the boer war, as camps where "undesirables" are concentrated together and kept under close guard - often (but not always) with deliberately poor health and nutrition in order to make escape harder. Prisons for people who aren't prisoners and haven't undergone due process; or POW camps for people who aren't prisoners of war.

Non-combatant Boer were held in concentration camps - to my knowlegde, no forced labour, no gas chambers.
Non-combatant Japenese Americans were held in concentration camps in the US during WW2 - to my knowledge, no forced labour, no gas chambers.
Latinx asylum seekers are being held in concentration camps right now in the US - unequivocally so IMO

ETA:
Oxford dictionary says: "A place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labour or to await mass execution."
Cambridge dictionary says: "a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons"
Miriam-Webster says: "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"
Encyclopaedia Brittanica says: "internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order."

I am failing to see what part of the actual definition these US camps fail to meet (sometimes =/= always)


* - Smithsonian says the Spanish in Cuba beat us to it by 5 years - I would expect some of the crap we pulled in India qualified as well, albeit post-hoc because the term hadn't been invented then.