Words Matter
There is a post here on Google+ where someone posted an image that was obviously not theirs with nothing but a "photographer unknown" in the box that is usually reserved for content creation (hint: it's the same box you're reading this in).
A commentor says, "this is good."
I respond with, "the picture of a child holding an AK47 is good?"
The OP says, "It must be literal day." I'm assuming he's implying that I'm being too literal as he doesn't address the post to me or give any other context.
Regardless, yes, it's literal day. Every day is literal day. Well, every day we communicate with each other anyway. That's why we have words and why those words have meaning. So that we can "literally" know what the other person is trying to communicate.
The first commentor who merely stated, "This is good" could have been talking about the photo itself, in which case he could have been discussing the content (boy with AK47), the composition, the context or any of a dozen other ways in which we might dissect art. But he didn't indicate why he commented "this is good." Did he think the original poster shot the photograph? We don't know. And that's why words matter.
I'm finding this sort of communications ineptitude more often than not. From reporters/bloggers who don't convey their point very well to social media and emails where it takes multiple back and forth messages to clarify the intent of the first message.
Take, for example, a conversation I had on Twitter recently. A man was talking about the immigration issues along the border and Donald Trump's internment camps for border crossers. He said, "this is genocide."
No, it's not. Genocide is the systematic wiping out of a people, culture, religion, etc. There are actually clearly defined guidelines for what _genocide_ is and isn't and he was making the argument that putting people into camps was in itself a genocidal act.
In no way was the detainment of immigrants/asylum seekers the work of "...acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." It is detainment. Abhorrent and unethical detainment, but detainment nonetheless.
Let's be real: no one is trying to _destroy_ anyone at the border. Whatever you believe about the immigration issues that face our southern border, you have to admit no one is sending people to gas chambers or firing squads. Instead, they're being cataloged so they can be given their day in court and then either allowed into the USA or sent back to where they originate from. No one is "...deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part..." or "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group..." such as forced sterilization and while children are being taken from their families (and given to familial caretakers, if we're to believe the Trump Administration) this is in no way represents the intent to destroy a population of national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Then there's the extra added qualifier that not all of the asylum seekers are of the same group. Some are Ecuadorian, some are El Salvadorean, some are Mexican and others are yet from other Central and South American nations. At best you might be able to claim the detainment of an the hispanic ethnicity as there is no "Central" or "South" American" race, but even then, with hundreds of millions of hispanic people in the world, it would be hard to convince anyone that holding in detainment hispanic persons equates to the destruction of that ethnicity. The same goes for religion. While it's fairly well known that most Central and South American people are of one christian denomination or another, the holding in detainment of a few thousand of them is not in any way, shape or form destroying that religion.
Like I said, words matter and no matter how you look at what's happening along the border, there's no "intent" to "destroy" in part or in whole any of the people being detained there.
Now, there is an argument to be made regarding mental harm to the people as they've traveled hundreds, if not thousands, of miles and then found their families ripped apart, but is the "intent to destroy" a race, nationality, ethnicity or religion there?
But, they're separating the families, you might say and you'd be right. But again, where is the "intent to destroy" a race, ethnicity, religion or nationality?
It's sort of like the difference between Murder One and Manslaughter. With Murder One the intent has to be there. Did s/he intend to kill the victim? If not, it's manslaughter - it's not still Murder One.
Now, I have no doubt the person who originally said the Trump Administration's policies at the border where genocide was probably just reaching for a trigger word, something to rile up those of us who are fundamentally opposed to how the government acting in this situation (which is easy to do with this administration, I'll admit) but calling a horse a zebra does not make a horse a zebra.
Words matter.
A commentor says, "this is good."
 |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Mad_Dog |
I respond with, "the picture of a child holding an AK47 is good?"
The OP says, "It must be literal day." I'm assuming he's implying that I'm being too literal as he doesn't address the post to me or give any other context.
Regardless, yes, it's literal day. Every day is literal day. Well, every day we communicate with each other anyway. That's why we have words and why those words have meaning. So that we can "literally" know what the other person is trying to communicate.
The first commentor who merely stated, "This is good" could have been talking about the photo itself, in which case he could have been discussing the content (boy with AK47), the composition, the context or any of a dozen other ways in which we might dissect art. But he didn't indicate why he commented "this is good." Did he think the original poster shot the photograph? We don't know. And that's why words matter.
I'm finding this sort of communications ineptitude more often than not. From reporters/bloggers who don't convey their point very well to social media and emails where it takes multiple back and forth messages to clarify the intent of the first message.
Take, for example, a conversation I had on Twitter recently. A man was talking about the immigration issues along the border and Donald Trump's internment camps for border crossers. He said, "this is genocide."
No, it's not. Genocide is the systematic wiping out of a people, culture, religion, etc. There are actually clearly defined guidelines for what _genocide_ is and isn't and he was making the argument that putting people into camps was in itself a genocidal act.
Article II (of the UN's Genocide Convention)
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
[a] Killing members of the group;
[b] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
[c] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
[d] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
[e] Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
In no way was the detainment of immigrants/asylum seekers the work of "...acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." It is detainment. Abhorrent and unethical detainment, but detainment nonetheless.
Let's be real: no one is trying to _destroy_ anyone at the border. Whatever you believe about the immigration issues that face our southern border, you have to admit no one is sending people to gas chambers or firing squads. Instead, they're being cataloged so they can be given their day in court and then either allowed into the USA or sent back to where they originate from. No one is "...deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part..." or "imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group..." such as forced sterilization and while children are being taken from their families (and given to familial caretakers, if we're to believe the Trump Administration) this is in no way represents the intent to destroy a population of national, ethnical, racial or religious group.
Then there's the extra added qualifier that not all of the asylum seekers are of the same group. Some are Ecuadorian, some are El Salvadorean, some are Mexican and others are yet from other Central and South American nations. At best you might be able to claim the detainment of an the hispanic ethnicity as there is no "Central" or "South" American" race, but even then, with hundreds of millions of hispanic people in the world, it would be hard to convince anyone that holding in detainment hispanic persons equates to the destruction of that ethnicity. The same goes for religion. While it's fairly well known that most Central and South American people are of one christian denomination or another, the holding in detainment of a few thousand of them is not in any way, shape or form destroying that religion.
Like I said, words matter and no matter how you look at what's happening along the border, there's no "intent" to "destroy" in part or in whole any of the people being detained there.
Now, there is an argument to be made regarding mental harm to the people as they've traveled hundreds, if not thousands, of miles and then found their families ripped apart, but is the "intent to destroy" a race, nationality, ethnicity or religion there?
But, they're separating the families, you might say and you'd be right. But again, where is the "intent to destroy" a race, ethnicity, religion or nationality?
It's sort of like the difference between Murder One and Manslaughter. With Murder One the intent has to be there. Did s/he intend to kill the victim? If not, it's manslaughter - it's not still Murder One.
Now, I have no doubt the person who originally said the Trump Administration's policies at the border where genocide was probably just reaching for a trigger word, something to rile up those of us who are fundamentally opposed to how the government acting in this situation (which is easy to do with this administration, I'll admit) but calling a horse a zebra does not make a horse a zebra.
Words matter.
Comments