A manifesto posted by the El Paso shooter echoes “invasion” rhetoric used by conservative media figures like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Laura Ingraham and other FoxNews commentators — as well as by President Trump — to refer to illegal immigration. Trump and his echo-chamber acolytes should drop “invading,” “invaders,” and “invasion” — The New York Times suggests, to avoid the association with white nationalism. Regardless of your opinion of “the paper of record” might it be smart to de-couple right-wing rhetoric from that of crazed killers?
Categories
Invading Invaders Invasion: Should Trump Drop El Paso Shooter Manifesto Term?
A manifesto posted by the El Paso shooter echoes “invasion” rhetoric used by conservative media figures like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan, Laura Ingraham and other FoxNews commentators — as well as by President Trump — to refer to illegal immigration.
20 replies on “Invading Invaders Invasion: Should Trump Drop El Paso Shooter Manifesto Term?”
A Quinn Martin Production. (loved that show)
I kinda think “invasive species” would not be an inapt metaphor. Not to say that the Europeans weren’t invasive species starting in the 1500s.
The Dayton shooter used Leftist words and rhetoric as his reason for the shooting. Is he only responsible, or is the retoric? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Pancho Villa brought fewer armed Mexicans into the US than the drug runners and traffickers. We had Black Jack Pershing invade Mexico in response to that.
It’s two weeks until Sept.1,1939, the 80th anniversary of the day all the German and Russian ‘migrants’ sought ‘asylum’ in Poland on the same day.
Love you guys! Scott, you are getting entirely too good at being devil’s advocate. Bill, you are a master at thinking on your feet. Wish I could do that!
And if we should come up with another word to use, the left will then insist we stop using it. I expect that, should we continue on this trajectory, our dictionaries will shrink to the size of child’s bedtime story book.
And thank you, Bill, for that little disclaimer at the very end, in behalf of Scott. Damn he’s good! Sometimes I have to stop and remind myself that he’s playing a roll.
God bless you all; you are doing God’s work. In this age of the ever shrinking dollar, supporting this site is one of the best values around!
The heart of progressive-ism is this: Agree or shut up!!! And they have demonstrated they will use any and every tactic to silence their opposition. The death of speech will be the death of this nation.
Love hearing Bill get steamed and rip the leftards a new one! Brother Ott, bless you sir, for the onerous work you do in playing the advocate.
For some reason I am instantly drawn to your creation of the honorarium “Brother Scott”. It is so apt for Scott and he is indead doing yoeman’s work for the Bill Whittle team. Here’s hoping that some day, Scott will no longer have to sell furniture to make ends meet, rather sell furniture to stay in touch with the little people as he becomes more “famish”.
Maybe we need to reverse this whole process. Maybe we need to invade Mexico with troops to stop this migration. Since we cannot build a wall. Maybe we should build a better nation on our southern boarder.
What happens when someone does something horrible and you find out they’ve been eating peas|steak|broccoli|candy corn just like you do?
People say Mr Hitler was a vegetarian. Should we shoot all the vegetarians?
Even if he uses the same words as someone else, no one else called for the execution of the invaders. They were only to be sent home. That he took it farther, even if he took some of their ideas, is all on him.
We did hear some bits about nationalism even when Trump was running and there was pressure for him to denounce various people that wanted to support him. Then much was made about the then candidate not denouncing people fast enough or often enough.
It is a bit of a blowback for the left that kept pushing identity politics and La Raza and Black Panthers get all bent when any white people want to be white.
I don’t know that legal immigrants are against the invasion terms, they seem to support a wall and immigration reform in the few polls that ask them.
If the pundits used “invader” first, wouldn’t the shooters using it be the echo? The shallow, distorted echo that does not carry the same message.
This is one of those episodes where I feel Scott’s in a box: he puts up the progressive argument for Bill to shoot at, but doesn’t deserve the return fire. He’s just a fake Progressive, not an actual devil’s advocate.
I think Bill almost got angry enough to vapor-lock.
I forget when, but I think there was a movie version of 1984, but another movie I know some here have mentioned is Demolition Man. It used the same removal of words to limit the ability of people to exchange ideas and revolt against the dictator that tried to impose peace on everyone.
Even the anger that Bill uses makes total sense to me. Are we to remove words from our vocabulary like they remove a sports star’s number? It is stupid. I like watching the two of you work back and forth on the issues. So keep getting into it, then sit back and have a quiet drink. Peace.
I realize I’m gonna skate on pretty thin ice, and I apologize if this offends anyone. But I think this may be an original thought and I have very few of those, I think. So. . .
To address the point that Scott starts to make at 21:50 – that the NY Times used an argument that attempted to take a word “into the realm of rage, anger, frustration and *tearing people apart.*”
Nigger
The problem with that word didn’t start when the country realized that that word often reflected bigotry and hatred. America was definitely cleaning up its derogatory language by the 50s, and by the 80s the VAST majority of Americans were not using that word AT ALL.
No, the problem with that word began when it was used as justification for Black violence. It then went from “foul language” to “hate speech” and veritable banishment from the lexicon, on pain of *justifiable* violence befalling the speaker.
This was a major contributor not only to the notion of hate speech, but to the idea that a listener’s feelings trumped free speech, to the point where the listener was then justified to protect his right not to be triggered by any means possible.
Yes, the left will use any means to silence its critics, and one of the side effects of demonizing words is the concommitant demonization of the speaker, and the NY Times and any other responsible purveyor of ideas should know that, in jumping on this bandwagon, they are abetting violence.
The destruction of the language is well underway. If speaking it, thinking it, and writing it is prohibited, the it can continue unhindered. This is exactly what the left intends to happen. They do not mean well.
I suggest that the turmoil surrounding the use of the word invasion is as simple as semantics. As we know, many of the words in the English language have multiple meanings; the word invasion is one of them.
I have chosen a single source (Cambridge Dictionary) to illustrate this point.
Definition (B2) “an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country”
Definition (C2) “an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way”
When we look across our southern border, we DO NOT see an army attempting to use force and take control of our country. Therefore, the choice of definition B2 is not applicable for this scenario. However, when we look across our southern border, we DO see a large number of people attempting to enter our country in an annoying and unwanted way. Therefore, the application of definition C2 is appropriate for this scenario.
Obviously, the Progressives failed to consult an English dictionary before taking their stance on our use of the word invasion.
Clear?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/invasion
Many old people from the State of Minnesota would tell you 88 aka: HH stands for Hubert Humphrey, Minnesota favorite son, who served as Vice President under Lyndon Johnson.
How do you really feel, Bill? Your martini is waiting stage right! I agree totally. Now we have “migrants” which used to be “undocumented immigrants” which used to be “illegal immigrants” which used to be “illegal aliens”. Come on……
The El Paso shooter was not the first to use the terms invasion or invaders, not even close. Same with the white nationalists. They are far older terms.
They are illegal, they are invading, they are invaders. I am sick and tired of the left trying to restrict the speech of anyone who disagrees with them.