Talk:Concentration camp

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

OK. I understand the first lines are a joke, but a lot of people are sensitive about this, and frankly it isn't very funny. DLerner 22:57, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I take issue with that, and it immediately got into the serious stuff. People should be free to joke about everything, IMO. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:31, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Do you really subscribe to the George Carlin "rape can be funny" philosophy? DLerner 23:43, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
No answer to that. If the phrase isn't recognizable as a joke, then perhaps one needs to step back. I remember making a joke about AIDS 20 odd years ago - my mother and sister reacted with "you can't joke about that". Well, if you can't joke about it, how the hell do you live with the reality of it? I know that's not that strong, clear or tight of an argument, but your question isn't exactly "so you disagree with Quine on the a posteriori argument?" Sometimes horror can only be confronted with humor. Gallows humor, ever hear of it? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:49, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I have heard of -and I often use- gallows humor. I'm not denying you the right to make such jokes, I guess it's like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DLerner 23:59, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm with Human on this one. Humour is often the only reasonable response to horror.PFoster 00:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks PF - I'm also trying to figure out a way to "depreciate" my joke, so it doesn't really look like part of the article. Maybe as a footnote, as in "some dumbass RW editor says...", but again, there is the humor vs. horror, aspect... and we do do humor here at RW, or try to. I don't mind my joke being minimized in the presentation, though, Hell, I was just writing a red link, I'm a born troublemaker! I also seriously appreciate some of what has been added since then, especially the "power confronts nothing but pure life" line. That is awesome. And the absolute essence of the article. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
I found it funny, DLerner—and I've had the Holocaust/concentration camps/ghettos hammered into me since childhood. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:41, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
The only people who won't understand that it's a joke are people who have no sense of humour (no offense, DLerner), and that's not really the sort of people I want reading RationalWiki anyways. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:41, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Gitmo as Concentration Camp...[edit]

I would argue that Gitmo is a lot of terrible things - probably a torture site, definitely a political prison and a gross violation of human rights and possibly of the Geneva Conventions (though I'm not a Geneva Conventions/war crimes expert) but I question calling it a "concentration camp" because 1. there aren't that many people there; 2. people are targeted not for race/ethnicity etc but for suspected terrorist affiliations (and at least some of the people there are bona fide terrorists)...also, the phrasing of that section is fuckin' weak and full of passive voice, weasel word bullshit..."some people believe?" Who? Some bunchanumbers editor on TMToulouse's blog? 'Cause the ICRC, HRW, and Amnesty International sure aren't calling it thatPFoster 19:52, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Not sure how much race/ethnicity matters, or even the number of people, really. But as far as "at least some of the people there are bona fide terrorists" I would argue that is unlikely to be "known" truth - or they'd have been prosecuted and sent to a "real" jail. The passive & weasel bit could be easily fixed by simply asserting that Gitmo is a concentration camp... the question is, is it? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:15, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
PS, I think Gitmo very much matches the last definitional paragraph. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:22, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
No. no it is not. Gitmo is a holding facility of dubious legality for people who are suspected of particular crimes or of being enemy combatants. You can argue how wrong what's going on at Gitmo is, and I'll be on your side. but it's not a concentration camp - if the Americans were sweeping up vast numbers of Muslims or Afghanis or Iraqis BECAUSE they were Muslims or Afghanis or Iraqis and for no other reason and then imprisoning them, Gitmo would be a concentration camp. But that's not the case. And yes, i believe there are innocent people there who got caught up in dragnets,including at least one of my fellow countrymen and I believe that's a crime. But that doesn't make Gitmo Auschwitz. There are 355 men at Gitmo now, and some 60 of them will be going on trial at some point, so there is reason to believe at least that many are suspected terrorists with enough evidence against them to warrant an indictment. The fact that so many innocent men were imprisoned is either a crime or a sign of massive incompetence and probably both...but let's leave the term "concentration camp" for what it's meant to represent...PFoster 21:26, 19 July 2008 (EDT) and PS ALL prisons do, to one extent or another - as do refugee camps and feeding stations during a famine, and hospitals.

removing Gitmo image...[edit]

i'm sorry, but the Gitmo image doesn't belong here--an article about human rights abuses, on torture, on political prisoners yes, but a concentration camp is a specific phenomenon with specific characteristics--often (but not always) tied to eliminationist policies like in the case of the Holocaust, and generally meant to incarcerate large portions of specific populations for the sole reason that they belong to those populations (the Boers, interned Japanese..). gitmo is an abomination in many ways, but it is not by any definition a concentration camp. PFoster 16:51, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

It's a deal breaker for me. If it goes, I go. Teresita 16:59, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Wow, I hope you're kidding. No debate? No effort to convince me I'm wrong? not the way things tend to happen around here. PFoster 17:01, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
At this time I will resign my bureaucrat creds and sysop creds and become a normal editor. If the image is removed, I will blank my User Page, munge my own password so I couldn't log in again if I tried, and depart. Teresita 17:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Alright. If you're not even willing to debate, then, I guess that resolves it. Sorry to see you take this position. PFoster 17:06, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

There is no need for such dramatic gestures. Surely a reasonable compromise would be a short paragraph outlining why, in some people's opinions, Guantanamo Bay arguably constitues a concentration camp, while not quite fitting the full usual definition. Then the picture could be reinstated with an appropriately modified caption, stating something like "Guantanamo Bay is regarded by some as America's concentration camp". weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 17:08, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Look, if someone wants to make that argument, and make it well, as opposed to taking their bat and ball and going home, I'm open to having that argument. PFoster 17:10, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Looking at this from an objective stance, I want to state this: Gitmo, while not exactly a concentration camp, is a violation of human rights, but has yet to be officially defined as a concntration camp. I honestly believe that, while Gitmo is illegal, I do think this disputed image would fit better on a particular article about Gitmo, not just a "concentration camp". Honestly (roll over Godwin) I believe a picture of a Nazi concentration camp would fit the best. With the Nazis out of the way, lets just leave it at that. 3 edit conflicts!! >_<Javasca₧ raging ax murderers lick me...
True to my word I will now execute the response I outlined above. I'm out of here. Teresita 17:11, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I personally do not think that Gitmo can be considered a concentration camp in the strictest sense of the word. There are plently of criticism you can direct at Gitmo but I dont think Concentration Camp is one of them. Ace McWickedcast ye the first stone 17:13, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
(Damned edit conflict meant that everything I was going to say already got said) Adding a debate section about whether Gitmo is a concentration camp would be fine, but the image is a little out of context without some kind of mention in the article text. And that's true whether it IS or ISN'T a concentration camp (which can only be confirmed by what history judges it as at a later date, remember if the Nazi's won WWII we certainly wouldn't be calling Auschwitz a concentration camp) ArmondikoVtheist 17:18, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
You're right. A picture of Auschwitz or similar would be more appropraiate for this article. I tried putting the Gitmo image in the Guantanamo Bay article instead, but Teresita's already deleted it. :-/ weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 17:30, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
One point Armond--we have a working definition of the term, and we have a fair amount of independant appraisals of conditions there by experts such as the ICRCas well as more second-hand appraisals by any number of experts via HRW, Amnesty, and a host of other analysts and advocates. We are in a position to see if, given all that, it is reasonable to use the term in relation to Gitmo. And it seems to me, after looking at a lot of the research in question, that it is not--more importantly in terms of what a wiki is all about, nobody here has made the argument from evidence that it is. I wish somebody would try, so we can move forward on this. PFoster 17:27, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
What about this one? or this one?Javasca₧ raging ax murderers lick me...
I would say it should be a picture which indicates the shocking conditions of concentration camps, like this. If showing the victims is a bit too shocking, maybe one like this, showing just the building interior but giving the same impression. weaseLOIdWeaselly.jpg~ 17:47, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
I basically agree with PFoster. Allowing definitions to slide because of political hyperbole is a dangerous thing. To Teresita: Outright demanding that an article reflect a certain point of view without even being willing to argue for it is not how we do things here. If that's not acceptable, too bad. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:46, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Wow, did someone take their ball and go home because they were wrong? Gitmo isn't a concentration camp, end of story. It's a montrosity, and a complete abuse of human rights and due process, but it's not a concentration camp. Pissy, much? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:52, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
Jesus Christ, the whole thing was a joke. Really dry sarcasm with a visual cue. The reaction to it wasn't funny, and this right here isn't appreciated either. Teresita 00:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Well, then we'll both have to get over ourselves then, won't we? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:11, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Revision by Human[edit]

The use of the US government of Japanese internment camps is the reasoning used by Alex Jones that FEMA camps exist, in one of his typical word salad rants that included Jews being put into the camps, with him concluding by saying, "The Jews of the future will be the Christians! Wake up!" I heard it on a recording from 1997, and I don't know how to find the source now. — Unsigned, by: Ozznova / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 08:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous[edit]

While the centers used by the Trump administration for temporary family separation are morally and legally questionable, I find that claiming them to be concentration camps cheapens the gravity of the concept. Those centers are resorts compared to any real concentration camp.— Unsigned, by: 128.84.125.36 / talk / contribs