Information icon.svg At All things in moderation, we are currently voting on restrictions on the use of LLMs (chatbots) in RationalWiki. Reminder: you need to have at least 75 edits and to have been registered for at least three months to be eligible to vote.

Talk:Concentration camp/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 March 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)


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.