a great number of things or persons, especially in motion.
The problem, police say, is that there are simply too many to arrest and deal with.
So, referring to a swarm seems perfectly reasonable, then. Oh, no, apparently not.
Comments are closed.
a great number of things or persons, especially in motion.
The problem, police say, is that there are simply too many to arrest and deal with.
So, referring to a swarm seems perfectly reasonable, then. Oh, no, apparently not.
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2024 | WordPress Theme by MH Themes
The issue is that words have both a literal and a connotative meaning. ‘Swarm’ may literally mean no more than ‘a great number of things or persons, especially in motion’, but it tends to be used with reference to things like insects, and, where it is used of people, it suggests behaviour that’s analogous to that of insects – acting en masse, often in a hostile way.
From vocabulary.com: ‘A swarm is a good word for a large group of bees going on the attack — not good news. Like bees, any group of people or animals can be considered a swarm if they act together and quickly — even fiercely.’
By itself, Cameron’s use of the term may have been fairly innocuous, but it contributes to a climate in which migrants are depicted as a hostile force to be repelled, rather than individuals seeking a better life.
It still is not racist. And, frankly, the way some of them have behaved, “hostile” is a fairly accurate description. So the quote from volcabulary.com is pretty much spot on.
And, if they want a better life – do it up front and legally.
It isn’t racist, no. But it does betray a rather tribalistic insider/outsider mindset, whereby the perfectly reasonable desire of thousands of people to escape war, torture and poverty is perceived as mattering less than the inconvenience caused to Kent commuters.
And it’s all very well to say that they should do it ‘up front and legally’, but, if you hadn’t noticed, Western countries are not exactly lining up to accommodate these people.
No, it doesn’t. This spin is precisely what I’m objecting to – people deciding for themselves what words mean, when they have a perfectly clear meaning. It pisses me off royally when people do it to me – and it annoys me in general when words are warped into something that is not there as it corrupts any attempt at communication.
No, it doesn’t. It describes a situation. Nothing more. Any such “mindset” it betrays is entirely of your own making. There is nothing in the comment from which to derive it.You are doing as the deputy Mayor of Calais is doing and putting words in the man’s mouth. Unless he specifically states that he is being tribalistic, you cannot assume it from this statement.
Cameron’s comment was a perfectly valid description. It was accurate and concise. There was nothing negative in it – it was neutral. The negative connotation has been added on by others.
As for not lining up to let them in; well, I can’t go to wherever I choose and live, so, er, too bad, frankly with regards to those who are economic migrants.
There is a legal method of applying for asylum for those fleeing war zones and these people are choosing to bypass it. My sympathy is therefore, limited.
The very points I was going to make:- but you have done it so succinctly, I’ll just add my endorsement, for what it’s worth.
So we can never infer anything about someone’s mindset from what they say, whatever the context, connotation etc.? Do you deny that the word ‘swarm’ has the connotations I described? Do you deny that Cameron’s attitude towards has the migrants – like that of most European leaders – has been that we should do everything possible to keep them out?
When people are fleeing civil war and the most oppressive regimes in the world (the most common countries of origin include Syria and Eritrea, after all), you might think that someone who viewed the migrants as human beings, who regarded their wellbeing as correspondingly important, wouldn’t react by pledging more dogs and border guards to keep them out.
To be honest, I couldn’t really care less about what’s going on inside Cameron’s head (very little of substance, so far as I can tell). I care about a) his policy decisions and b) how the language employed in discussion of the crisis serves to dehumanise the migrants.
‘As for not lining up to let them in; well, I can’t go to wherever I choose and live, so, er, too bad, frankly with regards to those who are economic migrants.’
Ah, so you’re one of those faux-liberals who believe we should be free from government interference in our lives, except in the case of poor Africans trying to make a better life for themselves. I dare say the fact that you were born in one of the world’s richest countries makes freedom of movement less important to you.
‘There is a legal method of applying for asylum for those fleeing war zones..’
Yes, just as there is a legal method regarding the paying of the licence fee i.e. prove that you don’t watch the BBC, or we’ll imprison you for not paying it. Some legal processes are inherently unfair, and those at the sharp end can hardly be blamed for not adhering to them when their lives are at stake.
Well it all depends on how big a fool you wish to make of yourself. You certainly cannot draw any conclusions about Cameron’s mindset from his “swarm” Comment. And, no, I do not accept that it had any negative connotations at all. It was an accurate description of the situation faced by police officers on the ground.
He hasn’t used any language that dehumanises anyone. That is your spin, not his words, which is the point.
Strawman.
False analogy. Asylum seekers are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe haven they reach. This would be France or Italy. Once accepted into the EU as asylum seekers, free movement within the EU would mean that they could come here perfectly legally. This is perfectly fair and reasonable. It is not remotely comparable to the TV licence.
You haven’t rebutted any of the points I made re. connotation and the context of Cameron’s policy; you’ve just re-asserted your position. It’s perfectly possible to provide an accurate description of the facts that is nonetheless morally loaded e.g. ‘The synagogue was swarming with filthy Jews’.
How was what I said a straw-man?
‘Asylum seekers are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe haven they reach… This is perfectly fair and reasonable.’
So you say. To an ardent philosophical defender of open borders (which I’m not, by the way), it certainly isn’t fair and reasonable. It’s a point that requires some argument, at least.
But in any case, when European countries are very reluctant to admit them even to the first country they arrive at, when there is serious discussion of using gunboats to drive them back to LIbya, it doesn’t seem all that fair.
The point re. the licence fee is that ‘They’re breaking the law’ isn’t sufficient to prove that any indignity whatever that’s visited on someone is deserved. Surely a self-professed libertarian would recognise that.
Incidentally, at least two of your commenters seem to disagree with you about the connotations of the word ‘swarm’ – although in the case of Dick R, who’s evidently some sort of BNP knuckle-dragger, that might not be saying much.
This contains a pejorative adjective. Cameron didn’t do that – so that’s another strawman. He talked of a swarm. It is. The statement was not morally loaded. If you think it is, you have invented it.
Look up strwaman, then. I certainly did not say, nor have I inferred, what you are suggesting I said. And you are drawing conclusions from your own imagination.
No. It’s where we are. That is the law. If you disobey it, then you take the consequences. The consequences in this case involved being kept out. The alternative is to let them in en masse, thereby undermining the law and encouraging even more to break the law. The owners and operators of the tunnel, its infrastructure and the trucks have every right to expect the law enforcement to protect them from the incursion.
So if advocates of open borders wish to campaign for a change in the law, fine and dandy. If they want to have the discussion, that’s fine too. In the meantime, truckers are facing migrants swarming onto their trucks and the operators of the tunnel are having repeated trespass on their infrastructure. The relevant governments have duty of care to stop it. That is where we are. You can philosophise as much as you like – we are where we are and it needs to stop.
Obviously in the ‘filthy Jews’ example, the negative implications are much more obvious, but my point was directed at your claim that the use of the word ‘swarm’ was perfectly factual, and therefore unproblematic. Clearly things can be factual and be morally loaded. And it’s my contention that ‘swarm’ has pejorative connotations, something with which other commenters appear to agree.
A straw man is ‘an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.’ Where have I done that? I was simply pointing out that you generally claim to be a liberal – or a libertarian, in modern parlance (correct me if I’m wrong) – while taking a decidedly illiberal stance on immigration. The most liberal stance, it seems to me, would be open borders. I don’t take this stance myself, for various reasons, but your position doesn’t even seem to acknowledge this.
‘That is the law. If you disobey it, then you take the consequences.’
The same applies to any unjust law you care to mention: the licence fee, the prohibition on sodomy in Iran, etc. That is ‘where we are’. Allowing homosexuals to have sex in Iran en masse would undermine the law and encourage more to do it. If advocates of open sex wish to campaign for a change in the law, that’s fine. In the meantime, landlords are facing homosexuals having sex on their property. So Iran should continue to ban sodomy (?)
Because that is what it is; factual.
No, clearly they do not. You need a qualifier for that. Cameron’s comment has no such qualifier. His statement was concise and accurate. There were no moral implications.
And you are wrong. It has none.
As are they. It has no connotations beyond being a noun in this case.
You really cannot see it, can you?
There it is, right there. I made no such claim or argument. None. I have complained about property damage, trespass and illegal incursion. I have made no comment whatsoever about the principle of immigration. You have jumped to an erroneous conclusion and engaged in a strawman argument as a consequence.
You are straying into another logical fallacy here; the reductio absurdum. I am not interested in debating the merits of various laws as it is irrelevant to the point I am making. Whether a law is just or not, while in force, breach of it results in consequences. My statement is therefore accurate.
I teach people who come to this country seeking that better life you are on about. They come from the Middle East, the Indian sub continent and Africa as well as Eastern Europe. Every one of them has done so legally, having obtained the relevant visas and work permits. If they can do it, so can everyone else.
‘And you are wrong. It has none.’
Clearly we’re not going to agree on this, but I should point out that you haven’t actually argued for this, merely asserted it.
‘Whether a law is just or not, while in force, breach of it results in consequences. My statement is therefore accurate.’
Of course, as a factual matter, it results in consequences. Homosexuals are hanged in Iran, old ladies are hauled before the courts for not paying the BBC, etc. In both of these cases, though, whether that consequence is just or not depends in part on whether the law itself is just.
We’re both, I take it, fine with rapists being imprisoned, and both not fine with homosexuals being hanged (or imprisoned). You seem to be fine with illegal immigrants being punished, which suggests that you’re fine with immigration law as it stands. If not, there’s a puzzling discrepancy in your attitude towards those who break unjust laws.
‘You are straying into another logical fallacy here; the reductio absurdum.’
Reductio ad absurdum isn’t a logical fallacy; it’s ‘a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.’ In other words, perfectly legitimate.
From your view that illegal immigrants deserve no sympathy merely because they’ve bypassed existing legal processes, it follows that anyone who bypasses existing legal processes, however unjust, and is punished for it, deserves no sympathy. That is the consequence of the principle you seem to be endorsing. Unless, that is, there is some further difference between immigrants and homosexuals in Iran (such as the justness of the UK’s immigration law).
Swarm is not a ‘good word’ for bees ‘on the attack’ because it already has a clear and contradictory definition.
A swarm is the colony’s normal way of reproducing – when the hive becomes overcrowded, new queen larvae are reared and the old queen, along with the older worker bees and drones, leaves the hive to look for a new home – surely this alone makes it an entirely appropriate analogy.
Before leaving, they fill themselves up with honey to sustain them through the search – this means that they are actually unusually calm and docile; they are blissed-out on sugar and a swarm has no food reserve or young to defend. Unless you deliberately disturb them, a swarm will happily leave you alone; in fact, it is possible to put your hand into a swarm without being stung (although not advisable for the inexperienced).
vocabulary.com – along with an assortment of knee-jerking tweeters – has clearly been watching too many Hollywood movies. The hostile ‘attacks’ so beloved of film directors and headline writers are not ‘swarms’ at all but bees defending their colony from a perceived threat.
Joshua,
The connotations of words are subjective and utterly dependent on each person’s own personal history. I have only ever had bad experiences with insects, so “swarm” doesn’t have warm, fuzzy connotations to me. However, I try to avoid projecting my own mental baggage onto the words of others, for the simple reason that our species is woefully lacking in telepathy.
Most words have defined meanings. Those meanings are defined quite clearly in any good dictionary. You do not get to unilaterally redefine words; that’s the very antithesis of how communication between people is supposed to work.
I can see how “swarm” might have negative connotations, but I don’t have a problem with that. When thousands of people are trying to enter a foreign country without permission, negative connotations are perfectly apt.
This situation does suggest that leaving Calais with a near-monopoly on Channel crossings to the UK was probably not the best idea ever.
There are the western ferry crossings, but another tunnel that far west might be a project too far.
Dunkirk and Zeebrugge are to the north of Calais. Either might be a viable tunnel terminus, but even just improving ferry services to them might be enough to keep Calais on its toes.
A swarm of third world savages is just that .
The ‘swarm’ is not happy to remain in one of the so called democratic, free, safest countries in Europe because it’s not free, democratic or safe enough, but risk death and injury to sneak into Britain. If France offered them the same levels of benefits, housing, medical care, education, and right to remain as this country does, I wonder how many would say that France is not too bad after all?
Part of it is to do with language, I understand. Understandable, of course, but as asylum seekers, they are obliged to seek asylum in the first safe haven, which would be Italy or France. If, subsequently, they come here once accepted legally into the EU – then fine; free movement in the EU and all that.
As for economic migrants, again, there are perfectly valid means of obtaining visas and so on. These people are breaking the law. No sympathy.
I think that Joshua has a point, although he is going about making it in a peculiar way. He seems to be suggesting that ‘roamers’should be given free (unpaid) passage into the UK and ‘all found’ when they get here. Perhaps he is right, although I don’t see any justification. If it is ‘safety’ that the roamers want, what is wrong with France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Estonia, Latvia, etc? Why England? But perhaps Joshua is right. Perhaps there should be a special desk at Calais port signed “ROAMERS”. There, they will be given a free ticket to Dover. On arrival at Dover, they go to the “ROAMERS” desk where they receive free transport to the destination city of their choice and, say, £5,000 in cash to set them up with accommodation etc. When they have used the £5,000, they can apply for more at the local “ROAMERS” desk in the job-centre. The British Taxpayer will pay – no worries.
Is it surprising that the British People say, “Erm….. We don’t think so”
It is in the context of these ‘roamers’ trying to prod and poke at perimeter fences, vehicle doors, windows and other possible openings, that it is legitimate to use the word ‘swarming’. We see videos on TV of groups searching ‘swarming’ around the fences, and, if they find a week spot somewhere, they ‘swarm’ through the opening. They ‘swarm’ around the lorries, trying all the doors, and if they manage to get one open, they ‘swarm’ as a group into the vehicle. You could legitimately use the word ‘swarming’ of a gang of looters who break into a shop or supermarket and help themselves to the goods inside.
Perhaps some good could be done by reducing the WHO and Climate Change suckers to a rump, and channelling the freed resources into economic advancement in the 3rd world countries.
Indeed. I had to pay for my recent crossing 😉
Migrants shouldn’t necessarily be given free passage into the UK, no. But if they are safe and secure in the countries they arrive in, why do they risk dismemberment and death to get to the UK? Most people wouldn’t jump on moving trains in order to get marginally better benefits and – assuming the migrants are about as rational as most of us – nor would they.
As Longrider has said, if they were granted asylum, and hence citizenship, in France, they would (as I understand it) be free, under the Schengen agreement, to move to the UK. They obviously haven’t been granted asylum in any meaningful sense, and so their desperation to reach the UK is perhaps understandable.
Once they set foot on the Mediterranean shore, they leg it north. They haven’t sought asylum in Italy or France. Their destination is Britain.
Britain is where the money is. Its streets are paved with gold, etc.
Italy’s wealth, such as it is, is concentrated in its northern plains cities (Milan, Turin, etc.), while its southern half has high unemployment and bugger all in the way of resources. Naturally, the immigrants have picked the worst possible landing sites; the locals can’t cope, and Italy’s economy is notoriously brittle. The rest of the EU is making only token gestures, so they’re _really_ not pleased right now.
*
I’m surprised the French aren’t feeling more insulted by all this. They’re literally being told their country isn’t good enough for third-world immigrants. Nice.
For those unfamiliar with how it works, it’s worth noting that the Schengen Treaty is not tied to the European Union. Switzerland is a signatory to the treaty, but is not an EU member. The UK is an EU member, but is not a signatory to the Schengen Treaty, for the simple reason that it’s an island and shares no land borders. You have to use a train, a plane, or a boat to get to the UK from the continent, so you’d want to protect those expensive assets from any potential harm, so there’s no way they’re dropping the border checks.
That said, I’m still curious about all the pro-immigration rhetoric. Last time I checked, Calais was in neither Syria, Libya, nor Eritrea, so why, pray, are they banging on Britain’s door instead of France’s? What are they afraid of? Attacks by roaming bands of onion-sellers? Do they really hate croissants and baguettes?
At the very least, the UK should make it crystal clear that anyone entering the UK from continental Europe will have any asylum requests denied automatically. The asylum system doesn’t let you pick and choose which country you claim asylum in.
This.
The EU has about 19 million too many Muslims, it certainly doesn’t need to import any more. Islam is a cancer that is destroying the Enlightenment values of Western, liberal democracies. Muslim victims of Muslim brutality should be helped but this should be by helping them resettle in stable Muslim countries. Europe does not need people who adhere to a barbaric, Medieval cult that is misogynistic, homophobic, anti-free speech and which venerates pedophilia to the severe detriment of young girls throughout Europe who have been abused by Muslims,
Joshua,
The right to freedom of movement does not include the right to freeload off the people of the country you wish to move to. People should be free to move but only if they are self-sufficient.
I would also add, that free movement – except within the EU – simply does not exist. Like it or not, that is how it is.
OK. Presumably you are, in that case, opposed to all welfare benefits (because why should the morality of redistribution depend on where you’re born?), but OK. Remove all benefits from migrants. Then let them all come. Given the tenor of the first part of your comment, I doubt you’d be all too happy with that.
I don’t believe in the notion that redistributing wealth from those who have earnt to those who haven’t is inherently good and nor do I have a problem with inequality. However, the basic principle of the welfare state is that people pay more tax than they need to so that if someone finds themselves on the bones of their arse they get welfare until they get back on their feet. It obviously doesn’t always work quite that way, some pay in and rarely take out, some take out and rarely put in. Only 40% of households in the UK are net taxpayers, the other 60% get more out than they put in. In Australia it is even worse, only 20% of households are net taxpayers. These people who carry the burden of funding other people’s welfare cannot fund welfare for the entire globe. World poverty cannot be solved by everyone moving to Western democracies, it has to be combated by economic growth in the poorest countries such has happened in India and China. But this requires access to cheap, reliable energy, something many on the left wish to deny the world’s poorest.
What makes you think they would come without the lure of welfare benefits? Why would they come to live homeless, jobless and penniless?
And yes, I’d be more than happy if there were no practicing Muslims in the West as they create problems by their insistence that their Medieval cult is a special case that entitles them to trounce freedoms, including our right to belittle their pathetic beliefs.
Here’s the video of his comment. Nowhere does he make any pejorative statement. Nowhere does he say anything that is evaluating. Nowhere does he say anything that can be used to determine a mindset.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33714282
I don’t need to argue it for the same reason that I don’t need to argue that black is not white or two plus two does not equal five. The statement that “swarm” is not a pejorative is factually correct. I have understood the etymology. You have not or have chosen not to. Any attempt to assume loading in the term is with the listener who seeks to find one, not in the speaker who uses the term correctly. MacHeath explains beautifully above how the term is accurately used in the context of bees – both as a verb and a noun.
You have tried to spin just about everything I have said during this discussion. In so doing you remind me of a colleague some years ago who like to claim that “I hear what you are not saying”. It was mildly amusing, but as I had not said it, he could not hear it, nor could he draw any conclusions. The same applies here. You have jumped to all sorts of conclusions about my position on immigration – and have done so erroneously as a consequence. That’s what happens when you make assumptions.
Your use of recuctio absurdum is indeed fallacious because I have not said anything about my opinion on immigration, nor have I made any statement about whether relevant laws are just. Nor have I made any comment about whether it is okay to engage in civil disobedience. I merely stated – accurately – that breaking laws brings consequences. I also stated, accurately, that while a law is in force, the law enforcement agencies are doing their duty in enforcing it. These are factual observations, not the proffering of opinion.
My lack of sympathy for those who flout the law does no mean that I necessarily approve of the law or disapprove – I dislike criminal damage, trespass and violence. I reserve my sympathies for those who have come to this country legally, obtained the relevant visas and work permits, sought training and are becoming productive members of our society.
Those fleeing Africa and the Middle East are free to follow their path. They choose not to. That choice brings consequences.
None of this has any relevance to television licences or homosexuality in Iran – hence why I have ignored them. Your attempt to use reductio absurdum will fail and has failed because you cannot reduce what someone has not said to its absurd consequence. So, yes, it is a logical fallacy
There you go again. It does no such thing. You are overlaying your own assumptions and prejudices on me – you are projecting. It has nothing to do with me and nothing to do with my argument. You are doing the very thing I objected to in the original post – spinning something I have said and attempting to draw your own conclusions. They are your conclusions, not mine. They have nothing to do with me and nothing to do with what I said.
Nice discussion there above. Enjoyable. That’s why I have a peep now and again. Can any of your readers tell me why we are encouraging our professed enemies to dwell here? Often at huge cost!
I think Labour under Blair did a cost-benefit analysis. Their expectation that most immigrants would vote Labour was considered to outweigh the cost to the taxpayer and the potential for some Labour voters to defect.