|
Dead Reckoning posted:OTOH, I think it is possible for a decision that has negative consequences for natives or other minorities to be made for reasons other than sneering racism. "We're not loving you over because we hate you, we're just loving you over because we don't care about you."
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OTOH, I think it is possible for a decision that has negative consequences for natives or other minorities to be made for reasons other than sneering racism. yep and given america's history with natives we should definitely give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
I'm not sure there is anything that could convince you that the course of the pipeline and the ACE's decision isn't racist. If you are going to try to define "racism" as "anything that has negative repercussions for minorities," most people aren't going to take you seriously and the term is so broad as to be useless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
This entire outrage has very little to do with the actual issue, the pipeline being built, which probably will have no negative effect on the Standing Rock Sioux. In fact, it could lead to lower oil prices and thus be a good thing for them. While wealthy liberals on the coasts would have no trouble weathering an oil price increase, poor people, of whom I assume are most of the members of the Standing Rock Sioux, would be in even more dire straits than they already are. The issue is more of a symbolic one about how the US took the natives' land a while ago and haven't really fairly recompensed them for it, partially due to them thinking the natives were lesser beings. If you view this pipeline issue in that way, and if you are still reeling over that, then yeah, it is about racism. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Nov 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Yeah, fortunately, normal people don't spend every waking moment considering the socio-politico-historical ramifications of their every action with respect to events 150 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This entire outrage has very little to do with the actual issue, the pipeline being built, which probably will have no negative effect on the Standing Rock Sioux. In fact, it could lead to lower oil prices and thus be a good thing for them. That makes it even dumber. They are standing in the freezing cold being injured in order to.... spontaniously develop a time machine? Brainstorm: A "The final countdown meets Red Dawn" style movie where modern native american militants go back in time with a handful of AK-47s and fight British pilgrims would go over like gangbusters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:That makes it even dumber. They are standing in the freezing cold being injured in order to.... spontaniously develop a time machine? The Guns of the Sioux
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 20:38
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
What I'd like is if someone just either cured the europeans of the nasty poo poo they carried, or gave natives their immunity. C'mon monsanto, make a maize that confers smallpox immunity. What would happen when 90% of the population wasn't already wiped out due to disease Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, fortunately, normal people don't spend every waking moment considering the socio-politico-historical ramifications of their every action with respect to events 150 years ago. Keep in mind the resident/boarding schools lasted into the 1920's at least up in ND, and this:  happened in 1948 (garrison dam). Edit: Thanks for the avatar, whoever. I'd love to actually hear your problem with my information instead of just giving me my first hate-atar. Silento Boborachi fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Nov 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
This issue is also where a lot of people sound off about their general antipathy toward oil companies. They bitch and they moan about oil, but unless they have totally dropped out from the modern economy, they benefit from its fruits all of the time, everyday, and are heavily reliant upon it. I bet a lot of the same posters who are currently unhappy with the pipeline, back when the oil prices were high were whining and complaining about the high price, and how it affects the poor. Some of them may have had the foresight to call for measures to be taken to prevent price spikes from happening again. Well, here is one way to allow for future lower oil prices, and now people are unhappy with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
It could also be argued that easier access to oil makes society less willing to ween itself off of it, e.g. if we used less oil for fuel we would then have more supply for petrochemicals, making things cheaper overall (which this assumes there is an ultimately cheaper fuel source since transportation costs are inherent in any product), but that's a hard sell to someone living paycheck to paycheck saying pay higher fuel prices now to ultimately benefit society in an undetermined timeframe of future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I bet a lot of the same posters who are currently unhappy with the pipeline, back when the oil prices were high were whining and complaining about the high price, and how it affects the poor. Some of them may have had the foresight to call for measures to be taken to prevent price spikes from happening again. Well, here is one way to allow for future lower oil prices, and now people are unhappy with it. Now you're just making poo poo up because of your own preconceived stereotypes. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:What I'd like is if someone just either cured the europeans of the nasty poo poo they carried, or gave natives their immunity. C'mon monsanto, make a maize that confers smallpox immunity. What would happen when 90% of the population wasn't already wiped out due to disease Don't forget the Oahe Dam as well, which ate another 200,000 acres out of the reservations, mostly prime agricultural areas as well. Seriously, if you don't think these people understand full well just what it is to get hosed sideways via eminent domain and the Army Corps of Engineers, you need to do a bit of reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This entire outrage has very little to do with the actual issue, the pipeline being built, which probably will have no negative effect on the Standing Rock Sioux. In fact, it could lead to lower oil prices and thus be a good thing for them. While wealthy liberals on the coasts would have no trouble weathering an oil price increase, poor people, of whom I assume are most of the members of the Standing Rock Sioux, would be in even more dire straits than they already are. Ummm it's actually to do with the pipeline leaking, you should check earlier in the thread where basically pipeline leaks go effectively unreported in the media so there's that
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Gotta clear that airspace of drones and any chance of news helicopters before the cops move in to knock over the camps. I'm sure the FAA will hold law enforcement accountable to the 8+ federal felonies they've already committed by shooting th- ahahahhahahahhaha
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
A Yolo Wizard posted:I'm sure the FAA will hold law enforcement accountable to the 8+ federal felonies they've already committed by shooting th- ahahahhahahahhaha Of course. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Ummm it's actually to do with the pipeline leaking, you should check earlier in the thread where basically pipeline leaks go effectively unreported in the media so there's that You fail to consider the dietary benefit that crude oil adds to drinking water. Typical coastal liberal privilege: not everyone can afford to buy fancy Whole Foods artisanal petrochemical water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Ummm it's actually to do with the pipeline leaking, you should check earlier in the thread where basically pipeline leaks go effectively unreported in the media so there's that More accurately, it's about the pipeline leaking and denying a sovereign nation their one source of water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
SwingShift posted:"We're not loving you over because we hate you, we're just loving you over because we don't care about you." or anyone else for that matter. Honestly, consistent and enforced uncaringness would probably be a good way for deciding where stuff gets built as it makes the process more difficult for special interests and NIMBY idiots to derail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:More accurately, it's about the pipeline leaking and denying a sovereign nation their one source of water. It's not actually about that though. The oil company could be pulling out all of the stops and could be over-engineering the hell out of the pipeline to minimize the risk, and there'd still be protest. People aren't really analyzing the risks or are looking at other precedent. For example, a lot of oil pipelines cross the Mississippi--they must--and the Mississippi is a drinking water source for the various cities on the river. Have the cities of St. Louis, MO and Memphis, TN dropped the ball? No, probably not, the risk of harm is probably vanishingly small. The protestors are just angry at how the US has treated the native people in the past or they have some vague discomfort with oil, despite being heavily reliant on it and upset when it isn't cheap and plentiful. Those two things are what have drawn people to the issue. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OTOH, I think it is possible for a decision that has negative consequences for natives or other minorities to be made for reasons other than sneering racism. It's not even that good of a perk, the flavor text aside.  Also, we should use up all the oil then switch to alternatives. It would be wasteful to leave good dinosaur in the ground. Volcott fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It's not actually about that though. but it actually is
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Recoome posted:but it actually is Stunning argument with deep substance 10/10 I won't argue for one second that "free speech zones" aren't pure poo poo though. The ACE's logic doesn't even make sense, assuming the protestors are camping on public land. The camps aren't in the pipeline's path and if they're moving them because they're concerned about people getting exposed to the winter conditions, why set up a zone outdoors at all? I'd say it sounds like cops are being lazy but for the fact that it'll be even more work to clear the camps because I doubt many will actually leave voluntarily. Unfortunately the free speech zone poo poo has been a thing for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:It's not actually about that though. The oil company could be pulling out all of the stops and could be over-engineering the hell out of the pipeline to minimize the risk, and there'd still be protest. I'm not disagreeing, but you have to specify what "it" is. The original protest, to my knowledge, was about protecting access to water, I know Chase Iron Eyes, and if I remember correctly, Archambault himself said they were fine with the pipeline in and of itself, they understood that infrastructure was needed, they just did not want it at its current spot. It seems that later, everything else got tacked on to it as more and more people became involved in the protest. I have no doubt this pipeline will be over engineered to hell, because people will be watching it like a hawk if it goes in. So yes, the risk is, imo, the lowest for any of the current modes of transportation of oil, and it is ultimately the safest choice of the three (truck, train, or pipeline), but at the same time the largest spills in north dakota to date have been pipeline spills, e.g. the oil spill up by tioga (something like a million gallons) and the saltwater spill up by williston (something like 3 million gallons). There was even a ~1 million gallon saltwater spill up on the MHA nation reservation. I guess I am trying to say it's like getting any of those rare diseases like ebola or something ( I am not a doctor, I am just trying to give an example), yes it happens even if the odds are incredibly remote, but that is what everyone freaks out about because if you were to get it the situation is pretty dire. We don't worry about the stuff that is most likely to happen to us if its symptoms are minor, we care about the catastrophes. I still hear about now and then some asteroid that "narrowly" misses the Earth. The Lakota can't do anything about that, but it seems to me that at some level they probably feel they can at least try to avoid the pipeline risk, despite how remote that risk is. I hope that maybe when/if the camps actually move to the reservation and winter hits, maybe the protestors (i.e. not the Lakota, the protestors trying to tack all these other issues onto it) will all go home and then some actual progress can be made between the tribe and the corps
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
I mean it really is as simple as these people don't want their water compromised by something that has a very real chance of compromising their water. Keep trying to talk around that fact, but it's not going away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Stop turning this into a cop-thread-by-stealth
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
merry exmarx posted:Stop turning this into a cop-thread-by-stealth I am 100% on board with that, but I feel like it would be pretty easy for the numerous bad faith pro-DAP posters itt to sabotage the thread and close it, then. M@ttd1zzl1 has done this poo poo several times before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:People aren't really analyzing the risks or are looking at other precedent. For example, a lot of oil pipelines cross the Mississippi--they must--and the Mississippi is a drinking water source for the various cities on the river. Have the cities of St. Louis, MO and Memphis, TN dropped the ball? No, probably not, the risk of harm is probably vanishingly small. How is it then that the same pipeline that is being protested against was first considered to be placed near Bismark until public outcry led to them moving the project into Sioux land? Funny how oil is tolerated until a pipeline is placed too close to a city full of white people. When that happens the safety of the water source magically becomes a concern to the public, but when it comes to native land it's "How dare those protesters hurt our economic security."
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
logger posted:How is it then that the same pipeline that is being protested against was first considered to be placed near Bismark until public outcry led to them moving the project into Sioux land? Didn't someone upthread point out that other parts of the pipeline do, in fact, go through white people land next to white people towns across white people rivers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
logger posted:How is it then that the same pipeline that is being protested against was first considered to be placed near Bismark until public outcry led to them moving the project into Sioux land? Well, one, the Bismarck citizens probably didn't ignore notices sent to them regarding the planning of the pipeline like the Standing Rock Sioux did. Two, I don't think you'll get a lot of the people in this thread who are not anti-pipeline defending the Bismarck NIMBYs. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
logger posted:How is it then that the same pipeline that is being protested against was first considered to be placed near Bismark until public outcry led to them moving the project into Sioux land? Silento Boborachi posted:Ya, once you dig down to it, with the mind of who each of these populations primarily are, I think the corps could of done a much better job describing it. This response from up thread was pretty on point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Well, one, the Bismarck citizens probably didn't ignore notices sent to them regarding the planning of the pipeline like the Standing Rock Sioux did. thats just plain false
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Ummm it's actually to do with the pipeline leaking, you should check earlier in the thread where basically pipeline leaks go effectively unreported in the media so there's that B-b-but the invisible hand of the free market! Pipeline leaks are wasteful and cost money. Therefore only companies that don't allow leaks will survive!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
RBC posted:thats just plain false No, not so. The link to the following document was shared in this thread a while ago: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1534-39 If you read section 1D in the document it details how the Army Corps of Engineers spent almost half a year trying to contact the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's historic preservation officer in vain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
logger posted:How is it then that the same pipeline that is being protested against was first considered to be placed near Bismark until public outcry led to them moving the project into Sioux land? http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2427
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:No, not so. I've read the judges ruling. Saying the tribe ignored notices of pipeline planning is a clear misrepresentation of what happened in fact and their issues with the consultation process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
RBC posted:I've read the judges ruling. Saying the tribe ignored notices of pipeline planning is a clear misrepresentation of what happened in fact and their issues with the consultation process. What is the misrepresentation? Please be explicit about what is so misleading about the document. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:There was no public outcry in Bismarck. The Bismarck route was evaluated and rejected by the Army Corps of Engineers in favor of the route near the reservation without any public discussion. You can go read their environmental assessment for yourself to see why. Clearly that's because the CoE pre-emptively routed the pipeline away from the oppressor in Bismarck, who would have protested swiftly and effectively had there been even a preliminary plan to route the pipeline within shouting distance of Bismarck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What is the misrepresentation? Please be explicit about what is so misleading about the document. Your posts are misleading and misrepresenting what happened. I think that was pretty clear when i used the word "false," otherwise known as "lying" or more charitably, being "confused" by what you read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
RBC posted:Your posts are misleading and misrepresenting what happened. I think that was pretty clear when i used the word "false," otherwise known as "lying" or more charitably, being "confused" by what you read. What is so misleading about me saying that the Tribe leadership dropped the ball when it came to working with the people in charge of building the pipeline? Again, be specific. You keep on saying that I am being misleading but are not explaining why. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 17:33
|
|