|
Shooting Blanks posted:I think you're missing his point. The problem is that the Lakota and the US government have had strained relations, historically. I think we can all agree on that, and the reasons why as they've been mentioned on every single page. His point is that the tribe has (or may believe they have) valid reason to not trust the government, its agents, its legal systems, etc. including the report and the counterparty to their suit. If they do not believe the system is legitimate, what other option do they have? Comedy option? Something I can't post because I have Wrong Opinions and that means nothing I write can be interpreted as humor by our mods and masters. Reality though? They really don't have a choice other than to engage with the system whether they believe it's legitimate or not. It's the only game in town. edit: Like...long term, their best option to gain leverage with the USA is to assimilate while maintaining their cultural and ethnic identity,then work the system from within. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Dec 2, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Actually, it is unreasonable to assume something without evidence. Aye. It's also unreasonable not to assume that if something has happened every time you interact with a given entity, then it will not happen this time. I don't give anything for your legalistic waffling, because even if the law is just and everyone involving in formulating it is wise and even-handed, it has never ever been upheld to ensure native american life and liberty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Who knew that there are people that actually agree with Judge Dredd and his system of PERFECT LAW. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo I'm assuming it's due to some strange world view and a mental instability that would occur if it were cracked
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Tias posted:Only if you get to decide what constitutes reasonable. The Lakota have gotten killed by lying members of the US government since the birth of the states, it is in no way unreasonable to assume that they are under risk from the actions of the DAP companies and the US government, and it's actually pretty insane that you extend the benefit of the doubt to them, given all of recorded historical interaction between the Lakota and the state. Reminder that it wasn't the US Army that beat the Lakota, they were starved into submission by deliberate extermination of the buffalo herds. A lot of posters are arguing from a legal perspective and they have good points in that regard, but you have to realize many/most of the protesters reject the legal framework as invalid or unjust, and for good reason. Take for example the refusal of the Sioux to accept the $1.3 billion settlement for the confiscation of the Black Hills and other treaty lands. First, that money is maybe a couple months of expenses for each recipient, it's a pittance. Second and more importantly, the Black Hills are sacred ground for the Sioux and central to their creation myths and culture. Their response is "gently caress you, you broke your word and stole the Black Hills that you guaranteed us, we don't want your drat money rear end in a top hat." It would be like seizing Rome or Jerusalem in violation of treaties and then offering the Italians / Israelis a couple billion bucks, we're sorry but take this cash and we're cool? The history of Native Americans in the US is genocide and broken treaties all the way down. This isn't about whether the land the pipeline is on is technically under the jurisdiction of Standing Rock or whether the tribal government did their due diligence* in fighting the pipeline. It's about Native American rights, environmental issues and water rights, and now with the increase in violence it's about free speech and police brutality. *To be blunt, the tribal governments are not very competent and have huge problems with corruption and nepotism in my experience. I can't speak to Standing Rock specifically, but what sort of government do you expect from a desperately poor, isolated, undereducated community of 8,000 people where politics is based largely on family connections? Just understand there's a vast difference in resources, power, and influence of the 8,000 Standing Rock members vs. the oil company, state government, and federal agencies. wateroverfire posted:Like...long term, their best option to gain leverage with the USA is to assimilate while maintaining their cultural and ethnic identity,then work the system from within. Those are mutually exclusive right now because the reservations do not get the education or infrastructure support they need to assimilate or gain any power in the system. I'm also not sure what you mean by assimilate here, do you think they still live in tipis or something? Because they're all thoroughly assimilated into modern society. Some of them speak the language and dance in traditional costumes, love sweat lodges, and camp out in a tipi during the summer. Like, you realize many Native Americans were forcibly shipped off to boarding schools where they had their traditional culture and language literally beaten out of them? That lasted through the 1980s. As a result, a large proportion of Lakota are at least nominally Catholic and were taught to be ashamed of their culture. For many decades it was illegal for them to practice traditional dances and ceremonies, again in an effort to stamp out their culture. We already "assimilated" them pretty effectively. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/embed/94689450/ Compare to Malheur.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Fun fact, there used to be more Lakota operating ranches on the reservation I grew up on, but during WW2 the Bureau of Indian Affairs discovered an arcane law that allowed them to seize land "unoccupied" for more than a couple months (3-4, I forget). So all those Lakota who drafted or volunteered to fight in WW2? A bunch of them had their "unoccupied" land confiscated and sold to white people. BIA makes a quick buck by stealing the livelihoods of veterans 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:True implies an objective measure. Someone can certainly prefer a risk level lower than what the US legal system will guarantee, say someone that prefers distilled water to tap water. This is something we can objectively measure and there is not only no significant risk but they're improving and moving their water supply to eliminate what minimal risk there is. Distilled water is a great example because idiots drink it because it's "safer" and it's objectively bad for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is something we can objectively measure and there is not only no significant risk but they're improving and moving their water supply to eliminate what minimal risk there is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
The huge unquestioned assumption that the Dakota Access Pipeline is necessary and without it we will revert to the Bronze Age or whatever is fascinating to see, if only to consider how many people its proponents would be willing to kill to ensure the construction of an oil refinery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The huge unquestioned assumption that the Dakota Access Pipeline is necessary and without it we will revert to the Bronze Age or whatever is fascinating to see, if only to consider how many people its proponents would be willing to kill to ensure the construction of an oil refinery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:We've covered that. And the response was "infrastructure is good. Even when it doesn't do anything good." No, I mean that I'm tickled by people like Jarmak essentially arguing for blood sacrifices to keep the oil flowing. We may be witnessing the birth of a new religion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
The "break a few eggs to make an omelet" cliche isn't just a saying. People genuinely believe it and when the chips are down they'll come right out and let you know that they fully support the authorities assaulting and killing people to get things done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
The reason there's such an overlap between people defending the pipeline, people who defend cops disproportionately shooting black people in the back, and people who back in the day defended mass pillage and of iraq and the torture of its citizens is because all three of those things have the same aim of upholding the economic supremacy of white supply side capitalists and their entitlement to go wherever they want to remake the world as they wish (and benefiting only those who they want to benefit). All use the same language of pointing to an alleged deficiency in the victim people's culture in excusing why capitalists should be allowed to take they want at one point in time (a foreign country and its resources, the lives and unpaid labor of millions, land and culture) and fail to honor any claims for justice/compensation later on. The victim groups are made into an "other" group for whom "normal" legal justice cannot be applied; instead only a more brutal, violent approach can be taken with these people since the cultural argument leaves an implication that they don't share the capability for rationality that the white capitalists have. They then hide behind legalism, failing to understand that they are relying on past unjust legal decisions that set the precedent of a double standard: one set of rules is acceptable for those in with means and belonging to an acceptable culture, and others who must be either assimilated wholly or excluded and concentrated into ghettos, reservations or prisons. There, they are subject to extra rules/ have to take extra precautions on top of the host nation's laws, with the host nation's law enforcement intruding frequently to assert itself. At the same time, they're deliberately passed over for the benefits and rights normal citizens of the state receive. In native americans' case, they get a kind sovereignty-in--name-only that can be revoked through violence whenever the host sees fit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The specific claim I was responding to was that the Sioux had a legal interest in and ownership claim to the land that the pipeline is being built on, based on the 1868 treaty. You can read back through Commie and Liquid Communism's posts if you would like to confirm that for yourself. That claim fails on several levels. An end to hostilities throughout the plains is irrelevant to the pipeline's construction, unless you are trying to claim that construction on land not belonging to the Sioux constitutes some sort of hostility. Yes, and I agree the 1868 treaty does not give the Sioux any ownership claim in the area the pipeline is being built. During Cloud's War the Sioux resisted encroaching settlers by attacking railroads, wagons, and pretty much any white dude coming through. The pipeline is more or less the modern day incarnation of that westward expansion. The U.S. violated the 1868 treaty repeatedly, why would it not be both just and legal for the Sioux to pick up Cloud's War where it left off (attacking colonialist infrastructure)? An act of war? Most definitely! But I don't see how it would be illegal, and a pipeline is like the definition of an acceptable military target. Dead Reckoning posted:Don't ascribe positions to me that I have never argued for. I have consistently held that the Standing Rock's have no lawful right to obstruct construction of the pipeline, that the police have the right to use reasonable force to prevent or remove that obstruction, and that the laws supporting this are entirely just and should therefore be obeyed. Uh, maybe I'm missing something, and sorry if I put words in your mouth, but how is that not exactly what I claimed your position was? skeet decorator posted:Your position in this thread has been that indigenous protesters have no legal or moral right to block the pipeline using force, and furthermore that it is both just and legal for U.S. to respond with force. And yes, I'm inferring from your posting a certain support for colonialism. I think that because you have provided no justification for why the US should be allowed to violate a peace treaty, in which for all intents and purposes the Sioux were the victors, with no repercussions. Is it legal within the U.S justice system, of course, but to call it just requires a willfully ignorant reading of history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No, I mean that I'm tickled by people like Jarmak essentially arguing for blood sacrifices to keep the oil flowing. We may be witnessing the birth of a new religion. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:And yes, I'm inferring from your posting a certain support for colonialism. I think that because you have provided no justification for why the US should be allowed to violate a peace treaty, in which for all intents and purposes the Sioux were the victors, with no repercussions. Is it legal within the U.S justice system, of course, but to call it just requires a willfully ignorant reading of history.  troll or someone who's a true believer in law = right. Either way he shouldn't be posting like this, in this thread according to the D&D rules thread - but I guess talking completely out of your rear end and then shouting that everyone else must back up their statements doesn't count for lolbertarians - I guess I'm infringing on their right to free speech by calling them out on their bullshit?http://forums.somethingawful.com/banlist.php?userid=179932 zero effort posting, calls for others to commit suicide due to his disagreements with them, more shitposting without anything to back it up.. D*D thread from Dead Reckoning's rap sheet posted:Actually, my fetish is confused, directionless, baseless, impotent frustration. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If people held the view that any level of risk is unreasonable then evidence that accidents happen would be damning. It wouldn't have to be the case that the pipeline represents a disproportionate risk. Life is a risk. Also, a battlefield. Wait that's love.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I think you're missing his point. The problem is that the Lakota and the US government have had strained relations, historically. I think we can all agree on that, and the reasons why as they've been mentioned on every single page. His point is that the tribe has (or may believe they have) valid reason to not trust the government, its agents, its legal systems, etc. including the report and the counterparty to their suit. If they do not believe the system is legitimate, what other option do they have? Pellisworth posted:A lot of posters are arguing from a legal perspective and they have good points in that regard, but you have to realize many/most of the protesters reject the legal framework as invalid or unjust, and for good reason. coyo7e posted:http://www.usatoday.com/videos/embed/94689450/ coyo7e posted:We've covered that. And the response was "infrastructure is good. Even when it doesn't do anything good."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:once the FBI paramilitaries decided to make their move, they shut down that little prorest/occupation with worrying efficiency. Oh man you're so close to figuring out that the brutal violent police state you're cheering for every day is actually bad for you too 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If they don't believe the government will ever treat them justly, why are they filing suits in U.S. courts and arguing with the ACoE about its jurisdiction? Either they weren't acting in good faith, only planning to accept the government's decision as legitimate if it went their way, or your explanation makes no sense. No this argument makes no sense. It's perfectly possible to believe a law is unjust yet also recognize that it's in my self-interest to file suits in court in case I win. For example, innocent people in Guantanamo don't lose the right to complain about their imprisonment just because they also let a lawyer represent their interests. If I were in Guantanamo and had the opportunity to illegally escape I would certainly take it even if I had also tried to get released from within the court system. Dead Reckoning posted:Here’s the thing: you can't reject the legal system when you don't like it, then lean on it the rest of the time, like to keep people from arbitrarily stealing your poo poo. Everyone has pet issues, and we resolve those conflicts through the legal system. Of course you can. I am capable of believing that some laws are just and other laws are unjust. And it's perfectly reasonable for say a gay Texan in 2001 to expect the state police to protect me from being raped or murdered even if I habitually break laws against sodomy. "You committed illegal sodomy therefore you forfeit all access to the justice system and can be raped and murdered at will" is a poo poo argument and even you are smart enough to know that. E: Let's follow this line of thought to its stupid and absurd conclusion: I catch someone jaywalking rather than lobbying the city council to add a crosswalk, they have forfeited their right to police protection and are free game to be robbed and killed by anyone. Hm yeah I think this little legal theory of yours might work out badly for society. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
^^There are veterans in the White Aryan Resistance, and they have a vigorous outreach program, so I don't particularly sympathize with a cause because they got some guys who did time to come on board. Bet there are more vets among the local sheriff's deputies than among the protesters. Here's my take: I don't believe in letting people I sympathize with pick and choose when to obey the law, because some real assholes that the law keeps in check would like to have the same privilege, and I have no empirical way of showing that my sincere beliefs are better than their sincere beliefs. On your larger points, I think there is a difference between declaring that a general law is unjust ("there should be no speed limits") and declaring that enforcing the law against you specifically or in this specific case is in just ("there were no speed limits when my ancestors moved to this territory, so I shouldn't be constrainted now.") Principles of law have to be generally applicable; if one person gets a heckler's veto, everyone gets it. Even people I fundamentally disagree with. I think there is also a distinction between declaring an intent to disrespect a law and declaring a moral imperative that others allow you to disobey it. That to me is the distinction between civil disobedience and banditry. If you wish to attempt escape from Gitmo because you believe your imprisonment unjust, be my guest, but don't declare that the guards are villains if they stop you in the act because they have not considered the circumstances that make you a special snowflake. The example we are discussing now is even less cut and dry. The supporters of the Sioux are not asserting that the Sioux were wronged on the basis of the facts or the law, something an unjustly imprisoned man can at least claim. They are asserting that the entire construct of the law itself is unjust, which demands at the very least a suggestion for a replacement. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:bullshit What. Law. Is. Unjust. There has been literally one moral argument made in this thread that addressed this issue, that the 1868 treaty itself was unjust because it was coerced, which I already spoke to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think there is also a distinction between declaring an intent to disrespect a law and declaring a moral imperative that others allow you to disobey it. That to me is the distinction between civil disobedience and banditry. If you wish to attempt escape from Gitmo because you believe your imprisonment unjust, be my guest, but don't declare that the guards are villains if they stop you in the act because they have not considered the circumstances that make you a special snowflake. Right. I mean if there was a law that said some people had to sit at the back of the bus you can't just not do it. It's the law. You have to wait until after the government says it's okay for you to sit wherever you want and anyone who enforces that law certainly isn't a bad dude right? Just folks doing their jobs. YOURE the criminal here after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What. Law. Is. Unjust. Arguing that the law is just and the Sioux should abide by it for that reason is a fine argument, but that wasn't the argument I was responding to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
bag em and tag em posted:Right. I mean if there was a law that said some people had to sit at the back of the bus you can't just not do it. It's the law. You have to wait until after the government says it's okay for you to sit wherever you want and anyone who enforces that law certainly isn't a bad dude right? Just folks doing their jobs. YOURE the criminal here after all. The point of civil disobedience is to take the rap because you belive that it will highlight the injustice of sending someone to jail for whatever it is that you did. The issue you are running in to is that most people don't actually think it is wrong to jail someone for unlawfully occupying property that isnt theirs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
aka "water cannons are sometimes justified"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Here's my take: I don't believe in letting people I sympathize with pick and choose when to obey the law, because some real assholes that the law keeps in check would like to have the same privilege, and I have no empirical way of showing that my sincere beliefs are better than their sincere beliefs. Okay but if we're going with complete moral relativism we also have no empirical way of showing that breaking the law is better than following it. This argument is bizarre because you're completely relativist when it suits you and you claim we have to treat the Sioux and the KKK exactly the same way, but then you switch to an absolutist position that it's immoral to break the law for any reason. Dead Reckoning posted:On your larger points, I think there is a difference between declaring that a general law is unjust ("there should be no speed limits") and declaring that enforcing the law against you specifically or in this specific case is in just ("there were no speed limits when my ancestors moved to this territory, so I shouldn't be constrainted now.") Principles of law have to be generally applicable; if one person gets a heckler's veto, everyone gets it. Even people I fundamentally disagree with. But where do you draw the line on the other side? You're saying civil disobedience is always wrong because bad people could use it for bad goals, but the other side of that coin is: if we have a moral imperative to follow and enforce all laws just because they're the law then that justifies a lot of horrible poo poo that was done according to proper legal procedure. Dead Reckoning posted:The whole point of civil disobedience is not to break the law and get away with it. The lesson is not that you have the right to break laws you don't care for with no consequence. Uh weren't you arguing like forever that it was good that the jury nullified all charges against the Malheur protestors who occupied property that wasn't theirs, converted federal vehicles, etc?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:aka "water cannons are sometimes justified" The lesson of the civil rights era was not, "if the police use water cannon or dogs, their targets are automatically morally equivalent to the Selma marchers" either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The lesson of the civil rights era was not, "if the police use water cannon or dogs, their targets are automatically morally equivalent to the Selma marchers" either. ok, so how many unarmed people do the police have to kill for you to care, ballpark?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 09:17
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:ok, so how many unarmed people do the police have to kill for you to care, ballpark? I assume the answer is "as many as it takes to get a little more oil on the market"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
They're gonna respond with something callous and or ironic to try to deflect your statements instead of actually engaging with them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
I just want them to explain where they think the IEEFA went wrong in their analysis. For those who haven't seen it yet and aren't motivated to ignore its mention, it sets out why, even separate from any position on pipelines in general, this particular one is a scam and already on the verge of failure. If you'd prefer an extreme summary to reading a dozen pages: oil prices are half what they were when it was planned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Poland Spring posted:They're gonna respond with something callous But enough about your skin  Doc Hawkins posted:I just want them to explain where they think the IEEFA went wrong in their analysis. Big Oil making a dumb expensive mistake that will make Big Oil less profitable? I won't stand in their way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 13:12
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Polygynous posted:ok, so how many unarmed people do the police have to kill for you to care, ballpark? 1 but at that point arrest the police officers who killed that unarmed person and then continue arresting or dispersing the rest of the unarmed people without gratuitous killing
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
If you're in favor of a reduction of profit, what's wrong with protests making the venture more costly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:If you're in favor of a reduction of profit, what's wrong with protests making the venture more costly? nimbys and other randoms with very strong opinionsTM being able to block construction at will is shittier and more terrible-er given any state of big oil and any state of the planet ie the protestors have managed to out-rear end in a top hat the oil company, which i must admit is an achievement in and of itself suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Big Oil making a dumb expensive mistake that will make Big Oil less profitable? I won't stand in their way. Environmental and cultural impacts of a construction proposal are a cost/benefit analysis. If you think the benefits of this construction are zero or negative, then you are implicitly admitting the protesters' position is correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Environmental and cultural impacts of a construction proposal are a cost/benefit analysis. If you think the benefits of this construction are zero or negative, then you are implicitly admitting the protesters' position is correct. the more general bad of randoms with very strong opinions being able to shut down infrastructure construction outweighs the specific bad of building an oil pipeline over places
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Except according to you this is a bad and wasteful money-losing project that isn't worth the cultural desecration or environmental risks, so those "randoms" are correct in this case. If a project is a bad idea, which you agree this one is, then shutting it down is a good idea and doesn't logically compel us to shutter every infrastructure project regardless of merit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 14:28
|
|