|
DeusExMachinima posted:Private property is not a loophole. The pipeline is outside the 1868 borders. I guess that makes it okay, given all the history and the potential problems this pipeline could cause. Let's keep making GBS threads on those savages for being on private property, despite the US never respecting their own treaties, the lands they supposedly gave back, or the entire race of native Americans. I get that it's a comforting stance to hang onto the simple legal reasoning that point A does not overlap point B, but it's not that simple.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Who are the bigger assholes? The natives who have a history of being literally genocided by the white government's lust for profits, or an oil company, who is helping destroy the earth by pushing more and more carbon into the atmosphere? According to goons, it's the protesters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Who are the bigger assholes? The natives who have a history of being literally genocided by the white government's lust for profits, or an oil company, who is helping destroy the earth by pushing more and more carbon into the atmosphere? Just because natives are protesting something doesn't mean it's necessarily an issue of natives vs colonialists, especially if the land is outside the last treaty the natives themselves considered to be a victory. Also, you are making the mistake of 1) focusing on a single issue and 2) thinking that just because one side are usually the bigger assholes that means they are automatically wrong on every single issue
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:27
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:The DAPL protestors are protesting a single issue that isn't actually bad in the way they're claiming it's bad while pretending a mess of pre-existing opinions are additional valid reasons, and in the process they're doing a pretty good job out-assholing the oil company. Isn't actually bad in any way? Besides the fact it's yet another pipeline accelerating our dependence rather than curbing it, cutting through a source of water that lots of these people use, and is run by a company that outright ignored a request from the president to hold off. And while I'm trying to find something to relate to you on, saying that "the protesters are out-assholing" the white corporate environment killing profit driven company makes that prospect drat near impossible. You are implying that the people who have been getting hosed longer and harder by our government than even African Americans are assholes. What.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Just because natives are protesting something doesn't mean it's necessarily an issue of natives vs colonialists, especially if the land is outside the last treaty the natives themselves considered to be a victory. Also, you are making the mistake of 1) focusing on a single issue and 2) thinking that just because one side are usually the bigger assholes that means they are automatically wrong on every single issue do you realize that a treaty that is signed under duress and physical threat of annihilation is not really a binding treaty or are you ignoring that
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The occupy protestors, while too ineffective and disorganised to accomplish anything and eventually overrun by crazies, at least were protesting an actual systemic issue worth protesting. The DAPL protestors are protesting a single issue that isn't actually bad in the way they're claiming it's bad while pretending a mess of pre-existing opinions are additional valid reasons, and in the process they're doing a pretty good job out-assholing the oil company. No, they aren't, but it's a lot easier to win internet arguments by pretending this is all about the strict legality of the pipeline. Are the protesters assholes for advocating Native American and environmental rights, free speech, and against police use of force?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Leavy posted:Isn't actually bad in any way? Besides the fact it's yet another pipeline accelerating our dependence rather than curbing it, cutting through a source of water that lots of these people use, and is run by a company that outright ignored a request from the president to hold off. It's one pipeline among many, making a protest against one single pipeline the hill you die on is a dumbshit move when you could instead organise a wider campaign, and if you refer to the posts by the most qualified poster ITT (Laminar) to actually evaluate the specific environmental risks this pipeline poses you're going to see it's very unlikely to affect the water source that lots of these people will soon stop using anyway, and doesn't even actually cut through it. The protestors are actually being assholes by sitting themselves down like a bunch of obstinate children while refusing to articulate coherently what they would like to have changed in infrastructure construction approval processes or even native land rights (besides facile demands like "stop all pipelines immediately everywhere" and "all land where the buffalo roamed" that are too blatantly unrealistic to even qualify as an overoptimistic negotiation starting position), and completely refusing to engage with the approval process in the first place, which had apparently not been a problem for several other native tribes. Not to mention a bunch of idiots who reflexively support anyone who fights ~the system~ or ~the colonialist oppressor~ flocked to the protest and started making GBS threads it up even further.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The DAPL protestors are protesting a single issue that isn't actually bad in the way they're claiming it's bad while pretending a mess of pre-existing opinions are additional valid reasons, and in the process they're doing a pretty good job out-assholing the oil company. Ha ha hi hi ho hooly poo poo dude. ..Are you for real? There is no way any citizen group can out-rear end in a top hat the oil industry. I mean, I really want to discuss this, but you're just living on another planet, here. Tias fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:do you realize that a treaty that is signed under duress and physical threat of annihilation is not really a binding treaty or are you ignoring that Do you realize the only reason the 1868 treaty happened is because the Sioux warriors 360 noscoped the U.S. Army who tried to take their land by force in Bozeman's war, and then the treaty happened because the feds were driven to the negotiating table and offered the Indians millions of dollars (adjusted for inflation) for a few square miles of land?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:No, they aren't, but it's a lot easier to win internet arguments by pretending this is all about the strict legality of the pipeline. I'll give you police use of force (though that seems to be true pretty much any time cops and civilians interact in America), but the protestors are assholes for choosing to advocate native and environmental rights by obstructing an arbitrary building project that just so happens to be within sight of a reservation after failing to engage with the approval process and while continuing to fail to even articulate a coherent negotiating position, while the company seems to have taken a number of steps beyond legal requirements to try to placate concerns about desecration of native artifacts etc as well as using construction methods that make it much less environmentally bad than an equivalent older pipeline. DeusExMachinima posted:Do you realize the only reason the 1868 treaty happened is because the Sioux warriors 360 noscoped the U.S. Army who tried to take their land by force in Bozeman's war, and then the treaty happened because the feds were driven to the negotiating table and offered the Indians millions of dollars (adjusted for inflation) for a few square miles of land? This is just hilarious because of all the things that happened between the US and natives, somehow this protest managed to pick the one single instance where the US failed to gently caress over everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Now tell us how you feel about Black Lives Matter. There's a lot of hilarious whitesplaining going on in this thread but telling protesters what they are/aren't actually protesting might take the cake. Have you spent any significant time on a reservation or spoken with any Native Americans on these topics? Don't open your mouth to tell them what they should or shouldn't be protesting when you have no knowledge of and zero empathy towards their situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
blowfish posted:People who have studied the topic in question sufficiently to make an informed and factual assessment get to make an informed and factual assessment. This is because their findings are not just based on random-rear end opinions but state-of-the-art knowledge and well-tested methods. If the question is "does this project risk harming the environment/drinking water/etc" then you ask environmental engineers and ecologists, not the first person with a really strong opinion you come across. Are you extensively trained and studied in some field of social science that covers the history of the involved groups? If you aren't, your opinion on this topic wouldn't be qualified under your own criteria. e: also, this still wouldn't provide a good optimum for all since it ignores problems with the education system excluding some groups over others. Experts from one selected group are less likely to consider issues to people outside their own group (for instance, you consider Occupy 'at least a worthwhile reason to protest' while the historic injustices causing massive poverty in reservations aren't) Rodatose fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Now tell us how you feel about Black Lives Matter. Perhaps you should read a few posts up, because I specifically mentioned BLM as another protest that isn't stupid and bad like the nodapl protest. Additionally, it has been repeatedly pointed out that the protest has been overrun by random idiots who are not affiliated with the local tribe in any way and seem to have no clue whatsoever beyond "corporation bad". BTW thank you for assuming I'm white, clearly everyone who disagrees with your opinions must be the colonialist oppressor himself. Rodatose posted:Are you extensively trained and studied in some field of social science that covers the history of the involved groups? If you aren't, your opinion on this topic wouldn't be qualified under your own criteria. I can refer to the conclusions of people with better qualifications in social science, for instance historians who point out that 1868 was a victory for the natives during which they did not claim the land that is currently being protested over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Anyone can point to the words of whatever pundit they want to justify their irrational beliefs and say they only get the best facts from the experts. It seems like you're just a NIMBY, but for people complaining on the internet
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:e: also, this still wouldn't provide a good optimum for all since it ignores problems with the education system excluding some groups over others. Experts from one selected group are less likely to consider issues to people outside their own group (for instance, you consider Occupy 'at least a worthwhile reason to protest' while the historic injustices causing massive poverty in reservations aren't) There exists such a thing as facts, and they can be known by people independently of ethnicity or cultural background. Underrepresentation of groups can become an issue if it leads to nobody in the academies being interested in investigating a particular question, but given that there is literature on American and native history especially for a well-known tribe like the Lakota this is unlikely to be relevant here. If the protestors could actually point out how this pipeline is contributing to continuing injustices causing poverty in reservations, I would be much more sympathetic to them, but so far they have completely failed to put a convincing argument forward to support that assertion and are sitting in the rain protesting a random-rear end oil pipeline in the general vicinity of a reservation which does not contribute to poverty in reservations. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Guys stop your slap-fight, something is happening: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Dakota-Access-Pipeline-Denied-near-sioux-reservation-404636436.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:do you realize that a treaty that is signed under duress and physical threat of annihilation is not really a binding treaty or are you ignoring that The 1868 Treaty of Ft Laramie wasn't signed under duress. The native tribes won the war and were largely able to dictate the terms of the peace.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Kubrick posted:Guys stop your slap-fight, something is happening: https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/805525865018916865/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw If this is a thing, I still don't know whether this cements DAPL as not happening or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Aren't you the guy in the Nuclear Energy Megathread who whines about how NIMBYs take statistics out of context to grossly magnify the safety and environmental risks of nuclear power plants? Aren't you doing basically the same thing here, but not with your favorite energy technology? Here's a loving clue: Not even the same thing or even close to the same context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Is this reroute thing the real deal, or just another tactic to kill pressure and attention long enough to sweep out the protestors and continue?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Is this reroute thing the real deal, or just another tactic to kill pressure and attention long enough to sweep out the protestors and continue? It looks like its legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Here's a loving clue: Not even the same thing or even close to the same context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Wow, CommieGIR claiming that two things that are very similar are actually very different without explaining why. Never seen that in this thread! You ever going to explain to the class why the Sioux's claim on land that isn't theirs is legitimate but China's claims on Taiwan, Tibet, India, Vietnam, and Uyghuristan are not? Huh, so what genocides are morally acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Huh, so what genocides are morally acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Why do you beat your wife? But you are saying that the Sioux have no claim to land they were ethnically cleansed and genocided off of. So clearly that genocide was morally acceptable, since there is no need for restorative justice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/805525865018916865/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Looks like people who actually know poo poo weighed in so I'll have to take this seriously. Will this just be a longer step before Energy Partners' plan gets approved again? Will they reroute it south of the reservation? Is that even possible considering how large the rez is? If they send it through Bismarck again, won't that still be upstream of the reservation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But you are saying that the Sioux have no claim to land they were ethnically cleansed and genocided off of. So clearly that genocide was morally acceptable, since there is no need for restorative justice. Just because (group) was larger and covered more territory than they do now does not entitle them to hand outs. Or do you think Italy is entitled to some "restorative justice" because at one point in the past there were more people who called themselves Romans spread out across a larger territory than there are today?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Do you even read the thread or are you just glancing at it occassionally while shitposting? No, they were not ethnically cleaned off of it. They had the land in 1851 by treaty. Hooray for them! Then in 1868 they decided they didn't really want it and negotiated it away in exchange for Other Stuff. Hooray for them! It's not theirs anymore. Those treaties were signed as a consequence of deliberately genocidal campaigns to steal the land of the Sioux people. Insisting that because they are law that they are right does, in fact, tell me when genocide is acceptable to you- when you write down that it is and call it a law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Since the terms of the 1868 treaty were largely dictated by the Sioux, does that mean they were genociding themselves on purpose, or..?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Since the terms of the 1868 treaty were largely dictated by the Sioux, does that mean they were genociding themselves on purpose, or..? Why was the US government making war on the Sioux in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
it probably means that they realized that they only had a very narrow opportunity where they had the upper hand before the white man decided to start loving them again such as less than 10 years later
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Super interesting decision released by the US Army Corp of Engineers. Usually when a project gets rejected there is a specific listing of deficiencies with the project that they have deemed will cause a significant effect. In this decision there is nothing of that kind, although maybe they will be releasing a full document. Throughout the EA the proponent says that they cannot reroute which I have found in my experience to be rarely true. I'll be interested to see how the next steps play out. Edit:Lol I was given a new title.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
It's also funny to ignore the genocidal policies of the Dawes Act, termination, and deliberate malnutrition by Indian agents and focus solely on a single treaty. Almost as if the goal was to insist that genocide was good so as to clear the way for the final solution to the Native American question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Wow, CommieGIR claiming that two things that are very similar are actually very different without explaining why. Never seen that in this thread! You ever going to explain to the class why the Sioux's claim on land that isn't theirs is legitimate but China's claims on Taiwan, Tibet, India, Vietnam, and Uyghuristan are not? They won. The protest worked. And China is wrong too. Stop trying to move the goal posts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
I like the level of historical knowledge on display where Taiwan was ethnically Han until the so-called indigenous Taiwanese invaded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They won. The protest worked. CommieGIR posted:Might makes right is bullshit. Just because Might will probably get its way does not make it 'Right'. Brainiac Five posted:Why was the US government making war on the Sioux in the first place? Brainiac Five posted:Why are we all treating a guy who just said there's an ethical obligation to murder protesters as though he has or will ever have anything worthwhile to say? For that matter, why are we treating the people who just glanced right over that and considered it a normal thing to say as if they've got anything worth listening to? Brainiac Five posted:It's interesting to ponder why exactly people insist that justice is irrelevant to this case, such that they can say that blockading the construction of a school is as equally justified as the water protectors are. Well, I mean, the guy who made that particular comparison is an openly racist shitbag, and many other people have no conception of right or wrong, just legal or illegal and customary or uncustomary. Brainiac Five posted:From the perspective that protest is a means of influencing the actions of others in a democratic society, the question becomes one of whether the protesters are right or wrong, an environment where motherfuckers like Gobblewhatever and blowjob will be vociferously racist. So I guess we've figured out why this is a sticking point for twodot. Brainiac Five posted:That's an interesting interpretation of that post. Brainiac Five posted:It's interesting to note that the idea of negotiating is completely foregone in the minds of Jarmak, blowjob, etc. The Lakota must stand aside or be ground into hamburger by cops and DAPL bulldozers. We must follow proper procedure, and if that procedure leads to us massacring elderly people in the name of oil, so much the better. Brainiac Five posted:It's cool how racist the defenders of oil are. Brainiac Five posted:Well, again, you have a guy justifying genocide and ethnic cleansing on the grounds that the victims were savages, so it's obvious this is largely about hatred. Hatred of American Indians, hatred of democracy, hatred of protests. Could you please just gently caress off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Let's recall what you said to me earlier in the thread. This is an extremely embarrassing post to make my man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Let's recall what you said to me earlier in the thread.  Just stop, man. Its over. You lost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Good job ya'll, we did it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Were you one of the few posters who was there? If not, I don't know if 'we' did it is correct. Regardless, I'm happy it's.. delayed at least?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 00:13
|
|