DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Rodatose posted:

This is a terrible analogy and you're continuing to mix up property damage by a group who is having actual bodily violence done against them with imaginary threats by the nefarious indians in the bushes with the tomahawk and the scalping knife ready to kill whitey

It's a necessary example to refute the contention that a disparity of wealth and power alters the nature of a threat. Voyager's contention was that this threat somehow shouldn't be subject to the same opprobrium normally leveled at groups that threaten violence to get their way, because a less powerful group was making the threat against a more powerful one.

Liquid Communism posted:

I think you have a very biased understanding of this concept.

By your logic, there are perhaps two nations on the planet who could justly declare war on the United States, and that's if we stretch and assume the entire Commonwealth would back the UK's play.

It's pure might makes right bullshit.

No, you're understanding it correctly. My interpretation is pretty uncontroversial in LOAC.

War is terrible. Therefore, waging a war must only be done in order to achieve a just end. If a just end cannot be realistically achieved, then it is not just to wage a war in the first place. There are indeed very few countries that could prevail in an existential military conflict with the United States, so it would be wrong of them to waste their soldiers' lives in pursuit of such an end. If the government of the Bahamas declared their intention to seize Washington D.C. in order to correct some grave injustice, it would be immoral of them to send the Royal Bahamas Defence Force to die in droves pursuing an objective they have no realistic means of achieving, no matter how just their cause.

There are many more countries that might prevail in a limited or regional conflict with the United States, and in such cases a military conflict would not be considered unjust on the basis of being futile. Unfortunately, armed secession from the United States by a native tribe would be futile and could only lead to suffering and death while failing to achieve any legitimate military objectives, so must be considered an inherently unjust war.

Voyager I posted:

If we're talking about a simple threat of immediate violence, you're right; power disparities outside the context of two men in an alley don't matter. However, what we were discussing before was using sustained violence and threats of violence to coerce long-term changes in behavior, where social power disparities do matter. The Tweaker can strongarm the Senator not to stop him from leaving, but he's certainly not going to be able to prevent him from calling the police as soon as he's gone and if he comes back the next night he's probably going to get arrested by security.

You're still trying to justify threats as being OK if they come from a weaker group. Why, exactly, is threatening someone to effect short term behavior bad, but threatening them on the long term OK? If the tweaker said he was going to murder the Senator's entire family and rape his wife if he didn't vote for all bills increasing funding for homeless services, would that be an OK coercion of long term behavior from a less powerful social group effected against the more powerful? Draw some concrete distinctions here.

# ? Dec 11, 2016 22:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 13:02

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

Poland Spring posted:

People are getting probated by replying to these folks with the unabashed exasperation I'm sure a lot of people are feeling right now.

Lol it's kind of cliche to riff on how progressives shirk personal responsibility but this is a new low: 'the other poster made me write this shrill, self-righteous ad-hom post!'

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Dec 11, 2016 22:45

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010; People paying American dollars to let other people know they didn't agree with someone's position on something is the lifeblood of these forums.

Poland Spring posted:

I'm honestly amazed people are giving them the time of day, most of this thread seems to be arguing in circles with a few specific people.

Welcome to D&D.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Dec 11, 2016 22:49

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

Here is my hot take dont care if you hate it: its okay to threaten capitalists and fascists with violence. If that makes me a bad rebel dude with a bad rebel 'tude, well, so be it

# ? Dec 11, 2016 23:03

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

so Trump's going to order the Army/National Guard to immediately restart construction on this thing first thing in office, right?

# ? Dec 11, 2016 23:08

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010; People paying American dollars to let other people know they didn't agree with someone's position on something is the lifeblood of these forums.

Calibanibal posted:

Here is my hot take dont care if you hate it: its okay to threaten capitalists and fascists with violence. If that makes me a bad rebel dude with a bad rebel 'tude, well, so be it

Feel free to kick off the revolution by no longer paying your internet bill.

# ? Dec 11, 2016 23:12

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Eh I see where you're going but the situations are too different for this analogy to work the way you want it to. Even if the former Mexicans in the Cession did have an equally strong claim (which I'm not convinced of), they don't have an organized government that's been continuously litigating and trying to enforce that claim. The Sioux have been trying to get their land back for over 100 years and been stopped only by naked force and by the court system of their conquerors refusing to acknowledge them. The Sioux began lobbying immediately for their rights and never stopped. Whatever claim the former Mexicans had has been left fallow for over a century, so if they just up and changed their minds right now I don't see how they'd have any more right than anyone else who lets someone squat on their land for a 100 years and doesn't press any claim (ie none).

But the original situation is pretty different too:

The area was sparsely populated by Mexican citizens who weren't controlling or using anything close to the actual land that became California, Arizona, New Mexico, etc (and much of that land belonged to other native groups like the Comanche and Apache who were later ethnically cleansed by the United States). The Mexicanos owed allegiance to a government who claimed the right to administrate claims inherited by Spain but that's really not the same thing so it's not clear how much land would actually be theirs.

The treaty that ended the war guaranteed the property rights of those Mexican citizens and gave them the right to become US Citizens with full voting rights. It's doubtful whether a simple change of administration in itself violates anyone's rights. If a given Mexican became a US citizen and their property wasn't disturbed, I don't see how their descendants would have any cause of action against the US at all. This is obviously not the same as the Sioux who were conquered, denied US citizenship for many years, and ethnically cleansed

In many cases those rights weren't honored so those people would obviously have a cause of action against the US government, but not the right to demand Mexican sovereignty over their lands.

I could see the Mexican government being within their rights to disavow the treaty because it was signed at gunpoint, but still unlike the Sioux they've let that claim lie fallow for over a hundred years, which is a pretty big hurdle.

tldr: the situations aren't similar enough for it to matter

Mexico has had an organized government at least as long as the Sioux, and as far as I know has never accepted the legality of the cession. You need to clarify whether you're talking about individuals being able to bring suit against the government for depriving them of their property rights, or sovereigns reclaiming territory and self-determination. You were obviously talking about the latter before, and still are in the second half of your post, in which case your bolded points are irrelevant. Owning property in the United States does not give the owner a right to determine what sovereignty they fall under. It's a separate concept. Otherwise, you aren't actually making a legal argument (unless you really want to hang your hat on the Ongoing Appeals theory) because you have been unable to draw a legal distinction between the seizure of Sioux territory and the seizure of Mexican territory. You're making a moral and normative argument that the Sioux territorial claims should be honored but not the Mexicans, because the Sioux have been more abused in the interim. That's a fine argument to make, but it makes no sense to try to dress it up in the language of treaty law.

VitalSigns posted:

You asked me if, theoretically, the tribes gained sovereignty over a majority of non-Sioux people and allowed them to naturalize and vote, how would the Sioux's minority rights be protected. I listed several ways real free democratic nations deal with minority rights today: power-sharing agreements (Northern Ireland), regional rather than population-based representation (the US Senate), deliberately-drawn minority-majority districts (the US Voting Rights Act), and pre-agreed constitutional protections with supermajority requirements to change later (pretty much every modern democracy). None of those things amount to ethnic supremacist government.

Although I'm not sure why you care about these details because according to the morality you've put forth in this thread, if the Sioux had enough firepower it would be 100% moral to ethnically cleanse these areas and then if anyone complained their courts could rule "oops it was bad to do that we know better and we'll start respecting everyone's rights beginning from five minutes ago, and hey we're already living in your houses so here's less money than its worth go away now", and you'd would doubtlessly agree that well it isn't a perfect system but best of all possible worlds, can't have sore losers complainin bout stuff all the time, etc. (I mean not really, because your morality is selective and only, mmm, "certain people" get the benefit of being allowed to steal land and then wrap themselves in property rights 5 minutes later when their victims ask for it back, but it's funny to watch you dance around this and try to project your selective morality on everyone else).

Again, you're trying to act like you're talking about preserving civil rights, when the question clearly was about preserving political power. The issue is not the voting rights of natives being denied, its that their voting power would rapidly become irrelevant due to being a tiny minority.

The power sharing agreement in Northern Ireland is incompatible with American democracy for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, it only works in a parliamentary system, which I don't think exists in any U.S. legislature. Second, it specifically arranges power between two pre-identified parties. That maybe could work if we were talking about Republicans and Democrats, but the only way it guarantees native political power is if one of the parties has admission requirements based on ethnicity. You can't explicitly reserve power for ethnic natives under U.S. law; it would be as though Alabama enacted a provision requiring any changes to their constitution to be approved by a majority of white citizens. The whole NI/Lijphart system was designed with the idea that a country had already fragmented along sectarian or ethnic lines, and that was an OK thing to preserve.

Regional population based representation only guarantees native power if you prohibit natives from selling land to whites or prohibit whites from moving to certain areas. The voting rights act doesn't actually require majority-minority districts, it simply is the mechanism that has been chosen to prevent dilution of the minority vote. In some cases it actually exacerbates the problem, because although the minority is able to elect their chosen representatives in a single solid district, it is at the expense of diluting their political influence in every other district, and their single representative is unable to effectively lobby for their interests in a legislature.

Requiring supermajority assent for constitutional changes only works if the constitution enshrines native political power to begin with. See problems above. It isn't a solution, it merely prevents one from being trivially undone.

You cannot reconcile democratic representation with the desire to have an ethnic minority control the mechanisms of political power.

EDIT: Oh, and you can drop the "well you think it's OK because it's legal/you think might makes right" shtick. I know you're hoping that if you repeat it enough people will believe it, but I'll put the same challenge to you that I did to Commie (that he's still ducking, BTW): quote where I said that.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Dec 11, 2016

# ? Dec 11, 2016 23:18

reagan: Apr 29, 2008; by Lowtax

Uglycat posted:

I have a pet theory that it was Homeland Security that persuaded the Army Corps to deny the easement, as allowing it would pose a threat to national security. There was *definitely* 'radicalization' happening in some of those camps. Never saw a /single/ weapon in camp, though. I did spy a Homeland Security vehicle in Bismark, a day or so before the eviction notice. And I believe the NSA was late to the party, so far as monitoring communications in and out of camp go.

A worker blew the whistle on the lack of pipeline inspections during manufacturing back in 2015. It was on the news for a while and quietly disappeared.

And there are homeland security vehicles all over ND. It's because of the border with Canada, not the protest.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 01:20

coyo7e: Aug 23, 2007; by zen death robot

albany academy posted:

I can't understand why people are debating whether or not sabotage is a legitimate form of protest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party

Calibanibal posted:

Here is my hot take dont care if you hate it: its okay to threaten capitalists and fascists with violence. If that makes me a bad rebel dude with a bad rebel 'tude, well, so be it

How about when you threaten police officers with actual physical, bodily violence - as opposed to "violence" against a piece of equipment? Those guys got found not guilty by virtue of a badly-constructed case so obviously they are morally right if they were legally cleared of the wrong charges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff http://registerguard.com/rg/news/local/35075862-75/bundy-brothers-balk-at-attending-court-hearing-in-nevada-standoff.html.csp

I mean if vandalism is violence then we ought to start shooting graffiti taggers because they are literally committing violence against property and also intimidating everyone who owns that property so ipso facto they are terrorists.

But what about the vandalism of native american sacred sites by a construction company which went ahead and plowed over stuff instead of waiting for a legal verdict?

coyo7e fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Dec 12, 2016

# ? Dec 12, 2016 01:39

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

"It's like the Boston Tea Party, except we're throwing oil in the water instead of tea! That will show those evil polluters!"

# ? Dec 12, 2016 01:42

coyo7e: Aug 23, 2007; by zen death robot

Dead Reckoning posted:

"It's like the Boston Tea Party, except we're throwing oil in the water instead of tea! That will show those evil polluters!"

I'd love to see your proof of the water protectors throwing oil in the water.

Also the Boston Tea Party was literally a bunch of rich elite dinks who wanted to pay less for a luxury good - they weren't really defending much of anything except the cash in their own pockets.. And they dressed up to shift the blame onto Native Americans because they didn't have the balls to stand up and be named.

edit: oh wait, this DOES sound a shitload like DAPL - it's just that ETP are the boston tea partiers, using agent provacateurs and violence, and also blaming it on Native Americans being savagely violent! :aaaaa:

coyo7e fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Dec 12, 2016

# ? Dec 12, 2016 01:48

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; коммунизм хранится в яичках

Dead Reckoning posted:

No, you're understanding it correctly. My interpretation is pretty uncontroversial in LOAC.

War is terrible. Therefore, waging a war must only be done in order to achieve a just end. If a just end cannot be realistically achieved, then it is not just to wage a war in the first place. There are indeed very few countries that could prevail in an existential military conflict with the United States, so it would be wrong of them to waste their soldiers' lives in pursuit of such an end. If the government of the Bahamas declared their intention to seize Washington D.C. in order to correct some grave injustice, it would be immoral of them to send the Royal Bahamas Defence Force to die in droves pursuing an objective they have no realistic means of achieving, no matter how just their cause.

There are many more countries that might prevail in a limited or regional conflict with the United States, and in such cases a military conflict would not be considered unjust on the basis of being futile. Unfortunately, armed secession from the United States by a native tribe would be futile and could only lead to suffering and death while failing to achieve any legitimate military objectives, so must be considered an inherently unjust war.

Hahahaha.

Okay. You go with that. By your logic it was unjust for the Finns to fight the Winter War, or Poland to oppose the Nazi occupation. Either was, on paper, futile.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 02:03

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

coyo7e posted:

I'd love to see your proof of the water protectors throwing oil in the water.

I'm struggling to see another likely outcome of sabotaging an oil pipeline.

Also, you have a really poorly informed view of American history. The tea partiers weren't trying to shift the blame to natives, since they knew they would be recognized as colonists, and the whole point of the thing was to make a statement, not escape detection. The Mohawk costumes were a political symbol.

Liquid Communism posted:

Hahahaha.

Okay. You go with that. By your logic it was unjust for the Finns to fight the Winter War, or Poland to oppose the Nazi occupation. Either was, on paper, futile.

You're making it clear again that you don't understand the concepts you're trying to reference.

Jus ad bellum is about the justice of initiating a war, the obligations of a defender under armed attack are properly considered under jus in bello.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Dec 12, 2016

# ? Dec 12, 2016 02:06

wearing a lampshade: Mar 6, 2013

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm struggling to see another likely outcome of sabotaging an oil pipeline.
.

Afaik its actually pretty free of oil at the moment.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 03:08

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; коммунизм хранится в яичках

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm struggling to see another likely outcome of sabotaging an oil pipeline.

Also, you have a really poorly informed view of American history. The tea partiers weren't trying to shift the blame to natives, since they knew they would be recognized as colonists, and the whole point of the thing was to make a statement, not escape detection. The Mohawk costumes were a political symbol.

You're making it clear again that you don't understand the concepts you're trying to reference.

Jus ad bellum is about the justice of initiating a war, the obligations of a defender under armed attack are properly considered under jus in bello.

And yet you've been using the concept to assert that the Sioux do not have any just cause to resume a war that, at the end of the day, the US started.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 03:32

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

albany academy posted:

Afaik its actually pretty free of oil at the moment.

The whole absurd threat kinda hinges on an oil spill happening if the protesters don't get what they want. If the company turns the pipeline on and Uglycat's ridiculous proclamations of sabotage turn out to be true, are the protesters going to say, "We didn't spill that oil, we just cut the holes in the pipe so it would fall out!"? Sort of like how the government is the one killing those hostages by not paying the ransom?

Liquid Communism posted:

And yet you've been using the concept to assert that the Sioux do not have any just cause to resume a war that, at the end of the day, the US started.

I didn't think you would actually be this stupidly pedantic about this, but here we are, I guess.

I feel it's a sufficiently uncontroversial statement to say that a state of war does not presently exist between the United States and any Indian tribe, to the point that if you wish to argue otherwise, the burden of proof would be on you. So yeah, an armed attempt by a tribe to reassert lost territory and sovereignty would be starting a war. The morality of it should be judged no differently than starting any other war.

LOAC doesn't recognize any distinction between starting a war and "resuming" one, because that would be retarded. "Better watch your rear end, Canada, we could resume the War of 1812 at any moment and be totally morally justified!"

Maybe you should actually achieve some basic familiarity with the concepts you're trying to argue about before going for sick owns. You idiot.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 05:14 on Dec 12, 2016

# ? Dec 12, 2016 03:56

Volcott: Mar 30, 2010; People paying American dollars to let other people know they didn't agree with someone's position on something is the lifeblood of these forums.

Liquid Communism posted:

And yet you've been using the concept to assert that the Sioux do not have any just cause to resume a war that, at the end of the day, the US started.

I mean, they can start an actual loving war if they really want to, but I can't imagine it would go well for them. America has a pretty good army.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 05:08

coyo7e: Aug 23, 2007; by zen death robot

There is such a long and storied of white conservatives in the USA just being like, "oh man that is breaking the law - no way I'd do anything to break THE LAW - it'd be immoral I should just accede to the gubmint and the local courts and outside interests," except I've literally seen firsthand more roving bands of armed thugs and people monkeywrenching federal property from white farmers and ranchers in the PNW in the last twenty years than I have seen anything else - and that includes how many times I've seen people abused at the hands of police during peaceful protests ("what's that kid doing up in that tree? pepper spray him until he falls out!")

And you know what? White farmers breaking open irrigation mains in the klamath basin in the 90s was just ignored. White farmers driving around in gangs of 4-7 men with tire irons and bats looking for environmental protestors - saw it there too. I tried to find some links but in the late 90s, newspapers and stuff weren't really up on leaving copy online and accessible but hey, you did not want to be caught with long hair in Klamath Falls around 1997-2000. It was really ugly - people got hurt, and nobody got arrested who was actually causing violence or intimidation - lotta hippies spent a good number of days in jail though.

Bundy Ranch? White ranchers refusing to pay their fare share and expecting a free ride - defending it with firearms.

Malheur? White people with guns, taking over federal property with the stated intent to override the endangered species act, national preservation act, and who literally used a backhoe to dig a trench latrine on top of a native american cultural heritage site (all after the ground was sold to the fed government for cash in hand by the white farmers and ranchers who lived there a century or so ago).

I see hippy kids and anarchists peacefully protesting with the occasional hoodlum breaking a window - some crazy white dude confronts the entire crowd by himself and declares himself being threatened and whips out a loving gun on them - cops in the crowd! And he was a right wing "journalist" with a blog called "Laughing At Liberals". Released from Jail in July - still pending trial. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/08/man_accused_of_pulling_gun_on_1.html

Solo extremist hippy guy lights a bunch of luxury vehicles on fire in the middle of the night bunch of unpurchased luxury vehicles on fire in the middle of the night on very-much-unpopulated "auto row" section of my town - faced literally life in prison for lighting a dozen or so high-end SUVs on fire in an empty car dealership - because if a fireman showed up and got hurt he would've been responsible.. Ended up on America's Most Wanted because he's obviously a high threat to anyone driving a loving car.

albany academy posted:

Afaik its actually pretty free of oil at the moment.

No you don't understand it's an oil pipeline! How could you not cause oil to leak if you try to halt it being put into production by messing it up? The oil is going to flow, and if the oil company doesn't worry about holes before they start - it's not their fault!

coyo7e fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Dec 12, 2016

# ? Dec 12, 2016 05:49

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

gently caress ethics, how is pipeline sabotage a tactically smart move? If we're going with the Robber Baron reading of the oil company, wouldn't they turn it on either way and just let any possible environmental destruction teach the opposition not to try that sabotage poo poo again?

# ? Dec 12, 2016 06:05

coyo7e: Aug 23, 2007; by zen death robot

DeusExMachinima posted:

gently caress ethics, how is pipeline sabotage a tactically smart move? If we're going with the Robber Baron reading of the oil company, wouldn't they turn it on either way and just let any possible environmental destruction teach the opposition not to try that sabotage poo poo again?

Because you're being entirely deceitful with your logic, you regularly switch directions of your argument/statements"proofs" mid-sentence, you nevre actually cite anything to back up anything you claim, and you regularly conflate morals and ethics "lines in the sand" in the same paragraph in order to attempt to appear as though you have any logical, moral, ethical, spiritual, legal, or capitalistic leg to stand on.

You're a loving troll, you need practise to be less obvious in your aping of Trump.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 06:12

DeusExMachinima: Sep 2, 2012; This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!

Put this loser on ignore immediately!

Did you mean to quote Dead Reckoning? I haven't posted any paragraphs in a bit here my dude.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 06:13

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

DeusExMachinima posted:

gently caress ethics, how is pipeline sabotage a tactically smart move? If we're going with the Robber Baron reading of the oil company, wouldn't they turn it on either way and just let any possible environmental destruction teach the opposition not to try that sabotage poo poo again?

The only scenarios I can see where it's productive are:

- The government is fundamentally inclined or pressurable to act in good faith, and will step in to prevent problems from escalating further, and/or can be expected to punish malicious action by Dakota Access. This is not very consistent with many of the more sabotage-supporting protest assertions, although I guess I could see a somewhat implausible reading of "well darn, the Corps of Engineers was pressured by Dakota Access and we just need to push back and get attention so that the bureaucracy treats us with the respect we deserve". Note: even this makes a lot more sense with a non-sabotage protest enterprise, and in fact whatever's been done to date seems to have made an impression - and if Uglycat's unsubstantiated sabotage hypothesis is correct, I will gloomily eat a little crow and admit that vandalism or threat of vandalism was a successful tactic, at least until the Trump Coronation. Edit: Personally, I hope Uglycat's unsubstantiated hypothesis is entirely wrong and we're arguing about something that hasn't happened, and ideally Donald Trump gets distracted by a shiny object and a further survey is done that satisfies this Sioux tribe's desire for engagement, water safety, and cultural preservation.

- The government is not. In a guerilla war between anti-pipeline and pro-pipeline elements (tribal or regardless-of-tribalness, pick your poison), massive and repeated vandalism will cause sufficient costs to Dakota Access and/or the US government that they will do something else that isn't "crush the saboteurs/insurgents under the iron boot of American law". Reroute the pipeline nowhere near Standing Rock whatsoever? Cancel it entirely? I am going to be polite and describe this as "dazzlingly optimistic".

Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Dec 12, 2016

# ? Dec 12, 2016 06:18

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

coyo7e posted:

Yeah, I think you'd have an easier time convincing people that this is Actually About Ethics In Native American Treaty Rights and not you appropriating the issue of native sovereignty because you have a personal axe to grind if you didn't post this screed about how you're still mad an eco terrorist was staring down a life sentence for felony arson a while back.

I also don't get why you keep bringing up the Malheur occupiers as an example of the police letting white conservatives get away with behavior they would never countenance from hippies, because last time I checked all those dudes are in jail awaiting their next trial on state charges, or dead.

Volcott posted:

I mean, they can start an actual loving war if they really want to, but I can't imagine it would go well for them. America has a pretty good army.

Oh, he agrees on that, he just thought I wouldn't be able to articulate an objection to a Sioux war of redemption under LOAC, despite him not knowing anything about the subject.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Dec 12, 2016

# ? Dec 12, 2016 06:33

SSJ_naruto_2003: Oct 12, 2012

If we just had a second trail of tears out into the ocean we could solve this whole issue.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 06:41

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:

If we just had a second trail of tears out into the ocean we could solve this whole issue.

Then they'd just start protesting oil rigs.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 06:53

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

Volcott posted:

I mean, they can start an actual loving war if they really want to, but I can't imagine it would go well for them. America has a pretty good army.

Wars aren't just won by the bigger army. See, for example, Vietnam.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 10:17

coyo7e: Aug 23, 2007; by zen death robot

DeusExMachinima posted:

I haven't posted any paragraphs in a bit here my dude.

When in doubt - literally argue the definition of a paragraph

Okay buddy

quote:

a distinct section of a piece of writing, usually dealing with a single theme and indicated by a new line, indentation, or numbering.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 10:22

Tias: May 25, 2008; Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'd remind you that this discussion started with the unambiguous assertion that violence against property for the purpose of intimidating people wasn't violence

No, this is wrong and you're lying on purpose. I said that destroying property isn't violence, you went and talked about intimidation. It's a less than proportional response and you're lying out your rear end to demonize it, at this point. You're a deceitful little poo poo, and I'm placing you on ignore from now on.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 12:43

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

IDK dudes.

Police are empowered to use force to stop both violence against people and violence* against property. That is a pretty necessary thing, or it would be impossible to have an orderly society. Your violence is not an exception because it's in the name of saving mother earth or indigenous rights or whatever other cause you believe to be righteous.

*or whatever you want to call this.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 14:17

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

wateroverfire posted:

Police are empowered to use force to stop both violence against people and violence* against property. That is a pretty necessary thing, or it would be impossible to have an orderly society. Your violence is not an exception because it's in the name of saving mother earth or indigenous rights or whatever other cause you believe to be righteous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_crime

You can just call it Vandalism, you don't need to anthropomorphize the pipeline by acting like it's a person.

Also, nobody thinks the police won't try to fight vandalism, people who engage in it know that. Nobody expects the police to just sit by and let them vandalize infrastructure, they just are willing to pay the legal consequences. Stuff like this happens all over the world every day all the time. It's what happens when you have large swathes of the population disenfranchised from society as a whole.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 14:22

wearing a lampshade: Mar 6, 2013

coyo7e posted:

No you don't understand it's an oil pipeline! How could you not cause oil to leak if you try to halt it being put into production by messing it up? The oil is going to flow, and if the oil company doesn't worry about holes before they start - it's not their fault!

It would be a PR nightmare if the oil company ran oil through a sabotaged pipeline causing a spill because a)it's their loving responsibility to ensure that no spills occur, regardless of any external actions that might incur a spill and B) if they didn't know it was sabotaged before operating it, that would be a PR nightmare (what else is wrong with it that they don't know about?) and C) if they DO know about it, qnd run it anyway, that would be an even worse PR nightmare.

Like if you really want to draw it down to some sort of moral absolutism, sure, but there is far more to consider than just who is in the right - theres optics, public perception, etc.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 14:25

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

if you think about it the civil rights movement wasnt peaceful at all, on account of the violence committed against property via sit-ins etc. Its necessary for an orderly society to punish civil disobedience

# ? Dec 12, 2016 17:18

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

none of this means anything except as a way to make liberals feel good about themselves for a few minutes, because Trump's gonna bulldoze the whole thing the second he's in office

# ? Dec 12, 2016 17:48

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

Calibanibal posted:

if you think about it the civil rights movement wasnt peaceful at all, on account of the violence committed against property via sit-ins etc. Its necessary for an orderly society to punish civil disobedience

I mean...this, but unironicly?

Civil disobedience doesn't even have meaning without the potential for punishment.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 18:03

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Calibanibal posted:

if you think about it the civil rights movement wasnt peaceful at all, on account of the violence committed against property via sit-ins etc. Its necessary for an orderly society to punish civil disobedience

I don't think you really get the point of civil disobedience. It is done in order to provoke a response from the government... not avoid it. Orderly society punishing them for an unjust law is a big part of what led to the civil rights act being passed.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 18:04

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

So violence against the pipeline is good

# ? Dec 12, 2016 19:20

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

albany academy posted:

It would be a PR nightmare if the oil company ran oil through a sabotaged pipeline causing a spill because a)it's their loving responsibility to ensure that no spills occur, regardless of any external actions that might incur a spill

I'm not convinced you're actually prepared to defend this. If Dakota Access performs whatever review of the pipeline you think is reasonable, discovers it's fully intact and decides to start pumping oil, while that's happening someone sabotages the pipeline as oil is flowing through it, you would claim it's Dakota Access's responsibility to ensure a spill doesn't happen at that point? I don't see how that is even possible. They could have humans watching every inch of the pipeline and shut it down at the moment of sabotage and there would still be a spill due to the existence of physics. At some point the person poking holes in the pipeline has to be responsible for the oil coming out of those holes.

quote:

B) if they didn't know it was sabotaged before operating it, that would be a PR nightmare (what else is wrong with it that they don't know about?)

For the same reason, I'm not seeing the nightmare here "Oh no! They haven't perfectly monitored 1000 miles of pipeline". This sort of project is just inherently attackable, if someone is determined to create an oil spill, they're going to do it. Maybe that's an argument against pipelines in general, but I don't think "Maybe someone will intentionally engineer an oil spill" has been a major concern historically. (Your C option is clearly a nightmare)

# ? Dec 12, 2016 19:23

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Tias posted:

No, this is wrong and you're lying on purpose. I said that destroying property isn't violence, you went and talked about intimidation. It's a less than proportional response and you're lying out your rear end to demonize it, at this point. You're a deceitful little poo poo, and I'm placing you on ignore from now on.

If you had looked maybe twelve pixels below that passage, you'd see that I actually quoted the person who said sabotage isn't violence, and it wasn't you. But go ahead and turn that persecution complex up to 11.

albany academy posted:

Like if you really want to draw it down to some sort of moral absolutism, sure, but there is far more to consider than just who is in the right - theres optics, public perception, etc.

Yeah the public is totally going to blame the company for leaks in a pipeline that was deliberately sabotaged by protesters. Because sabotage is just one of those free floating events that occurs independent of any intent, culpability, or responsible party.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 20:07

Uglycat: Dec 4, 2000; MORE INDISPUTABLE PROOF I AM BAD AT POSTING
---------------->

twodot posted:

I'm not convinced you're actually prepared to defend this. If Dakota Access performs whatever review of the pipeline you think is reasonable, discovers it's fully intact and decides to start pumping oil, while that's happening someone sabotages the pipeline as oil is flowing through it, you would claim it's Dakota Access's responsibility to ensure a spill doesn't happen at that point? I don't see how that is even possible. They could have humans watching every inch of the pipeline and shut it down at the moment of sabotage and there would still be a spill due to the existence of physics. At some point the person poking holes in the pipeline has to be responsible for the oil coming out of those holes.

For the same reason, I'm not seeing the nightmare here "Oh no! They haven't perfectly monitored 1000 miles of pipeline". This sort of project is just inherently attackable, if someone is determined to create an oil spill, they're going to do it. Maybe that's an argument against pipelines in general, but I don't think "Maybe someone will intentionally engineer an oil spill" has been a major concern historically. (Your C option is clearly a nightmare)

If you can't keep your pipeline safe, and you build it in a location where you are surrounded by populations that have the will to damage it, turning it on can only be described as irresponsible. Humans are natural fauna, and you can't ignore natural fauna when designing a machine that - when it fails to work to spec - can /destroy a good chunk of a continent's ecosystems/.

Yes, this is an argument against building pipelines. If spills are inevitable, and spills are unacceptable, then pipelines are unacceptable.

# ? Dec 12, 2016 22:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 3, 2024 13:02

Gobbeldygook: May 13, 2009; Hates Native American people and tries to justify their genocides.

Put this racist on ignore immediately!

Uglycat posted:

If you can't keep your pipeline safe, and you build it in a location where you are surrounded by populations that have the will to damage it, turning it on can only be described as irresponsible. Humans are natural fauna, and you can't ignore natural fauna when designing a machine that - when it fails to work to spec - can /destroy a good chunk of a continent's ecosystems/.

Yes, this is an argument against building pipelines. If spills are inevitable, and spills are unacceptable, then pipelines are unacceptable.

Option A: Let the terrorists win.

Option B: Put terrorists and those who materially support them in prison.

Which of those do you think is going to happen? Want to bet the FBI doesn't know you were at Standing Rock?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Dec 12, 2016 23:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

«‹›49 »