Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)T
Posts
8
Comments
1985
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I never claimed that. I claimed there is no utopian state of original land ownership. Indigenous tribes also killed murdered and persecuted each other over their land. But they had no written history of this at least that one be legally viable today. Indigenous tribes allied themselves with settlers to expand their own power and footprint at the expense of other tribes and settler groups. Especially during the French and Indian war. There were also Indians who raped and murder settlers, King's Philips war was full of Indian atrocities on the settlers, but is rarely talked about in modern times because it doesn't fit the narrative of 'white man bad, native American good'. FWIW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War. Frankly the only reason I am aware of it personally, was because I grew up in the area where the war happened and did a history day project on it in high school. Most history text books don't cover it and it's not a popular topic because of how fraught and messy the whole affair was.

    It's true the USA government had a written history of land agreements, and the violation of those agreements often violated their own ideals and laws. But typically the law was re-written to justify this. It's true that with such written records you have some frame of reference, but which 'state' was the original one of land ownership you wish to revert to? the ones from 1780, or the some point in the 1800s, or what? There is some arbitrary point at which you must pick, and there will be winners and losers based on that.

    The popular narrative today is that indigenous people's were purely victims of evil colonial settlers. But the truth is far more complex and excludes the inconvenient truth that such people's were not always peaceful collectivist nature lovers that the mass-media and modern Americans crudely seem to think they are.

    Many tribes, to this day, viciously fight in the courts for land and tribal right status, and often larger more powerful tribes seek to deny them these rights. Legally, only certain tribes are recognized by the federal government... usually the largest and most powerful... and use that power to discriminate and deny other tribes recognition, rights, and status.

    Again, if you want to fight and donate for these causes. Please go right ahead. You can choose with tribe you support based on which one you think suffered the most. But there is no utopian final endpoint of 'justice' at which things will be settled. Land theft and land rights are a perpetual issue. I worked in land policy for 5 years, and while I didn't work on tribal land policy specifically, the complexities and legality of land ownership and use go far deeper than some convenient catchphrase. And they are largely disputed and governed by the court system, so there isn't much anyone can directly do unless they are a part of the legal system or able to fund lawyers.

    The average person can't afford a lawyer for themselves, let alone for someone else. But I'm sure Billie could fund lots of tribal buybacks and court cases.

  • if billie eilish wants to buy up a bunch of land and give it back to people, that's her business. why doesn't she do that personally, rather than lecturing people at the grammies? leading my example is a lot more powerful than lecturing from a bully pulpit.

    she certain has the money and power to make a difference in this regard. but i don't think she is talking about this particular issue, so much as grandstanding about being anti ICE for scoring some political points.

  • pretty much.

    but i've met plenty of stupid scientists and psychologists. usually when they try to apply their expertise to other areas where it doesn't apply.

  • No, it's not. My argument is that just because you don't like 2001 doesn't mean it's stupid and bad. I think it's a great film. So do most people educated in film who have a broader understanding of the medium.

    You are conflating general audience exceptions of a conventional hollywood narrative as some form of universal merit. As if there aren't audiences outside of that mold. As if art film doesn't or shouldn't exist.

    Harmon writes for general audiences. I'm well aware of him and his work. His biggest fans are people who think they are smarter than everyone else and that Rick and Morty and Community are genius level works of art... because they are very referential and self-referential, but they are ultimately neat and tidy and comforting and built on familiar tropes. They are not designed to be challenging or interested and don't demand much of the viewer. Nothing about his story telling is complex or open ended. And that's fine, but it's not the only kind story structure or film/show that exists.

    Dude, you just hate open ended stories. Just say that. I have watched Dan Harmon stuff and it's funny, and enjoyable, but I also find it trite and nihilistic. It's superficially enjoyable, but 2001 is a lot more enjoyable on deeper levels and a work of art. Dan Harmon doesn't make art, he makes entertainment.

  • I never said any of that. I also never villianized OP's wife. Lots of people share my viewpoint, but they are unlikely to be on lemmy where the default is a lot of relativism and far leftism and a banning of anyone who has non-extreme views. I think marriage is sacred and serious, but I'm clearly warped. I know for some people marriage is not a big deal and there is no difference between it and dating casually.

    You keep putting words in my mouth and blaming me for them. Projection is a hell of a drug. But this is the internet, what you read from my comments is not so much the words so much as the fiction you are writing in your head about a stranger.

  • i'm not disputing that. most people are armchair activists at best.

    and frankly, being an activist requires a certain mentality that most people don't possess. it requires shutting off rational parts of your brain and giving yourself over to a belief. I gave up on activism myself because many activists are violent psychos and I want nothing to do with people like that. Everything is 'peace and love' until you mildly disagree with them, then you their enemy they must destroy. They are often the opposite of what they claim to be, and while some are cool, many are only in it for the feeling of moral superiority and 'community' they get from shitting one 'bad people' and lauding themselves as 'good people'.

    Like I had people threaten me for not being pro bike lane enough, because apparently if I go to a bike lane rally, but I don't think cars are evil and car drivers are evil, I'm evil. I can't just be generally supportive of bike lanes, i have to be part of some crazy extremist agenda where own a car makes you hate gay people or something.

  • I don't police other people's politics. I mostly am interested in what they do and how they vote. Words are cheap, and policing other people is fucking weird and egotistical no matter if it's done by progressives or conservatives. And they both seem to LOVE telling other people how to live their lives and how wrong and horrible they are for not agreeing with the hypocritical nonsense they spout they don't practice themselves.

    I voted for weed legalization, but i don't smoke. I am against public weed smoking because it's gross like public cigarette smoking. But I don't care if people smoke in their car and homes. I also vote for candidates that want immigration reform, but I am not for open borders and i think immigration should be reasonable restricted and borders should be enforced. But I also have felt that way about immigration for 20 years and I don't grand stand about it just because of what is going on with ICE abuses currently. ICE should be doing their job quietly like they did under Obama, while reasonable reforms would include paths to residency, but not whole sale amnesty for all existing residents. I also have known several immigrants and many of them are deeply anti-immigrant and are 100% on board with what Trump/ICE is doing, they aren't a liberal progressive monolith, and liberal leftist views about immigrants and immigration tend to be vastly oversimplified and condescending. Also, most immigrants are conservative, not liberal. So if you want open immigration... those immigrants are often the ones will will vote against your your side. That's kind of ironic, isn't it?

    I also notice people who claim they are against 'rigid structures' at the ones who happen to adhere to them in their personal lives. Like poly people, who claim they are alternative and anti hierarchy but always almost always have a massive and rigid power differential in their relationship structures. It's almost as if they bullshit phrases like that to cover up their hypocrisy of their practices. A lot like Trump.

  • so your argument is you are right because you are you and all that matters is your opinion on things?

    and auto-motive engineers, are wrong if they don't agree with your layman definition of a car?

    Must be nice to be smarter than professionals who make movies and cars. Wish I as much of a genius as you clearly are.

  • sorry, do the majority of celebs fly commercial and show up to protests?

    or do they just say crap at award shows to score points with little zero inconvenience or consequence to themselves?

  • is your friend single and hot?

  • you sound like a menace to polite Christian society, sir.

    Your gum chewing shall corrupt the children and women, and lead weak men astray.

  • celebrities aren't normal people. they don't want to be around you. they just want your money. and they will say what they think will get them money.

    the only solidarity they have with is other wealthy people who have the same struggles as they do about wanting to use their private jets.

  • they don't.

    the 'stolen land' argument derives from some idealized utopia that doesn't and never existed. its similar to the 'noble savage' myth that if 'society' didn't exist we'd live in paradise because human beings in their 'natural state' are angelic and pure and the world would be abundant and perfectly happy.

    and nobody who uses it is going to give way their land they own 'back'. Billie Eilish has multiple properties and none of them are being donated to indigenous people. If you confronted her about that she'd probably call you an asshole and tell you it's not her responsibility and that some other rich white person should do it, but not them! it was those bad evil people who they are not one of!

    It is quintessential virtue signalling. You argue from an ideal that is far fetched that the very same ideal is not one you'd hold yourself accountable too because that would be 'crazy' to do so.

    to really give back 'stolen land' the us government would have to basically displace it's entire population to unhabited parts of the country where nobody could really live. the reason the natives were 'displaced' is because they lived in the places that were desirable to live in and the settlers wanted the land. most of the world's land mass is not easily inhabitable or agriculturally productive, so humans fight over the parts that are.

    and that's also why nobody fought for land claims in antarctic or the artic, because there was no point. but with global warming possible making it more habitable, we are starting to see polar powers prep for military conflict over it.

    it's also why if you buy 1000 acres in northern california for a few million, because nobody wants that land, and the same price gets you like 400 sq ft apartment in manhatten.

  • i'm not aware of any definition of story that requires it have those elements, or they be presented in that order.

    you have a very narrow definition of what a story is, and seem to think anything outside of that structure is bad or wrong.

    i mean you can define a car however you want. doesn't mean other people have to drive such cars or agree with you. definitions change. is a semi truck a car? it has all those qualities. but i wouldn't call it a car and i'd considerate to have zero overlap with operating a car, hence why operating trucks often requires a CBD and not a regular drivers license.

    I'm guessing you never took a college level film class? I took several. A lot of the movies we watched, and I've seen seen outside of class, don't subscribe to your definition of story at all. I still very much enjoyed them and thought some of them were far superior to marvel movies.

  • people behave according to incentives that reward certain behaviors, and punish others.

    i used to work in policy. good policy gets you voted out of office, and makes everyone hate you. You don't get rich from pursuing a broad-based policy that improves the lives of your constituents. a lot of people i met... were smart and open about this. there was no reason to be a 'good' politician because nobody pays you for it, and the voters tend to vote you out for it.

    there are some cases where that isn't true, of course. but usually limited to smaller districts/states with more homogeneous populations

  • is it? I see a lot of calls to violence in left wing spaces. and I've had violence direct at myself by so called left wing people.

    Are you sure it's exclusively a problem of right wing people? do you not recall Charlie Kirk? most leftists seem to see nothing wrong with his murder, because he 'deserved it'.

    i've been politically active for almost 25 years, and I've seen violence and death called for by everyone. the only major difference is who they want to be the victim(s) of that violence.

  • sorry what are we talking about now? now we are talking about Christian Zionists?

    I thought we were talking about chuck schumers support as a senator of a state with the largest jewish population in the USA and why he gets lots of money for being pro israeli in that state?

  • There is no such thing as the trans community. There are trans people of all different beliefs and identities. Some trans people hate other trans people.

    Trans community is something people impose on them to force them into a collective group so they can grand stand about them.

    I don't support them, because I'm not egotistical enough to think I speak for them. I let people speak for themselves. Some trans people I've known were cool. Others were total shitbags of human beings who were violent and abusive towards other people.

  • My view is warped because I believe people are responsible for their actions?

    I mean, it's not the first time I've been told this. But I live in a very progressive city where people get very offended at the notion anyone is personally responsible for their own choices at all. Maybe you live here too.