2024 ELECTION THREAD

I didn't say symbols don't have meaning or consequence. What I said was I don't care.

Have you ever heard of an internal and external locus of control?

Worrying about things unknown people paint on rocks is something you can't control, and something you probably don't have time to worry about if you have actual responsibilities in your life.

Like as if anyone gives a flying **** if you have got them on ignore or not. Get over yourself.

Why should some people be allowed to celebrate the fact that their ancestors were part of specific ethnic groups 500+ years ago, and some others shouldn't?

left leaning media like cnn is hilarious

It takes literally no effort or attention. It’s merely stating an opinion. I’m not saying you should have sleepless nights over it. It’s the exact same amount of effort as stating you don’t care.

What are you going to do about it? What can you do about it? Nothing? Ok cool, good talk, thanks for bringing it to our attention. I'll make sure to get to the "being impotently outraged at random graffiti" part of my priority list eventually. I think it's at the bottom of page 2172.

Some hateful symbols can have consequences, even grave ones.

Bragging for fun about Europeans having conquered north American lands from previous occupants (who killed each other's regularly anyway) isn't a hate symbol and has no consequences as there is no pristine land to take from them anymore.

While swastika is a symbol associated with the desire to genocide a specific group.

Hope this helps you see the difference

You’re smart enough to know this is a bad faith argument that doesn’t represent what happened.

One group that was nearly wiped out is drawing attention to itself on a day that celebrates them.

The other group is painting over that to purposely mock that erasure, not “celebrate their heritage”.

Imagine Jewish symbols painted on a rock to commemorate the survivors/hostages of Oct 7 and a Palestinian group paints over it with “Lol -Sinwar”. You’re going to tell me the Palestinians are just celebrating their heritage? Come on…

Yup, no hate or racism involved in the conquering of Native Americans. None at all.

I’m doing exactly the same thing you’re doing…lol.

We're back to that whole internal/external locus of control thing again.

I hate to break it to you bruh, but you're just a mundane conservative who is average IQ at best. Every time you try to act smart by talking about fallacies, or agency, or law, or some other dumb****ery you picked up from whatever midwit right wing propaganda site you mainline every day, you **** it up and make yourself sound dumber than if you just acted normally. Instead of trying to sound smart, why don't you work on your reading comprehension, so that when you reply to posts you're actually replying to what the person wrote instead of trying to work in your concept of the day that has absolutely relevance but you think sounds lofty, like "agency" or "locus of control" lol.

Especially when comparing the USA with Canada it's clear that the USA specifically in some cases behaved really "hard" with natives (even for historical standards).

And? That's not racism in the normal sense of the word, that's just conquest, with the choice of disregarding ethical considerations.

Later stuff like the trail of tear, abuses of an already conquered population, can be ascribed to hate and racism.

But the stone was about Columbus arriving and saying "it's mine", not about the trail of tears or other atrocities.

Man he is just saying in fairly technical terms that he doesn't give a **** about anything that doesn't concern him directly and/or upon which there is nothing he thinks he can do to change.

Which tbh is how most people actually live their lives

I know. He annoyed me last time by trying to act smart instead of responding to what I said, even though I actually took the time to engage with him in good faith. He is annoying me again by trying to act smart with some "locus of control" bullshit. And this is far from the first time he's tried to act smarter than he is, just the most recent examples. Am I not allowed to get annoyed?

Natives aren't "one group" and it's also unclear how one can claim there are still natives around. If by that we mean people who have some native ancestor sure but they also have conquerors among their ancestors so they literally wouldn't exist if the conquering hadn't happened so what are we actually talking about?

Also, some natives (most) were wiped out by other natives for millennia, that doesn't count?

It's not like Palestine w Israel which are recent hostilities.

It's like someone in Italy saying he has Longobard ancestors and someone with Roman ancestors making a joke. Both ethnic groups don't exist anymore in a recognizable form and people in Italy today descend from both

The symbology itself is not hateful, just like Celtic symbology is not inherently hateful but it is used with hateful intent by certain people.

But personally I think that in all likelihood there is probably racial prejudice in the pro-indigenous side too so it’s hard to really care about an ethnic/national squabble like this.

The reality is that the most discriminated group in America and Canada has to be Indigenous even today. I know if you look up the history of Residential Schools in both countries it only ended 10-15 years ago. The government and the catholic church were behind it . In Canada they turned down a massive settlement offer in the billions

All of you are free to give back your houses, land and buildings if you wish but reality is you will not. Another reality is if no other person conquered North America most of the tribes would have been wiped out by the Apache . It doesn't make it right but its called history

You know that despite being a multitude of different peoples that many identify as a group with Native heritage, hence the concept of the day.

You’re Italy comparison would make more sense if the people who painted that rock weren’t still suffering the consequences and still subject to racism. Are you really trying to argue that painting over that had no symbolic value or that the people who originally painted it shouldn’t take that as threatening given the meaning?

No one is arguing that people with European ancestry need to leave the country just that they don’t also need to mock indigenous people.

You’re trying to argue that the Europeans who conquered an enslaved the indigenous people didn’t consider them racially inferior?

Did the Romans consider the Carthaginians racially inferior?

This is a wild, wild take, but OK, you don't care about swastikas. Do you also think that no one else should care about swastikas either? For example, is it your view that a Jewish person should have no reaction to someone spray painting swastikas on a bridge? And does this rule apply no matter how many swastikas there are? In other words, if a Jewish woman goes into town and finds swastikas painted all over the place, should her reaction still be "it's no big." And does your logic apply to all symbols? Should a black person be unconcerned to encounter a burning cross in a public park at night? Does your logic apply to words also? If a group of people are walking down the street chanting "all Arabs are terrorists," is that worth more than a shrug of the shoulders if you were born in Egypt and moved to the U.S when you were a child?

This is so incredibly racist lmao. You despise native americans we get it bud like holy ****