If it's different from European colonialism does that mean it isn't an instance of those groups forcing other people off their land?
I'm just asking you to confront your own logic absent the Disney-esque racism. By your logic Comanche aren't indigenous. That means your logic is bad, cause they are
2.
We don't have 10,000 years of history recorded for Native Americans, but we do have a few hundred. And so yes some of them forced others off their land. Does that mean those tribes stopped being indigenous?
1.
Apaches vs camachos
Lakota vs Crow
It seems almost racist to say that over 10,000 years Native Americans didn't act like humans everywhere else in the world and never forced anyone else off their land. It's like disney-esque racism but still 😅
Not saying your racist btw 🙏✌️
2.
Then it seems like you've setup a standard where the native Americans are also colonizers and can't be indigenous 🤔
Thank you for the respectful conversation by the way. I hope you're having an amazing day 🖖
1.
What are we talking about when we say colonizers? Are we talking about a group of people coming into a new place and kicking out the old residents and taking over?
Because earlier you said colonizers can never become indigenous.
And if the description above is what a colonizer is
It sounded like you said colonizers can never become indigenous
I'm just wondering if that applies to Native Americans? As in, if any of their ancestors ever took over land from another tribe...does that mean their ancestors can't be indigenous?
Because that seems to be the standard you've used
Thank you ✌️ I understand your position better even if we disagree
So in 100,000 years, Americans will still be "colonizers" despite generations of em living there 10X longer than Native Americans did before anyone else showed up 🤔
That is an interesting thought
2.
Saying ‘America won’t exist’ dodges the argument instead of answering it – just like refusing a longevity thought experiment because humans don’t live that long.
The question was conceptual, not predictive.
1.
My wife thinks I should clarify what I think you misunderstood
You missed the point. I wasn’t predicting America lasts 1,000 years; I was using a hypothetical time horizon to test whether ‘colonizer’ is a permanent moral category.
3. Let me know if you need me to rewrite what I wrote simpler 🙏 totally willing to do so so we can communicate better ✌️
2.
So you are given a different hypothetical to show how it's possible to engage with it even if the hypothetical can't happen in reality
And you come away thinking I was saying you mentioned living for 100,000 years
It makes it look like you aren't comprehending the words being spoken
1.
Well now I'm starting to see why we're having an issue communicating 🤔😅
You aren't comprehending what I wrote to you 😮💨
When you're given a hypothetical and can't engage because the hypothetical isn't possible...
If I marry a native American and have a kid whose 50% native American, is he indigenous or a colonizer?
What if he has kids who are only 25% native American, are they indigenous?
Next gen is only 12%, are they indigenous?
Next gen is only 6%, indigenous still?
Where do you draw the line? 🤔
2. Then the issue is with you not the hypothetical 🤨
I think you dont want to answer because to answer would be to reveal an inconsistency in your thinking
I think you know it would be ridiculous to say that Americans born in 1,000 years wouldnt be indigenous to America and so looked for an excuse
1.
If I was engaging with you on the hypothetical of living longer than normal, and I asked you whether you'd rather live for a hundred days and then die or live for 100,000 years functionally immortal, which would you rather
And you say you can't answer because people can't live that long...
So in a thousand years, the Americans alive at that point in the year 3026, They won't be indigenous to America and will still be colonizers?
That kind of thinking doesn't make much sense to me. Native American tribes weren't pacifists. They conquered each other. That mean they can't be indigenous?
it's usually either bad messaging, or manipulative messaging
2.
How long does America need to continuously exist before we are all indigenous by that political definition? 🤔
I'm personally alwaysa lil bit suspect when political terms diverge that much from the colloquial meaning. If the average person can't understand what's being said...
1.
If you were born in America then you're indigenous to America.
That's what indigenous means 🤨 It means that you are from there
I'm not an immigrant to the place that I was born and my parents were born and their parents were born lol
I thought What decided whether you were indigenous to a particular area was whether you were born and from that area 🤔
Like I'm indigenous to North America. I was born in North America, I've lived my whole life in North America
The tribes that were here when the Mayflower landed immigrated from Asia a long long time before that. There was a time when humans existed but there were no humans in North and South America. We immigrated there.
Question by the way, Do you disagree that people born here are indigenous to here?
Fck Trump
But technically native Americans did immigrate here. Technically no humans are indigenous to North and South America. They immigrated from Asia about 10,000 years ago
That aside, it is criminal that they're trying to coerce native American reservations to give up more local power
Id play that lol
#DarkWoke is rising.
We'll call Maga rètards AND fight for human rights!
We are not PC. We don't want to be!
We don't care to control the language of others; especially when there's real problems to tackle 🇺🇸
As in what would need to change in the Bitcoin space for you personally to have considered that it has found a use case?
I used to be a skeptic and I actually looked at the world and said what would I expect to happen if I was wrong. And then those things happened. I updated my beliefs.
I didn't say that 🤔 it's gone down in the short term 🤷 spectacularly down sometimes
Bitcoin has been the best performing ass at the last 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years respectively.
I have a sincere question for you. At what time or price would you consider Bitcoin to have found some use?
Everyone has opinions. They are entitled to them. But when people can't even accept facts that are confirmable in reality because it conflicts with an opinion, that's usually an indication that there's some bias working against you.
I've met people that dislike BTC But don't need to deny facts
If the use case is maintaining your purchasing power or growing your purchasing power over the long term. Reality itself shows that it is useful for that. No one over the last 17 years who has held Bitcoin for 5 years has ever lost purchasing power
You not liking the above fact doesnt make it a lie
What statistic do you think is a lie and why?
