Asklemmy

45362 readers

674 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

142

What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

540 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Like, all my friends are leftists. When we talk about politics, they sound like leftists, they say leftist things, and espouse leftist values. My friends are all leftists because my friends' friends are leftists and I make friends with my friends' friends.

Regarding "settler," I think it's a motte-and-bailey tactic you're using. The motte -- the easily defensible position -- is that settler refers to people who are bigoted. The bailey -- the hard to defend position, but which is easily equivocated for the motte -- is that it refers to any non-indigenous person. The reason I see this equivocation is because in my mind, a settler does not stop being a settler simply because they turn into an ally for indigenous people. Settlerdom is a property of a person that depends only on their geographic location and ancestry, not their philosophy. Father Le Jeune is generally regarded as an ally to the linguistic preservation of indigenous languages in the pacific northwest, and he even helped develop a writing system for Chinuk Wawa -- but was he not a settler?

I don't deny that it's a useful verbal weapon against bigots. I would merely like it to be well-understood that a verbal weapon is what it is intended to be.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Like, all my friends are leftists. When we talk about politics, they sound like leftists, they say leftist things, and espouse leftist values. My friends are all leftists because my friends' friends are leftists and I make friends with my friends' friends.

Why would you think this would be in some way representative? It's just your friend network.

Regarding "settler," I think it's a motte-and-bailey tactic you're using. The motte -- the easily defensible position -- is that settler refers to people who are bigoted. The bailey -- the hard to defend position, but which is easily equivocated for the motte -- is that it refers to any non-indigenous person. [...]

You're wrong in your attempt to identify a fallacy and are doing your own one at the same time (straw man). I have explained at least twice that being a settler is a psychology derived from settler colonialism. Someone else suggested that you read Sakai. Have you done so before trying to contradict and lecture? Have you asked questions about a topic that is clearly new to you?

You keep belaboring this straw man that it means anyone non-indigenous. I think I was pretty clear on this, so can you explain why you are pretending otherwise?

I don't deny that it's a useful verbal weapon against bigots. I would merely like it to be well-understood that a verbal weapon is what it is intended to be.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why would you think this would be in some way representative? It’s just your friend network.

I think it's representative of my friend network. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were asking. This was a response to "how many leftists do you know?"

No I have not read Sakai yet. This topic is not new to me, I just disagree with you. But very well, I am glad that we have reached the mutual agreement that it is not an appropriate word for non-indigenous people in general, which was my original point that you responded to:

Reading this reminded me about another unpopular opinion: I think “settler” and “colonizer” are poor terms for non-indigenous people broadly.

As I see it, it turns out we both agree. I misunderstood your initial response to that statement as one that was intending to be a counterargument. So, sorry -- I really didn't mean to straw man you; I legitimately misunderstood what your point was.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I think it's representative of my friend network. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were asking. This was a response to "how many leftists do you know?"

And what was that in response to?

No I have not read Sakai yet. This topic is not new to me, I just disagree with you.

These are somewhat contradictory statements.

But very well, I am glad that we have reached the mutual agreement that it is not an appropriate word for non-indigenous people in general, which was my original point that you responded to:

Reading this reminded me about another unpopular opinion: I think “settler” and “colonizer” are poor terms for non-indigenous people broadly.

As I see it, it turns out we both agree. I misunderstood your initial response to that statement as one that was intending to be a counterargument. So, sorry -- I really didn't mean to straw man you; I legitimately misunderstood what your point was.

I introduced the use of the term. When you started talking about your own understanding, I told you I was talking about something else and explained what it was twice and with examples and context. So far as I can tell that was entirely ignored in order to seek conflict. This is a tendency many of us have at the beginning, but we must train it out of ourselves because it is highly counterproductive.