7 ms·

Okay. >Also note that you didn't actually address the factual claim, you just went straight to an ad-hominem. That in turn reads like you don't actually have a

Okay. >Also note that you didn't actually address the factual claim, you just went straight to an ad-hominem. That in turn reads like you don't actually have a response to the claim and are just trying to distract from that fact. The problem here is that you appear to believe there is a factual claim involved, when there isn't. It's like claiming the point of water is to drown people. Edit, since I noticed you're the author upthread. It's worth pointing out, since you are new here, that your initial comment also violates the spirit of the guidelines. >The very existence of the US is predicated on ethnically cleansing the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide. Forgetting for a moment if this is true or not, it's not a claim that's falsifiable. It's an ideological statement that is meant to convey that the speaker a) is likely a communist (congratulations), b) has extreme disdain for the United States, and c) attempts to redirect what are meant to be policy discussions into a blackhole of attempting to argue about whether or not the United States is evil. This is pointless, but is a common tactic used by online bullies.

vrganj 23d ago
It is a purely factual statement. The silbling commenter already provided some sourcing, but it should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of history. The only ideological move is your continued refusal to address the factual claims - instead writing a long-winded comment to distract from it. Two wordy paragraphs. Not a single word about the fate of native Americans. Speaks for itself, huh.
- remarkEon 22d ago
  Yes I already said I understand that you hate the United States. Is your actual point that you want to play some sort of "which country has the highest body count in their history" competition? I'm not distracting (or distracted) from anything, I am fully aware of the kinds of games you and those like you attempt to play.
  - vrganj 22d ago
    You brought up the track record of countries and the United States, then spent several comments complaining people don't want to engage on the substance, while consistently ignoring the track record of the United States, something directly relevant to the substance of the topic you yourself brought up. You still haven't addressed the topic you introduced, you are still derailing by attempting personal attacks. The record speaks for itself.
    - remarkEon 21d ago
      >The very existence of the US is predicated on ethnically cleansing the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide. This is your original comment. "Predicated" means "to establish". So, your claim is the United States was founded "to ethnically cleanse the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide". Can you find some primary sources, from George Washington perhaps, where he says "we are founding this country to kill the natives". Please be specific. Is English not your first language? Again, this is such a common thing. You are the one that introduced this absurd claim, not me. I have not derailed anything, and there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American. I don't have to put up with this bullshit from people like you anymore.
      - vrganj 21d ago
        > Predicated" means "to establish". I believe your disagreement might be based on an imprecise understanding of the word then. > If an idea or argument is predicated on something, it depends on the existence or truth of this thing https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-predicated-on https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-predi... Predicated means something is a precondition for something existing, not something was created to do something. Funnily enough though, there actually are letters from Washington declaring said intent (think the May 31, 1779 letter to Sullivan), but that wasn't even the claim I made. > Is English not your first language? It's my fourth, actually. But I'd like to think I do pretty well in it and understand its nuances :-) Anyways, I will note, that you are still distracting from the claim. You are still doing anything but addressing the substance of what happened to the Native Americans. You still refuse to discuss the track record you yourself introduced. > there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American. I don't have to put up with this bullshit from people like you anymore. May I suggest refamiliarizing yourself with the rules, particularly the bit about ideology trampling curiosity?
toomanyrichies 22d ago
To paraphrase "The Princess Bride"- you keep using the word "communist". I don't think it means what you think it means. One can acknowledge the very real harms done by the United States over its history, without also believing that private property is evil and workers should seize the means of production. Can you see how those two things are orthogonal? Here's the falsifiable version: - the Indian Removal Act of 1830 - the Trail of Tears - the several hundred ratified treaties that were broken - the Dawes Act, and - the intentional decimation of bison herds from tens of millions to a few hundred by the late 1880s, which some Army and Interior officials at the time openly described as a way to force Plains tribes onto reservations. [1] Which of those do you think "communists" are fabricating? 1. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/great-american-buffalo-slaughter https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/great-americ...

vrganj 23d ago

It is a purely factual statement. The silbling commenter already provided some sourcing, but it should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of history. The only ideological move is your continued refusal to address the factual claims - instead writing a long-winded comment to distract from it. Two wordy paragraphs. Not a single word about the fate of native Americans. Speaks for itself, huh.

remarkEon 22d ago
Yes I already said I understand that you hate the United States. Is your actual point that you want to play some sort of "which country has the highest body count in their history" competition? I'm not distracting (or distracted) from anything, I am fully aware of the kinds of games you and those like you attempt to play.
- vrganj 22d ago
  You brought up the track record of countries and the United States, then spent several comments complaining people don't want to engage on the substance, while consistently ignoring the track record of the United States, something directly relevant to the substance of the topic you yourself brought up. You still haven't addressed the topic you introduced, you are still derailing by attempting personal attacks. The record speaks for itself.
  - remarkEon 21d ago
    >The very existence of the US is predicated on ethnically cleansing the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide. This is your original comment. "Predicated" means "to establish". So, your claim is the United States was founded "to ethnically cleanse the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide". Can you find some primary sources, from George Washington perhaps, where he says "we are founding this country to kill the natives". Please be specific. Is English not your first language? Again, this is such a common thing. You are the one that introduced this absurd claim, not me. I have not derailed anything, and there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American. I don't have to put up with this bullshit from people like you anymore.
    - vrganj 21d ago
      > Predicated" means "to establish". I believe your disagreement might be based on an imprecise understanding of the word then. > If an idea or argument is predicated on something, it depends on the existence or truth of this thing https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-predicated-on https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-predi... Predicated means something is a precondition for something existing, not something was created to do something. Funnily enough though, there actually are letters from Washington declaring said intent (think the May 31, 1779 letter to Sullivan), but that wasn't even the claim I made. > Is English not your first language? It's my fourth, actually. But I'd like to think I do pretty well in it and understand its nuances :-) Anyways, I will note, that you are still distracting from the claim. You are still doing anything but addressing the substance of what happened to the Native Americans. You still refuse to discuss the track record you yourself introduced. > there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American. I don't have to put up with this bullshit from people like you anymore. May I suggest refamiliarizing yourself with the rules, particularly the bit about ideology trampling curiosity?

toomanyrichies 22d ago

To paraphrase "The Princess Bride"- you keep using the word "communist". I don't think it means what you think it means. One can acknowledge the very real harms done by the United States over its history, without also believing that private property is evil and workers should seize the means of production. Can you see how those two things are orthogonal? Here's the falsifiable version: - the Indian Removal Act of 1830 - the Trail of Tears - the several hundred ratified treaties that were broken - the Dawes Act, and - the intentional decimation of bison herds from tens of millions to a few hundred by the late 1880s, which some Army and Interior officials at the time openly described as a way to force Plains tribes onto reservations. [1] Which of those do you think "communists" are fabricating? 1. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/great-american-buffalo-slaughter https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/great-americ...