Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 22:14:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:41:
You were definitely the one who brought up indigenous rights. I get that you want to talk about universal human rights... but that doesn't change you were the one that brought up indigenous rights.

Yet again, no, I did not.

Yes, you did...
and in your very first post:

It's also why I am not popular with people who want to push for the rights of "indigenous" people because the data I can bring to the table shows that they are not, and never have been, indigenous.

What did you mean by that?
How can indigenous rights be separated from "local politics" if the entire concept is predicated on special rights being granted to indigenous by the non-indigenous government?
That's what you have a problem with right? Indigenous rights... "some are more equal than others" etc.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:41:
You were definitely the one who brought up indigenous rights. I get that you want to talk about universal human rights... but that doesn't change you were the one that brought up indigenous rights.

Yet again, no, I did not. I said:

That's still my point. There are no "indigenous" modern humans because of how we behave as a species and have always behaved.

I think "indigenous rights" are counterproductive and utterly pointless. What we, as a species, should be focusing on is universal human rights. We're all part of the same damn species. End of story. That we stupidly divide by phenotype is also counterproductive and utterly pointless. Oh you have dark hair and dark eyes? Great. You get the same rights and protections as Blondey McBlondeface over there.

"Indigenous rights" is in quotes because it's a concept based around a division by phenotype instead of a concept based around a species.

And, yet again, you sidestepped answering whether the same emotional content be injected as "context" when we are discussing literally every other group in human history that were slaughtered, raped, endured genocide, and were forceably removed from wherever they were settled. What the Romans did to the Gauls makes what the early US government did look like a pleasant Sunday afternoon stroll.

But I'll be frank. I don't think you're intellectually honest enough to answer whether that same view, your view, should be taken with every other group of people that another group of people subjugated. Because if you answer "no", then your position is hypocritical. If your answer is "yes", then what happened in the US in the 1800s doesn't matter because it's just yet another small example of all the horrible shit humanity does it itself.

Because there's literally no other way to address this. You keep bringing up history. So do I. You ignore that history because it doesn't fit the agenda you are now clearly trying to push. Either humanity is often violently horrible to itself regardless of time and location and that's just a fact or you really don't give a shit about anyone else in history because you're not emotionally invested in them. If you weren't emotionally invested in this one group, you wouldn't keep ignoring every other group to constantly just focus on them.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:41:
I also believe in universal human rights. Only a troglodyte wouldn't.

Great! Then it means you continually hammering on rights for a specific group was an utterly pointless endeavor since you believe in universal human rights. Therefore, there is no need to bring up the rights of "indigenous peoples" in the US ever again. You'll strive to work for the equal rights of every regardless of phenotype and reject special consideration for a single group.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:40:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:05:
Rather his point is, regardless of what you call the indigenous in America, they should only be treated exactly the same as non-indigenous, just as every other citizen (though that citizenship was only granted in 1924 for USA, and 1956 for Canada), historical context be damned ... because if we took historical context into account, then what about all this <gestures at all of human history>.

Not my point. Don't misrepresent me. Not once did I bring up citizenship. Or any other localized political activity. You did. In every single response you made.

I said universal human rights. As in rights that apply, universally, to all humans. You continue to try and inject emotional content and call it "context". When I brought up other groups, globally and historically, that were treated in similar ways, you completely sidestepped it because context here only applies to how you process whatever agenda you are emotionally invested in.

I also believe in universal human rights. Only a troglodyte wouldn't.
Now what? Dissolve the sovereign tribes?

edit: Any third party want to read my posts (none of them are long) for emotional content and point it out to me?
edit2: You were definitely the one who brought up indigenous rights. I get that you want to talk about universal human rights... but that doesn't change you were the one that brought up indigenous rights.

This comment was edited on Oct 14, 2024, 21:53.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:05:
Rather his point is, regardless of what you call the indigenous in America, they should only be treated exactly the same as non-indigenous, just as every other citizen (though that citizenship was only granted in 1924 for USA, and 1956 for Canada), historical context be damned ... because if we took historical context into account, then what about all this <gestures at all of human history>.

Not my point. Don't misrepresent me. Not once did I bring up citizenship. Or any other localized political activity. You did. In every single response you made.

I said universal human rights. As in rights that apply, universally, to all humans. You continue to try and inject emotional content and call it "context". When I brought up other groups, globally and historically, that were treated in similar ways, you completely sidestepped it because context here only applies to how you process whatever agenda you are emotionally invested in.

MrCharm42 wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:33:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:05:
regardless of what you call the indigenous in America, they should only be treated exactly the same as non-indigenous, just as every other citizen historical context be damned ...

This is exactly what should happen. You cannot "fix" history by trying to balance some mythological scales. Everyone alive is descended from some rapist/murderer/royalty/etc that was treated unfairly or treated someone else unfairly.

Every group got screwed over at some point by someone else's migration/invasion - BoP's point (that I took) was if you start drawing lines, where could you logically stop?

The history is already there, you can't reset history.
Would you argue for the unilateral dissolving of the sovereign tribes?

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 21:05:
regardless of what you call the indigenous in America, they should only be treated exactly the same as non-indigenous, just as every other citizen historical context be damned ...

This is exactly what should happen. You cannot "fix" history by trying to balance some mythological scales. Everyone alive is descended from some rapist/murderer/royalty/etc that was treated unfairly or treated someone else unfairly.

Every group got screwed over at some point by someone else's migration/invasion - BoP's point (that I took) was if you start drawing lines, where could you logically stop?

Beamer wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:55:
I think part of the issue is we need to define "indigenous people."

Fortunately, it's the first paragraph on Wikipedia:

There is no generally accepted definition of Indigenous peoples, although in the 21st century the focus has been on self-identification, cultural difference from other groups in a state, a special relationship with their traditional territory, and an experience of subjugation and discrimination under a dominant cultural model.

While you can argue that native americans aren't the only indigenous people of the Americas, I don't think it's possible to say that the term doesn't apply to them under this definition.

It's worth noting that it isn't "Native American's Day." "Indigenous People" is a broader term.

His point really isn't about the definition or meaning of "indigenous", even though that's what this started out as.

Rather his point is, regardless of what you call the indigenous in America, they should only be treated exactly the same as non-indigenous, just as every other citizen (though that citizenship was only granted in 1924 for USA, and 1956 for Canada), historical context be damned ... because if we took historical context into account, then what about all this <gestures at all of human history>.

This debate began as a "purely scientific, not politically tribal" point being made, until "well technically" and politics started getting thrown around. I'll debate the appropriateness of strict adherence to scientific definitions in cases where it is in no way required, but that other stuff isn't for me.

Also, on the ChatGPT front, I tried to have it write my response here, but instead, it gave a Cutter, first.

Copilot

Notebook
Hey, good evening!
Let's get started with your conversation

Sent by you:
write me 3 paragraphs about how indigenous people's day applies to video games, from the perspective of an arrogant and snotty video gamer

Sent by Copilot:
Oh, great, another day to celebrate something. Indigenous People’s Day, huh? Well, I guess even video games have to get in on the action. It’s not like we don’t already have enough themes and stories to explore. But sure, let’s throw in some ancient tales and cultural narratives. I mean, who wouldn’t want to pause their epic space battles or zombie apocalypse to learn about some old myths and traditions? It’s not like we’re here for the action or anything. But hey, if it makes the game developers feel good about themselves, why not?

And then there’s the whole “representation” thing. Apparently, it’s not enough to have diverse characters; now we need to make sure every single culture gets its spotlight. So, we get these games that are supposed to be “immersive” and “educational.” Honestly, who has time for that? I’m here to rack up kills and level up, not to sit through a history lesson. But I guess if it means more content and a few new skins or quests, I can tolerate it. Just don’t expect me to be all excited about it.

But let’s be real, some of these games do end up being pretty cool. When developers actually put effort into integrating Indigenous stories and characters, it can add a unique twist to the gameplay. It’s just that the whole “let’s celebrate Indigenous People’s Day” feels a bit forced. Like, do we really need a special day to appreciate good storytelling? If a game is good, it’s good, regardless of the cultural background it draws from. So, yeah, I’ll play the games, but spare me the lectures.

1
news.xbox.com
2
news.xbox.com
3
digitaltrends.com

Sent by you:
rewrite that, but with a positive perspective

Sent by Copilot:
Indigenous People’s Day is a fantastic opportunity for video games to explore rich cultural narratives and ancient tales. It’s amazing how developers can weave these stories into the fabric of their games, offering players a chance to experience something truly unique. Instead of just focusing on action and adventure, we get to dive into the myths and traditions of Indigenous cultures, adding depth and meaning to our gaming experiences. It’s a refreshing change that can make our favorite pastime even more enriching.

Representation in video games is crucial, and Indigenous People’s Day highlights the importance of including diverse characters and stories. When developers take the time to create immersive and educational content, it not only broadens our horizons but also makes the gaming world more inclusive. Learning about different cultures through gameplay can be both fun and enlightening, providing a new perspective that enhances our appreciation for the art of storytelling. Plus, it often comes with exciting new skins, quests, and content that keep the games fresh and engaging.

When developers put genuine effort into integrating Indigenous stories and characters, the results can be truly spectacular. These games offer a unique twist that sets them apart, making them memorable and impactful. Celebrating Indigenous People’s Day through video games is a wonderful way to honor these cultures and their contributions to our shared history. It reminds us that good storytelling transcends cultural boundaries, and that we can all enjoy and learn from the diverse narratives that make up our world. So, let’s embrace these games and the rich stories they bring to life.

I think part of the issue is we need to define "indigenous people."

Fortunately, it's the first paragraph on Wikipedia:

There is no generally accepted definition of Indigenous peoples, although in the 21st century the focus has been on self-identification, cultural difference from other groups in a state, a special relationship with their traditional territory, and an experience of subjugation and discrimination under a dominant cultural model.

While you can argue that native americans aren't the only indigenous people of the Americas, I don't think it's possible to say that the term doesn't apply to them under this definition.

It's worth noting that it isn't "Native American's Day." "Indigenous People" is a broader term.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:48:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:39:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:32:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:05:
The push for "Indigenous rights" exists within the context of the historical indigenous experience in America, not an idealized or technical reality... but actual reality.

Great. Are you going to push this hard for historical Irish rights since they were brutalized by the British just as hard? Or for whatever remains of the Huguenots because they were historically brutalized by French Roman Catholics? The Kurds whom have been historically brutalized by multiple different groups? Or the Almoravids who were brutalized by the Almohads? It's all the same context.

Because if the answer is "Yes" then, congrats, we're on the same page of universal human rights. If the answer is "no" then it quickly becomes "some animals are more equal than others".

Hey, you're the one pushing back on indigenous rights based on a "well technically" semantic argument that ignores reality.
I don' think it will be possible for us to be on the same page if you're essentially making an "All Lives Matter" argument that ignores the context.
Even using a phrase like "some animals are more equal than others" shows how wildly you miss the point.

Cool. You've ceded the discussion without answering anything based on the context you provided. We're done here.

I guess so.
But if your understanding of the scientific method includes human history and anthropology, then I would recommend reading up on the history of the indigenous in the Americas post European-contact, with a special emphasis on the relationship between the colonial and later national governments and those indigenous people, and especially regarding the history and technicalities of tribal sovereignty and citizenship.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:39:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:32:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:05:
The push for "Indigenous rights" exists within the context of the historical indigenous experience in America, not an idealized or technical reality... but actual reality.

Great. Are you going to push this hard for historical Irish rights since they were brutalized by the British just as hard? Or for whatever remains of the Huguenots because they were historically brutalized by French Roman Catholics? The Kurds whom have been historically brutalized by multiple different groups? Or the Almoravids who were brutalized by the Almohads? It's all the same context.

Because if the answer is "Yes" then, congrats, we're on the same page of universal human rights. If the answer is "no" then it quickly becomes "some animals are more equal than others".

Hey, you're the one pushing back on indigenous rights based on a "well technically" semantic argument that ignores reality.
I don' think it will be possible for us to be on the same page if you're essentially making an "All Lives Matter" argument that ignores the context.
Even using a phrase like "some animals are more equal than others" shows how wildly you miss the point.

Cool. You've ceded the discussion without answering anything based on the context you provided. We're done here.

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:11:
It usually comes down to how you define things. Most of what you are referencing are not true mass migrations as I was defining it if the original society continues to exist. My grandmother came into America via Ellis Island when she was 4 years old along with thousands of other Italian migrants. Italy continued to exist however. I could be completely wrong in how I have been using "mass migration" but communication is built on understanding what a person is saying more than demanding the exact use of a term. Correct my mistakes by all means but try to understand my larger point as well.

All right, I can play ball with that. What defines "original society" then? Something static or something that changes but may retain some core of a cultural identity? I ask because when my ancestors migrated to the US, the countries they came from are nothing at all like the countries with the same name that exist today. My grandfather was very fluent in Irish, naturally. It was his milk language. So I learned that from him. Yet when I went to see my cousins in Ireland decades back and spoke what I had learned, they chuckled and politely informed me that no one spoke that dialect anymore. I am sure were either my great-grandfather or grandfather alive today, neither would recognize the Ireland of today. So does the original society they knew count or today's society?

I get your larger point and I am disagreeing with it. The most recent hard evidence I can find is from 2020 just prior to the pandemic. ~280,600,000 people migrated globally in that year prior to the pandemic. That is the very definition of "mass migration". If we got up in to the billion or more figure, that would be "endemic migration". That's why I'm stating that mass migration happens all the time.

By the way, this back and forth between you and I is happening on that theoretical park bench you mentioned previously. I am neither upset nor angry with you or at all. I just like a good, hard, discussion and one that does not contain ad hominems.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:32:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:05:
The push for "Indigenous rights" exists within the context of the historical indigenous experience in America, not an idealized or technical reality... but actual reality.

Great. Are you going to push this hard for historical Irish rights since they were brutalized by the British just as hard? Or for whatever remains of the Huguenots because they were historically brutalized by French Roman Catholics? The Kurds whom have been historically brutalized by multiple different groups? Or the Almoravids who were brutalized by the Almohads? It's all the same context.

Because if the answer is "Yes" then, congrats, we're on the same page of universal human rights. If the answer is "no" then it quickly becomes "some animals are more equal than others".

Hey, you're the one pushing back on indigenous rights based on a "well technically" semantic argument that ignores reality.
I don' think it will be possible for us to be on the same page if you're essentially making an "All Lives Matter" argument that ignores the context.
Even using a phrase like "some animals are more equal than others" shows how wildly you miss the point.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:05:
The push for "Indigenous rights" exists within the context of the historical indigenous experience in America, not an idealized or technical reality... but actual reality.

Great. Are you going to push this hard for historical Irish rights since they were brutalized by the British just as hard? Or for whatever remains of the Huguenots because they were historically brutalized by French Roman Catholics? The Kurds whom have been historically brutalized by multiple different groups? Or the Almoravids who were brutalized by the Almohads? It's all the same context.

Because if the answer is "Yes" then, congrats, we're on the same page of universal human rights. If the answer is "no" then it quickly becomes "some animals are more equal than others".

Just explaining that it is coming from somewhere opposite of what you were suggesting.

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:27:

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:23:

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:20:
I don't use insults to disagree regardless of how good-natured and friendly they may be. It's not my style. I just agree to disagree and move on.

I'll keep a step stool nearby for when you next dismount that high horse.

It isn't that. It's how I control my irrational fear of rejection. I'm afraid that every disagreement will lose me a friend or make me a new enemy. By avoiding even the hint of inflammatory language I can feel less likely that will happen.

You reply to me, without ignoring and moving on, about how you don't insult (but I do)...
<whinny stomp whinny>

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:23:

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:20:
I don't use insults to disagree regardless of how good-natured and friendly they may be. It's not my style. I just agree to disagree and move on.

I'll keep a step stool nearby for when you next dismount that high horse.

It isn't that. It's how I control my irrational fear of rejection. I'm afraid that every disagreement will lose me a friend or make me a new enemy. By avoiding even the hint of inflammatory language I can feel less likely that will happen.

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:20:
I don't use insults to disagree regardless of how good-natured and friendly they may be. It's not my style. I just agree to disagree and move on.

I'll keep a step stool nearby for when you next dismount that high horse.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:15:

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:12:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:10:

Prez wrote on Oct 14, 2024, 20:01:
Arguing literalism to such a degree could make almost anything "technically" untrue. Technically the universe isn't infinite because it's rate of expansion could be measured, thus it can't be infinite otherwise it wouldn't have any where to expand to. I can appreciate a commitment to being meticulously factual in some cases but in polite society it tends to make you look more like a boorish snob than intelligent. If I was at a social function with a guy who said "Well TECHNICALLY..." after everything I said in a conversation I would be trying desperately to ditch him...

It's not "technically" untrue. It's factually untrue and we recorded the very facts ourselves.

The whole goddamned point of the scientific method is to clear the bullshit out of our heads that we thought was "true" when replicable evidence is presented to the contrary. It doesn't matter how we feel about it or whether it is politically or commercially expedient that we do/don't upend it. For fuck's sake, when I was growing up I was taught in school that photons were the fastest thing in the universe and nothing could escape a black hole. In 2024, I know that to be factually incorrect. It does not serve me well to stand on outdated and factually incorrect information. That's how you get people who think there's a secret cabal controlling hurricanes with a weather machine.

You're definitely missing my point. Sometimes you are too smart for your own good my friend.

That's not being smart right there... that's being a blockhead

I don't use insults to disagree regardless of how good-natured and friendly they may be. It's not my style. I just agree to disagree and move on.