131
bro did @everyone in a ~2k member modding server out of fucking nowhere just to say this shit
(hexbear.net)
bonus: the admin's goofy ass response a few minutes later:
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
131 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15880 readers
518 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
It's a matter of demographics more than anything, all the people in the US with any sort of indigenous connection make up about 4% of the total population. Even organised and with average wealth they'd struggle greatly to threaten the US government in anything but swing state elections.
What part of my comment gave you the impression I wanted to read a reply about electoralism and demographics?
The person I replied to wrote some ignorant shit, and I replied with a clear counterexample. If the settler guvmint didn't consider AIM a threat, Leonard wouldn't still be in prison.
Or for more recent examples, the settlers wouldn't react so strongly to land defense actions in the last decade (at Mauna Kea, Standing Rock, Line 3, Wet'suet'en lands, etc. etc.) if they didn't consider them threats. The Mexican guvmint & CIA wouldn't've just given organized crime control of Chiapas if the Zapatistas weren't a threat.
This 'it's so far in the past there's no hope now' attitude is just another face of settler genocide denial and absolutely ignorant of the organizing and actions taking place on the ground today.
Decolonization will obviously look different in a white majority settler country like amerikkka and a white minority apartheid country like South Africa, so you can't really point at other examples of decolonization and say "just do that in america."
No disagreement there. I don't think I was making the point that decolonizing settler-majority states will look like decolonial efforts in extractive-colonial or minority settler states? All my examples are of actions in the last 50 years that have taken place on so-called north america.
Just pushing back against this subtle genocide denial of 'too far gone' I see from settlers all the time. It erases both the current decolonial actions and (more grossly IMO) the current and ongoing genocidal actions taking place.
Honestly, I feel like they might react so strongly not because they feel threatened, but because they consider indigenous groups so unthreatening they can dispel with the thin veneer of civility and apply the boot directly wherever possible.
I'm not saying there's no hope, probably some reparations and an improvement of conditions is achievable with intersectional support, but decolonisation and proportionate reparations are never going to happen.
The absolute mental gymnastics. State violence isn't wielded against non-threats. Would you say that the state didn't view Fred Hampton and the BPP as a threat? Or that isntreal doesn't view Gaza as a threat? Your words imply as much.
I'm not claiming the state sees these threats as existential. But to claim there's no perceived threat at all is genocide denial.