[Drlee]

Again you offer no evidence.

You post a decade old article about clean water on reservations. Nice try. The federal government passed and funded the very act referenced in your article. You fail, yet again, to recognize that a great many reservation dwellers choose to live rural lives essentially off of the grid. It is their choice and their right to pursue their traditional lifestyles. They choose to not live where modern facilities are available.

Then. The tribe is sovereign. It has to apply for and more importantly approve these government programs. Frequently it does neither. The very large reservation that surrounds my home on two sides has a combination of people who live in modern homes with better water than I have and those who choose to otherwise. That very tribe has extensive gambling revenue and it is not required to spend one cent of it on schools, infrastructure (including water and sewer) roads or health care. (Unlike its non reservation neighbors.) It pays no federal or state tax on those earnings either. Again unlike its neighbors who pay their own way.

So to the extent that there are more Native Americans who live lives on the reservation that eschew modern conveniences, these are largely self inflicted wounds. Since you think they are signs of oppression I use the term wounds. I prefer to see them as choices.

There is not a single Native American who is not free to leave the reservation, pursue an education, join the military, whatever. Native Americans are not enjoined from doing anything I was allowed to do with one important difference. They receive free health care, subsidized education (eligible for a great many government scholarships and grants that I am precluded from participating in) and other government programs even if they leave the reservation and choose to join the rest of us.

The very idea that Native Americans are oppressed is folly. There are a great many Native Americans who choose to live traditional lives on the reservation and not join the mainstream and compete for wealth and the trappings of wealth like the majority of Americans. Is this a sign of oppression or slight regard on the part of the government. Obviously not. Simply stated, if a Native American wants to compete with the rest of us he/she can and gets a leg up to boot.

So you are, yet again, wrong.

[QatzelOk]

If gays are allowed to stay, then the land has not been returned.

The dense downtowns of cities takes up less than one percent of the land, and The Gays would use it to provide urban services to the First Nations populations, as well as to visiting tourists from Yemen.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, Drlee, and I am not interested in teaching you the history and modern reality of your own country right now.

[Drlee]

No, Drlee, and I am not interested in teaching you the history and modern reality of your own country right now.

Translated into English this reads: I have no argument but am afraid to admit it.

As long as we both agree that you are unwilling to back your statements with facts and evidence I am fine with your refusal.

[Pants-of-dog]

Translated into English this reads: I have no argument but am afraid to admit it.

As long as we both agree that you are unwilling to back your statements with facts and evidence I am fine with your refusal.

No, and these childish insults of yours detract from your attempts at gravitas.

[Drlee]

I see. When you call for evidence it is good thing. When others call for you to provide evidence it is "childish insults"..

[Pants-of-dog]

I see. When you call for evidence it is good thing. When others call for you to provide evidence it is "childish insults"..

No, your childish insults are childish insults.

Your calls for evidence are just weird, considering that I already explained that the US imposes an economic, governmental, and land paradigm on indigenous people without their consent.

[Drlee]

Your calls for evidence are just weird, considering that I already explained that the US imposes an economic, governmental, and land paradigm on indigenous people without their consent.

No more than any other citizen of the republic. Less actually. Your assertion is simply wrong. Please explain why you say it.

[Pants-of-dog]

No more than any other citizen of the republic. Less actually. Your assertion is simply wrong. Please explain why you say it.

Unless white people were not allowed to vote, participate in their own cultural events, speak their language, own land, and choose their type of government like indigenous people were (and in some cases still are) denied, this is incorrect.

[Drlee]

Unless white people were not allowed to vote, participate in their own cultural events, speak their language, own land, and choose their type of government like indigenous people were (and in some cases still are) denied, this is incorrect.

Please cite cases where indigenous people are denied any of these things.

If you wish to discuss ancient history I suggest you start a thread about that in the history forum.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please cite cases where indigenous people are denied any of these things.

If you wish to discuss ancient history I suggest you start a thread about that in the history forum.

If you think these things are ancient history, then when did they stop?

[Drlee]

If you think these things are ancient history, then when did they stop?

Nice try Einstein.

[blackjack21]

If you persecute a couple of generations of that community, the effects if not resolved can be passed down through generations, like poverty for example where a generation being poor due to being deprived of opportunities and good living will pass down their poverty to their children and potentially grandchildren even if the original persecution and deprivation is no longer in application.

Homosexuals cannot breed with each other, so such an assertion makes no sense to begin with. There are homosexuals engaged in artificial insemination, etc. that want to raise children without at least one of their biological parents. It is a popular social experiment in many circles, and it is perfectly legal because children have no standing at law to challenge their situation.

However, talking about things like LGBTs, those aren't a community but rather individuals who happened to have similar sexual orientation or in case of transgenders, simalar mental illnes (yes, gender dysphoria is an actual diagnosable mental illness).

Right. Obergefell was an estate tax case. Lesbians do not want to pay estate taxes, just like pretty much everybody else doesn't. Stealing money from people, because they die is a terrible practice.

I think the purpose of such demands is not to get the reparations, but to delegitimise the current order.

Well stated.

Also by popularising impossible demands they may increase the pressure for the kind of realisable demands such as those made by Black Lives Matter or increased non White representation in high paying leadership positions in Academia Business, politics etc.

That seems to be the case. Not very many black people, it seems, are good at computer programming. I routinely ask people to provide me with the resumes of black programmers. In my company, it is 80% white male in the United States. So the non-technical jobs are women and LGBTQ people. Recently, one of my co-workers went transgender. It's frankly rather strange. We also had one of our lesbians on a call the other day complaining to some overseas female personnel that culturally refer to everyone as "guys". Frankly, I find them basically a nuisance as they don't add to productivity and want people to use arbitrary "pronouns" that have never existed in human history until the last few years or so.

Reparations are very much a Cultural Marxist talking point, not something pushed by orthodox Marxists.

Yes, but at an abstract level, Marxism is all about taking resources away from people who have them. It is the rationale that changes. The act is always the same. Without a corresponding ability to take away money and property from others, Marxism would have no reason for existence.

If it's a minimum wage job I wouldn't say it's worth the hassle.

Yeah. Not too many years ago I mentored a gay kid. He was talented, but thoroughly exploited at minimum wage by other gay men who knew how to play on his insecurities. Do LGBTQ people owe each other reparations? They are usually the ones doing each other the most harm.

And while some targeted minority groups from the past (black ex-slaves, first nations) do require a financial boost to acquire some kind of social equality, gay people mostly require a lack of discrimination against them.

They were virtually penniless before they were "oppressed" anyway. It's not like they were pictures of prosperity, and then subject to the yoke and should be compensated for what they were deprived of. Most white people were not slave owners. Who exactly can LGBTQ people claim have oppressed them? Which group specifically? It seems they just don't like the state operating for the interest of the state.

No civilized country puts someone to death for being gay...

Well, "civilized" is a pretty plastic term. Saudi Arabia has all the modern amenities you could ever want, and they put homosexuals to death.

Monogamy, heterosexuality, etc., these are all social constructs...

Right. Back in the day, if you didn't want to secure a husband, you became a nun. If you didn't want to be balling girls, you became a monk. They seem to live happier and more fulfilled lives than today's drug-addled hedonists anyway.

Wouldn't it be the case that our shift in the collective consciousness and deconstruction of past social norms has generated more alternative sexuality?

Not more than a decade ago, I used to say that if the establishment was really concerned about overpopulation, they would promote homosexuality, cannibalism and war with WMDs. So far, I'm 1 for 3.

I am waiting for there to now be talk of reparations for fat kids and ugly people...

This is really all about buying votes from more and more groups as the Democrats have abandoned the white working class.

It goes back to a joke where raping a burly strong man is more of a conquest than raping a woman because the man can fight back. Obviously this is not a healthy mentality but it seems remotely plausible that some of the gay men actually think in this way...

It might also be a rationale for historically executing homosexual males, which might be a more well-founded basis for the use of a term like "homophobia". After all, who is afraid of effeminate men? Usually, they are a laughing stock and subject to humiliation.

The only reason "gay pride" ever existed, is because of all the manufactured shame of the Abrahamic religions that were forced down everyone's throats both in Europe and in the Americas.

Aren't you forgetting just about everywhere else in the world? Saudi Arabia just executed some homosexuals. Are you suggesting that they didn't shame them? Or that the shame wasn't manufactured?

Gay/Bi/Trans were just part of the normal everyday life of people in the Americas (and Europe) before these places were "improved" with behaviorism and witch-burning.

At the inception of the United States, sodomy was a hanging offense. It certainly wasn't part of normal everyday life.

People just say these things because they want to preserve their White Settler fantasies.

I guess. The omission of Islam in QatzelOk's remarks is really puzzling.

If you look into European or American (pre-columbian) societies, you will find that gay people were not discriminated against because, back then, the locals were either worshipping natural phenomena, or Greek or Roman Gods. None of these traditions are "against homosexuality."

Homosexuality was looked down on in Rome. Even Caesar's soldiers joked about his relationship with the King of Bithynia. They referred to Caesar as the Queen of Bithynia--so it seems "Queen" has longstanding use for referring to male homosexuals.

Telling the 90% of a population (the straights) that the other 10% (the gays) are evil and not as good as the majority... is an easy way to sway people's superstitions into a class-creating religion.

Well, if you've got outliers, people will notice the outliers before a religion comes along. It seems a bit of an oversight to blame a religion exclusively.

I'm going to ask you to read the article I posted above again, as it gives a very good list of the brutality and intolerance of Christianity's beginnings in Europe.

If by beginnings, you mean 400 years into it after Christians had been fed to the lions in the coliseum and so forth. Perhaps they had some lingering resentments, and looked at vengeance as reparations.

It's very similar to how it was "introduced" to the First Nations in the Americas: as part of a genocide/economic pillaging operation.

As though "First Nations"--let's be honest, they were tribal societies--had some sort of advanced economies?

The Greeks and other religions were killed in order to establish a monopoly.

Constantine may not have been the most exemplary of Christians, don't you think?

And by singling out the 10% minority who are homosexual as "evil," Christianity gave an easy "pass" to the 90% who are hetero.

You really think in Darwinian terms that heterosexual reproductive fitness wasn't higher than that of homosexuals?

But if it's after a sporting event and it's done by dumbass heterosexual males, who burn cars and riot, it's completely different?

No. They should be shot on sight.

Now, would it not also make sense for these conservatives to let go of their irrational fear, hatred and bigotry that they direct towards LGBTQ2S people?

No. If it's irrational, it isn't rational by definition. Only rational fears are going to be disabused with reason.

Current generations benefit from the sins of their grandparents (today's Americans live well off of stolen land that was genocided for them), so why shouldn't they pay for these sins as well?

We have a separation of church and state. The state can't make people pay for their sins. They can only be punished for crimes they have committed.

If you can find a flaw in my reasoning, please present it.

You seem to think reason will overcome irrational fears. There are legions of psychiatrists who would tell you otherwise.

the remedy of every problem is not necessarily to throw money at it.

It's election season. If you want to convince people you are willing to give them money from the public treasury for arbitrary reasons in exchange for their vote, there are a lot of people who will fall for that bullshit.

And that, at the very least, to deprive someone of a particular liberty, we need a broad consensus, which, in the case of same sex marriage, did not appear to exist.

Marriage is not a liberty. It's anything but a liberty. In fact, it is fraught with liabilities for which there is no consideration.

I could see no parade of horribles which would occur should same sex people marry so I decided that the service of my belief in smaller, less intrusive government demanded that I support letting people do it.

Well, this is part of the parade of horribles. Obergefell was an estate tax case. Kennedy and the liberals were clearly bribed. There is simply no legal nexus between estate taxes and a homosexual wanting to get married to another homosexual. Marriage is about procreation, not effusive expressions of eros.

The beliefs of younger Americans, who are decidedly less bigoted WRT homosexuality will prevail and the problem will become on of isolated bigotry, which will never go away as stupid never goes away.

Polls suggest generation Y isn't all that thrilled with the LGBTQ community. According to the hedonists, they aren't having enough sex either. They prefer cyber-relationships.

Finally. The republican party is in full defensive mode. In the service of corporatism it has lost its philosophical center.

Well, you could say the same thing about the Democrats. Trump is president, because the Democrats abandoned working class blue collar white people. If the Democrats hadn't done that, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

About the only personal right that it discusses these days is the second amendment and it refers to the free expression of the beliefs of others as "fake news".

Aren't you forgetting corporate campaign contributions as speech?

The very idea of transferring money to someone because they claim to hold a particular sexual orientation (and it is always a claim, not necessarily a fact) would cause such a backlash that the cause of gay folks would be damaged for a couple of generations.

We're already seeing women's backlash against transgenders as they want to compete in female sports, go into female restrooms, etc.

I meant this facetiously but it's been fascinating to see that some people have gone with it.

It's campaign season. Elizabeth Warren has endorsed this and open borders too.

Can people in favor of reparations explain how it would work as applied to "sexually fluid" people who can decide if/when they are homosexual?

I'm not for it at all, but you can be sure that as a bachelor I will claim to be the most oppressed homosexual ever if the government is going to start giving me money. I got solar panels for the tax credit and to get out of paying cap-and-trade taxes. I think anthropogenic global warming/climate change based on increasing CO2 is bullshit.

No one is in favour of reparations.

Elizabeth Warren promises reparations for gay couples
Ah... it's couples. I guess I'll have to marry one of my single buddies. I'll have to see what the payout is first.

And your premise is based on a an idea that is not true: that people support reparations for LGBT+ people.

Elizabeth Warren is running for president with this being one of her issues. Reparations for all the blue collar people fucked over by NAFTA and GATT will probably not make the list of things she supports.

Socialized healthcare for all would do more for Blacks and Gay than just giving them cash payouts...

Socialized funeral planning would probably be the best solution. People into violence and hedonism tend not to live long lives anyway.

It would destroy American, and leave the poorest (often minorities) with a broken country.

That's what is happening in California. You are either rich or poor here.

If this is true, and perhaps it is, then the land that they genocided was theirs, and not yours is also true.

Land isn't the subject of genocide. Definitive groups of people are subject to genocide.

Why don't you present an argument showing why this wouldn't work in the USA, instead?

A majority of Americans oppose it.

Yemen.

Everyone there will be dead soon, so we can make yet another dessert bloom and fulfil the sacred role that the Lord bequeathed upon us: "Go forth and genocideth other religions and sell the land from under their feeteth."

After all the heterosexuals have left for Yemen, the Gays should be allowed to remain in the downtowns of major cities, while the First Nations reclaim most of the rest.

Sounds like a plan.

What is relevant is the fact that settlers and their descendants in the USA imposed treaties at gunpoint, and then failed their obligations.

Settlers don't make treaties. Governments do. Native American leaders weren't educated lawyers. If these were commercial contracts, they would be void as unconscionable. We use terms like "Nations" to put them under the Law of Nations. Then we can use treaties instead of contracts. White people are sneaky like that.

Well, let them come take it back...

The remedy for treaty violation is war.

So you do not disagree that US people and their government are bot dealing fairly with their landlords, and are simply asserting that you can enact whatever injustices you want because you have the power.

No. The US didn't sign a rent or lease agreement. A treaty is international law. The leader of a nation is presumed to know the law.

Well, after I embarrassed myself by just assuming that someone had to be in favor of LGBT reparations if they can keep the thread going this long (they couldn't possibly be in here just calling people names all day, right?) it turns out that Elizabeth Warren wants a form of reparations for LGBT couples.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/elizabeth ... eparations

Guess I called it after all...

You did indeed. Elizabeth Warren has broken the Overton Window.

If you are not allowing indigenous communities to exercise their sovereignty and land claims, then you are unilaterally imposing your own.

Yes. We are. They are conquered nations over which the United States is sovereign.

Let me know when they have their lands and government back. Thanks.

Other than Ginsberg, I expect the rest of the court plans on living a little longer, so I wouldn't count on it.

If indigenous communities in the USA are not allowed to own their traditional lands or exercise their traditional governments because you guys have made it illegal and enforce it at gunpoint, then my claim is correct.

You ceded these lands by international law. They are no longer yours. Manhattan is worth a little more than a bag of beads today.

1% of non-indigenous US residents have no access to clean water and sanitary waste.

This jumps to 13% for indigenous people.

Which is just proof that indigenous people suck at water works, which has been the case since time immemorial.

There is some limited recognition of some sovereignty, but nothing like a respectful dialogue and equality between nations.

You are not equal to your sovereign. The US is sovereign over Indian nations within the interior.

The dense downtowns of cities takes up less than one percent of the land, and The Gays would use it to provide urban services to the First Nations populations, as well as to visiting tourists from Yemen.

Maybe we could give the LGBTQ community the city of Detroit. They have a way with urban renewal.

Your calls for evidence are just weird, considering that I already explained that the US imposes an economic, governmental, and land paradigm on indigenous people without their consent.

We don't need their consent. They are conquered nations.

[anasawad]

@blackjack21

Homosexuals cannot breed with each other, so such an assertion makes no sense to begin with. There are homosexuals engaged in artificial insemination, etc. that want to raise children without at least one of their biological parents. It is a popular social experiment in many circles, and it is perfectly legal because children have no standing at law to challenge their situation.

I did not state that.
This post was a long time ago But I still hold the view I stated.
When it comes to communities (either a country or within a country), damage to a generation in any form can indeed be transferred down through generations. However when it comes to LGBT people, they're not a community. They're individuals, even if it's referred to as the LGBT community, it's not.

If a homosexual was jailed, beaten, and killed a 100 years ago, homosexuals in general today are not effected by it in any way.
If homosexuality was illegal and punishable in any way a couple of generations ago, homosexuals in this generation are not in anyway effected by this since there is no direct societal link between them.

If the government took or gave from a community, then that community and everyone born into it will either be poorer because the community lost wealth or be born richer because more wealth was added and is continuously circulating in that community.
That doesn't apply to LGBT people.
Likewise, it also doesn't apply to any of those identitarian movements whether it be for women or men or any other generalization.
Men are individuals, not all men are connected to each other, but rather part of communities.
Women are individuals, not all Women are connected to each other, but rather part of communities.
Africans are individuals, not all Africans are connected to each other, but rather part of communities.

As I gave the example in my original post regarding African Americans, the damage is done to entire communities of African Americans so the effects are still seen in them in the form of poverty and low living standards, because poverty in one generation begets poverty in the following generation and so on until it's resolved.
However African communities all over are not affected by these policies, only the ones in the US that were subject to it.

[Pants-of-dog]

:roll:

Nice try Einstein.

No, seriously.

When did colonialism stop? I just want a date.

[BigSteve]

Well, "civilized" is a pretty plastic term. Saudi Arabia has all the modern amenities you could ever want, and they put homosexuals to death.

"Civilized" is not defined by what a country has, but by how they act...

[Verv]

No, seriously.

When did colonialism stop? I just want a date.

In the sixties and up to 1975 a whole lot of African countries were being granted independence.

The last one of significance being held by a European power was Zimbabwe in 1980.

Thought Co.

But we know that your game is to suggest that anyone & everyone who isn't explicitly in power is still being colonized, and since Justin Trudeau agrees, it's valid, and Canada should be investigated for genocide.

[blackjack21]

As I gave the example in my original post regarding African Americans, the damage is done to entire communities of African Americans so the effects are still seen in them in the form of poverty and low living standards, because poverty in one generation begets poverty in the following generation and so on until it's resolved.
However African communities all over are not affected by these policies, only the ones in the US that were subject to it.

Farm laborers generally aren't wealthy--that is true whether they are slaves, or paid as sharecroppers. Just ask @Godstud. African-Americans were oppressed in the South of the United States. They were oppressed by Democrats in the South. If we're to be fair, shouldn't we look up the descendants of Democrat voters in the South and stick them with the bill? If we're looking for fairness, that's a fair outcome for Jim Crow. If we're to take on the descendants of former slave owners, that's another matter. Slaves were their property. Their fortunes were destroyed by the Civil War and many of them were killed in the process. It's not like they had much to hand down after the war.

The real civil strife in the US came after WWII as mass production raised living standards for most people. Blacks were systematically discriminated against. That system of discrimination was removed 60 years ago. Now you have a situation where those who have the skills to prosper do so, and those who don't are still poor. In other words, relative equality. As I've said many times, find me a black man who can program computers, and I will see if I can get him a six figure job--still no takers.

When did colonialism stop? I just want a date.

Let's go with 1960 when Hawaii became a state.

"Civilized" is not defined by what a country has, but by how they act...

I'm not bi-sexual, but I play Devil's Advocate much better than Pants-of-dog. Would you say that the US or the former European Empires in North America were uncivilized?

I'm currently having fun looking through the execution database. The first one I found after 1789 was in California, but it wasn't a state. There were a lot of people executed for "unspecified felony," which makes me wonder. However, it's interesting. Murder is a capital offense. Rape, horse stealing, breaking and entering, robbery, forgery, arson, and slave revolt were all hanging offenses too.

# NAME: LAST FIRST AGE RACE SEX OCCUPATION CRIME METHOD DATE STATE ST #
1579 ROSAS JOSE ANTONIO 18 HISPANIC MALE SOLDIER SODMY-BUGGRY-BST SHOT ? ? 1801 CALIFORNIA 6

Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill to reduce the penalty from hanging to 20 years. So it looks like it fell out of favor to hang people for sodomy or bestiality early in the republic. It was certainly punished though. I love that they used to hang rapists. We had some pretty stand up founding fathers. What cool dudes.

Anyway, after a bit of reading, it looks like the increased criminalization and enforcement of anti-homosexuality laws coincides with urbanization and the dreaded Progressives and their vice squads.

[Godstud]

Farm laborers generally aren't wealthy--that is true whether they are slaves, or paid as sharecroppers. Just ask @Godstud.

Why ask me? I don't know what the fuck you're going on with, and I don't employ anyone in any capacity. Probably some childishly lame diversion from a poorly educated Californian without an actual argument. Time to grow up a bit, blackjack21. You aren't actually 21.

[Pants-of-dog]

In the sixties and up to 1975 a whole lot of African countries were being granted independence.

The last one of significance being held by a European power was Zimbabwe in 1980.

Thought Co.

But we know that your game is to suggest that anyone & everyone who isn't explicitly in power is still being colonized, and since Justin Trudeau agrees, it's valid, and Canada should be investigated for genocide.

When did colonialism stop in North America?