9 ms·

> I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization Using your metric of "messed up society" ie the public, condoned torture an

by ivoryst 11y ago

> I'm pointing out is that these societies were messed up well before colonization Using your metric of "messed up society" ie the public, condoned torture and murder of "outsiders", the point am making is that all societies are pretty messed up. And when you start labelling whole groups of people that way, thats actually step 1 in the plan to exploit, colonize or commit genocide.

MichaelGG 11y ago
That's fine, all societies may be messed up. That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization (noble savage, to repeat myself). And I don't think colonization belongs on the same level as genocide. Having lived in a shitty country, they'd be far better off if they were colonized by a decent country (even today). They might be better off after a genocide, too, but that has a negative effect on everyone that's killed so it's unfair. Colonization doesn't have that issue. The people of said country seem to agree, given their persistence of trying to immigrate to other countries, while expressing a fondness for their home country. If their home country was colonized, they could enjoy the benefits of both. (To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that e.g. Elbonia would benefit greatly by having e.g. Canada peacefully take over their government and run it as a second tier province.)
- ivoryst 11y ago
  > That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization What does colonization mean to you? What value did colonization bring (lets talk factual specifics here) that weren't there before. > They might be better off after a genocide, too So what exactly are the benefits of a genocide?
whyIndeed 11y ago
This article, though, is documenting the manner in which these tribal groups would, rather than merely condone, but instead actively participate communally in the torture and murder of insiders, their own kinfolk. As a thought experiment, what does one do, when entering a room only to discover an entire family, all members old enough to know better, is engaged in depraved incestuous rituals? Moral relativism is always a painful psychological quagmire.
- ivoryst 11y ago
  Sorry, but what exactly is your point (in plain english)? And I used the term "outsider" to refer to any perceived differences, whether its race, gender, religion, beliefs etc. And yes, some people condone; while others actively participate. I'll repeat, as you seem to have missed mine: every culture, modern or historic, has its fair mix nobles and savages. Tagging a whole group of people as savages is just good old fashioned racism.
  - whyIndeed 11y ago
    My point is that it's difficult to separate the horrible, malevolent, criminal aggressors from the benign spectators or unwilling particpants, when witnessing barbaric events of human cruelty.
    - ivoryst 11y ago
      Its easy to be a keyboard warrior, and judge others from the safety of your home. Maybe one day you'll be given an opportunity to prove to the world just how brave and courageous you are facing up to "horrible, manovelent criminals" in defense of the helpless. Most of those so called "benign spectators" caught up in such situations are women, children and powerless men trying to stay alive (by not standing up to the savages among them ).
      - whyIndeed 11y ago
        Really. Quite combative. Drawing conclusions for whichever labels I present, when I did not specify how I might choose to apply the labels. Do you see where you're jumping to conclusions about my disposition yet? My last words to you are this: A burning death after mutilation is cruelty. The aggressors are torturing and burning the victims. The murdered suffering before the mob are victims. Everyone else witnessing the events is a spectator, although some of the spectators may be accomplices to the aggressors. Evidence for many of these events will surely be incomplete, and likely skewed. Without evidence in any direction how would anyone know. But you, you're lashng out at people on the internet. At some point you marked me as an enemy. Maybe you'll realize you misread my remarks. Oh well, done with this conversation. I won't be replying to you again.

by ivoryst 11y ago

MichaelGG 11y ago

That's fine, all societies may be messed up. That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization (noble savage, to repeat myself). And I don't think colonization belongs on the same level as genocide. Having lived in a shitty country, they'd be far better off if they were colonized by a decent country (even today). They might be better off after a genocide, too, but that has a negative effect on everyone that's killed so it's unfair. Colonization doesn't have that issue. The people of said country seem to agree, given their persistence of trying to immigrate to other countries, while expressing a fondness for their home country. If their home country was colonized, they could enjoy the benefits of both. (To be absolutely clear, I'm saying that e.g. Elbonia would benefit greatly by having e.g. Canada peacefully take over their government and run it as a second tier province.)

ivoryst 11y ago
> That's still opposite the claim that they were good before colonization What does colonization mean to you? What value did colonization bring (lets talk factual specifics here) that weren't there before. > They might be better off after a genocide, too So what exactly are the benefits of a genocide?

whyIndeed 11y ago

This article, though, is documenting the manner in which these tribal groups would, rather than merely condone, but instead actively participate communally in the torture and murder of insiders, their own kinfolk. As a thought experiment, what does one do, when entering a room only to discover an entire family, all members old enough to know better, is engaged in depraved incestuous rituals? Moral relativism is always a painful psychological quagmire.

ivoryst 11y ago
Sorry, but what exactly is your point (in plain english)? And I used the term "outsider" to refer to any perceived differences, whether its race, gender, religion, beliefs etc. And yes, some people condone; while others actively participate. I'll repeat, as you seem to have missed mine: every culture, modern or historic, has its fair mix nobles and savages. Tagging a whole group of people as savages is just good old fashioned racism.
- whyIndeed 11y ago
  My point is that it's difficult to separate the horrible, malevolent, criminal aggressors from the benign spectators or unwilling particpants, when witnessing barbaric events of human cruelty.
  - ivoryst 11y ago
    Its easy to be a keyboard warrior, and judge others from the safety of your home. Maybe one day you'll be given an opportunity to prove to the world just how brave and courageous you are facing up to "horrible, manovelent criminals" in defense of the helpless. Most of those so called "benign spectators" caught up in such situations are women, children and powerless men trying to stay alive (by not standing up to the savages among them ).
    - whyIndeed 11y ago
      Really. Quite combative. Drawing conclusions for whichever labels I present, when I did not specify how I might choose to apply the labels. Do you see where you're jumping to conclusions about my disposition yet? My last words to you are this: A burning death after mutilation is cruelty. The aggressors are torturing and burning the victims. The murdered suffering before the mob are victims. Everyone else witnessing the events is a spectator, although some of the spectators may be accomplices to the aggressors. Evidence for many of these events will surely be incomplete, and likely skewed. Without evidence in any direction how would anyone know. But you, you're lashng out at people on the internet. At some point you marked me as an enemy. Maybe you'll realize you misread my remarks. Oh well, done with this conversation. I won't be replying to you again.