5 ms·

Yeah, no. There are many conflicting beliefs and values held and no way to keep everyone happy. You don't avoid beef because it's a sacred animal to Hindus. A

• JulianMorrison 7y ago
  Colonizers gonna colonize. I don't believe your "oh you weren't nice to me, this justifies my arrogance", you'd feel justified anyway. But you aren't.
  • lagadu 7y ago
    I think it's pretty funny that you use "colonizer" like it has a negative connotation.
    • JadeNB 7y ago
      > I think it's pretty funny that you use "colonizer" like it has a negative connotation. Is your point that you don't think it has a negative connotation, or that nobody thinks it does? Although 'colonialist' evokes a more visceral negative reaction from me, 'colonizer' is pretty close.
      • provolone 7y ago
        Think about infant mortality, sanitation or historical practices like suttee.
        • JadeNB 7y ago
          > Think about infant mortality, sanitation or historical practices like suttee. Those are (I presume) referring to instances where the colonised were 'bad', and the colonisers have done 'good' (to put it in simplistic terms). I agree that there are such instances! There are also instances where the colonised were 'good', and the colonisers have done 'bad'. Or, if the presence of any 'bad'ness is enough to lead one to be an appropriate target for colonisation, there are also instances where the colonisers' civilisation was 'bad'. How many of each? Well, obviously my position is that colonisers overall do much more harm than good. Maybe that's not true, but you won't disprove it by mentioning a couple of good things that they've done. (There are also instances where keepers of slaves have done good, but that doesn't mean we condone slavery.)
          • provolone 7y ago
            Simplistic terms don't advance your point. If you do have a point oversimplification only obscures it. Imperialism is neither good nor bad. Only specific acts and actors can be judged as such. The British empire could be credited for ending slavery. It is the promulgation of liberal western values allows us the context to condemn the barbarity of the past. History is a process. It seems nonsensical to presume to judge the pioneers of our civilization (by modern standards) while enjoying the benefits they provided. The popular view of western guilt smacks of condescending nobelesse oblige. At what point does it become purely selfish? Decolonized regions won't put the past behind them as long as they are incentivized not to. "...detractors of Western imperialism hijack the ideas of Western civilization and crash them into a ditch." https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-british-empire-largely-misunderstood/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-the-brit... This article made me think of your comment.
• dm3730 7y ago
  > There are many conflicting beliefs and values held and no way to keep everyone happy Lets have a look at how history has gone. "We need a nuclear test site. The French decided Tahiti would be the best place". "We need a site to test the hydrogen bomb. The Americans decided Marshall islands would be the best place". Both those victim populations now suffer the consequences of those actions of a much more powerful country. Hawaii's history is also muddied with colonialism. Perhaps having a shred of empathy and respect might be a better way to start engaging with them about building a telescope rather than using the "tried and true" "fuck them" approach you're implying is appropriate.
  • esyir 7y ago
    I respond with respect and empathy to those who extend it first. >How about you have a shred of respect for the people whose sacred land it is and whose understanding defines what's acceptable use? Rather than being a selfish, arrogant colonialist. This was not that. And hell, look at what is actually happening here. First, he allowance of the TMT was in exchange for the closure of 5 other telescopes of which their areas would then be restored. Second, and perhaps more importantly, most natives are perfectly fine / support the telescope too, judging by the provided polls (72/15 support/oppose). The anti-telescope group is a minority of the natives. A nitpick though, the analogy that you're using is absolutely terrible. In what way is a telescope analogous to a nuclear test? Where is the "more powerful country"?
  • CamperBob2 7y ago
    Because building telescopes is exactly like testing hydrogen bombs.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• ajross 7y ago
  > You don't avoid beef because it's a sacred animal to Hindus. No, but you wouldn't build a slaughterhouse next door to a temple, would you? The request here is for respect. You're moving from "no way to keep everyone happy" to "fuck them" in the space of two sentences, which tells me you put effectively zero value on actually keeping anyone happy. That... just doesn't say good things about you as a person.
  • odonnellryan 7y ago
    Also if I had hindu guests, or in this case I was visiting them, I would not eat beef..
• black_puppydog 7y ago
  Seriously? That's pretending to throw your hands in the air and cry "Oh well, this is hard, no good solutions, I'm sorry" while in reality, you're just perpetuating the "we don't give a flying fuck about anyone who's not white or who gets into our way" attitude that can be seen throughout history.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• nrkor02nxid 7y ago
  And your attitude helps me move towards “fuck you” Feel how you want individually. But politically I’m under no obligation to advocate for you at all either. Lean into the political rugged individualism all you want. I’ll continue to advocate for the end of consumerism, capitalism, and technology that doesn’t serve legitimate scientific purpose, likely imploding your way of life. Because your opinion is a conflicting belief and I don’t have to give a shit about it.