4 ms·

Yes, the random genocides in the name of progress or capital gain are totally different. I'm sure that the starving irish, native americans, and asians who were

Yes, the random genocides in the name of progress or capital gain are totally different. I'm sure that the starving irish, native americans, and asians who were caught in the opium wars died with grateful appreciation that there were no priests around to oversight their expeditious sending to the afterlife.

irrational 4y ago
I don’t know why you are being downvoted. Whether it is ritualistic human sacrifice or pushing native Americans onto reservations, it is all versions of trading human lives for our own benefit. This takes many forms from the person who uses another person’s body for their own sexual gratification to wage theft to murdering people in a ritualistic setting to curry a God’s favor. It is all about how can I use others (other’s time, bodies, possessions, lives, etc.) to get gain for myself.
- nhchris 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - gostsamo 4y ago
    Think about the GP comment though: "they've had achieved statehood with a complex society, but they were killing people for religious reasons". And the religious reasoning underpinned a major part of the colonial effort.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      And colonialism is appropriately panned for it. What’s your point?
      - gostsamo 4y ago
        It is like you did not read the first sentence of the comment that you are replying to. I'll repeat it in another form: the gp implied that human sacrifice is sufficient enough to discard any other achievement of the society in question. I argue that the value of human life at the time was rather conditional matter. The rest of the debate is quantity and quality, and people who prefer to draw semi-arbitrary lines in the sand.
        kortilla 4y ago
        >the gp implied that human sacrifice is sufficient enough to discard any other achievement of the society in question No they didn’t. You’re just not used to seeing criticism leveled at other things. Something can be simultaneously flawed and quite impressive.
  - l3mure 4y ago
    > never comes up An absurd assertion, it's a staple of discussions on here. Takes all of 5 seconds to find examples. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33811795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33811795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32973297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32973297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338743
    - nhchris 4y ago
      Then HN is an exception, because I never come across it otherwise. Which is not surprising, given the complete absence of those instances of slavery and imperialism from pop culture. Sorry, near complete - I'm sure if you really try, you can dig up some movie showing it, and claim it has equal weight to the torrent of movies about US's slavery.
      - morelisp 4y ago
        Really? I see it all the time. For example, last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35024471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35024471 And two weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34947944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34947944 It actually seems like some people can't shut the fuck up about it in every thread even peripherally touching upon African history.
- gostsamo 4y ago
  The reason is mostly the tone I think. Too sharp and makes statements that are both uncomfortable and hard to argue against. A counter argument could be constructed, but it would be difficult and backlashing is easier.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    You just self-congratulated your own argument. You’re getting downvoted because you’re not contributing anything meaningful to the discussion. Whataboutism does not justify criticism of a practice.
    - masswerk 4y ago
      This answered directly to a comment attempting to differentiate religious from other imperialist practices. I can only see "aboutism" in this, but no "whataboutism" – that is, maybe in those arguing it may be just like any other argument they do not appreciate.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        Read the whole thread. The human sacrifice was being criticized. OP did a knee jerk “like all the empires” and got a reply pointing out that many had banned human sacrifice hundreds of years before that. OP then changed gears to include completely different reasons for death to make it seem like that made human sacrifice no different. Textbook whataboutism.
- throwaway031123 4y ago
  > I don’t know why you are being downvoted. This argument is generally used by people to defend bad institutions. I've heard Confederate apologists makes the exact same argument you have here ("Look at the Union treatment of Native Americans. All sides in the Civil War were immoral."). There are gradations of bad behavior. Treating bad behavior as if it's all the same just encourages a race to the bottom.

irrational 4y ago

I don’t know why you are being downvoted. Whether it is ritualistic human sacrifice or pushing native Americans onto reservations, it is all versions of trading human lives for our own benefit. This takes many forms from the person who uses another person’s body for their own sexual gratification to wage theft to murdering people in a ritualistic setting to curry a God’s favor. It is all about how can I use others (other’s time, bodies, possessions, lives, etc.) to get gain for myself.

nhchris 4y ago
[flagged]
- gostsamo 4y ago
  Think about the GP comment though: "they've had achieved statehood with a complex society, but they were killing people for religious reasons". And the religious reasoning underpinned a major part of the colonial effort.
  - kortilla 4y ago
    And colonialism is appropriately panned for it. What’s your point?
    - gostsamo 4y ago
      It is like you did not read the first sentence of the comment that you are replying to. I'll repeat it in another form: the gp implied that human sacrifice is sufficient enough to discard any other achievement of the society in question. I argue that the value of human life at the time was rather conditional matter. The rest of the debate is quantity and quality, and people who prefer to draw semi-arbitrary lines in the sand.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        >the gp implied that human sacrifice is sufficient enough to discard any other achievement of the society in question No they didn’t. You’re just not used to seeing criticism leveled at other things. Something can be simultaneously flawed and quite impressive.
- l3mure 4y ago
  > never comes up An absurd assertion, it's a staple of discussions on here. Takes all of 5 seconds to find examples. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33811795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33811795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32973297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32973297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32338743
  - nhchris 4y ago
    Then HN is an exception, because I never come across it otherwise. Which is not surprising, given the complete absence of those instances of slavery and imperialism from pop culture. Sorry, near complete - I'm sure if you really try, you can dig up some movie showing it, and claim it has equal weight to the torrent of movies about US's slavery.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      Really? I see it all the time. For example, last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35024471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35024471 And two weeks ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34947944 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34947944 It actually seems like some people can't shut the fuck up about it in every thread even peripherally touching upon African history.
gostsamo 4y ago
The reason is mostly the tone I think. Too sharp and makes statements that are both uncomfortable and hard to argue against. A counter argument could be constructed, but it would be difficult and backlashing is easier.
- kortilla 4y ago
  You just self-congratulated your own argument. You’re getting downvoted because you’re not contributing anything meaningful to the discussion. Whataboutism does not justify criticism of a practice.
  - masswerk 4y ago
    This answered directly to a comment attempting to differentiate religious from other imperialist practices. I can only see "aboutism" in this, but no "whataboutism" – that is, maybe in those arguing it may be just like any other argument they do not appreciate.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      Read the whole thread. The human sacrifice was being criticized. OP did a knee jerk “like all the empires” and got a reply pointing out that many had banned human sacrifice hundreds of years before that. OP then changed gears to include completely different reasons for death to make it seem like that made human sacrifice no different. Textbook whataboutism.
throwaway031123 4y ago
> I don’t know why you are being downvoted. This argument is generally used by people to defend bad institutions. I've heard Confederate apologists makes the exact same argument you have here ("Look at the Union treatment of Native Americans. All sides in the Civil War were immoral."). There are gradations of bad behavior. Treating bad behavior as if it's all the same just encourages a race to the bottom.