Comment by mothballed | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mothballed | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"indigenous people" do not have the right to block other races from voting for a public office. The fact that they're polyneysians that slaughtered other polynesians isn't a magic trump card to shit on the ethnic filipinos, chinese, and others that were enslaved and subjected under the "Kingdom of Hawaii" which by the estimation of BryantD were part of the subjected people at that time the "treaty" was meant to protect (no matter that the case itself, ruled that these "treaty" protections carveouts were applicable to Indians and that Hawaiians are not that, thus the racist tried to angle on the legally vague 'indigenous' instead.)

RBG was not balancing the rights of 'indigenous' but rather "balancing" and supporting the racism of ethnic Hawaiians against all the other exploited minorities on the island that were subject in the Kingdom that the US overthrew. Only in the simplified view that it was just Hawaiians and the colonizers does the 'balancing' nonsense even look remotely to be the case, and that is in the most charitable possible interpretation.

Hey, try not to lie too obviously. I explicitly said "not a treaty matter," and I explicitly said I didn't necessarily agree with the decision.

Not that anyone's reading this but what a great example of the tired old trick of attempting to use social justice language as a rhetorical lever.

You said

>This was an indigenous people treaty case

and here say

>not a treaty matter

The fact you may have contradicted yourself later by arguing it is a "case" but not a "matter" doesn't disprove that. It's just a cheap way to cover both bases by using vague enough overlapping terminology that you can claim it's a "case" when you want or a "matter" when you want so you can retroactively create a catch-22 where you win if it's heads and I lose if it's tails.

How do you manage to have conversations with people in your day to day life with so much assuming negative intent? Some people treat these little linguistic excursions as ways to achieve common understanding, rather than as a sporting event with winners and losers, you know.

What you can do if you're uncertain -- and my language was sloppy, good point! -- is say "hey, I'm not sure what you meant here; can you clarify?" And I say "yeah, I was unclear. I meant that the question was related to treaty status but after digging in, it's not required by treaty for that elected position to only be occupied by someone of a specific heritage. Thank you for pointing that out."

(I might not have said thank you, to be honest, and of course you're welcome to assume I'm just covering up because you called me on the phrasing.)

>>> lie too obviously.

>>>what a great example of the tired old trick of attempting to use social justice language as a rhetorical lever.

>... assuming negative intent?

You're not fooling anyone. You kicked off saying I was lying obviously and used tired tricks and rhetorical levers, then surprise pikachud when I received negative intent and following that called out your contradiction.

Don't pretend to be the victim here and that bit about me being a liar was just helpful clarification with positive intent. You know what you're doing, then blaming me for what you're doing.

Well it's good you acknowledge she wasn't coming from a place of hatred but rather choosing between two terrible options. The president's video, on the other hand, is unambiguously hateful and ethnocentric.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com