This week in woke idiocy: Indians don't need floatation devices because of "eons of experience" ...

[Derec]

Rantz: Democrat says Native Americans can’t drown because of ‘eons’ of experience

State Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline) is the sponsor of HB 1707, a bill she’s been trying to pass for years. It mandates one to wear a personal floating device while on kayaks, canoes, and stand-up paddleboards. If you violate the law, you’re hit with a citation.
But the law would not apply to members of a federally recognized tribe.
She says they are used to cold water from “eons” of experience and, she implies, they can’t drown. This betrays national statistics suggesting Native Americans have the highest rate of drowning deaths in the country.
[...]
In the committee hearing, Ryu also notes that while Native Americans know how to swim, there are other large swaths of racial groups that do not have access to the water.
“I thought that was a great mechanism to allow the tribal members that do have a lot more access to the waters and traditional training and activity, unlike many of the other diverse communities that don’t, like Korean Americans,” Ryu said. “The only time I go out on the water nowadays anyway is when my non-Korean American son-in-law takes me out on the water. And so I thought that was a good way of carving out very narrow exemptions.”
Ryu does not go out into the water, thus, neither do other Korean Americans. It’s unclear when Ryu became the spokesperson for the Korean American community.

This is some "this is your brain, this is your brain on woke" type of shit.

What happened to the liberal idea that people should be equal before the law? Or that people are individuals, and not ciphers for racial and ethnic groups? Also, water knowledge is not transmitted genetically over eons. Those that call themselves liberals today (so called "modern liberalism") is anything but.

 

[laughing dog]

While I think Ms. Nantz's comments are pretty inane, the article from a conservative talk radio site is disingenuous.

It is pretty clear that Ms. Nantz is saying that Native Americans know how deal with being dunked into cold water. That does not mean they cannot drown, but that she thinks they know enough to avoid drowning.

Is it a stupid thing to say? Absolutely. But there is no need to exaggerate or lie about it either.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Talk radio host says:

She says they are used to cold water from “eons” of experience and, she implies, they can’t drown.

Emphasis added. To imply a thing means A ==> B.

Ryu had said

These are situations where they have either extensive training or traditionally very used to our cold waters for eons, essentially, or are very closely supervised.

This has form "situations where (C or D) or E."

How does "situations where (C or D) or E." ==> they can't drown?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I wonder if she's actually quoting (or misquoting) something a tribal rep told her about why they needed to be exempt from this legislation.
I mean, if she's pushing legislation to protect voters, i doubt that she, herself, initially identified exceptions. But a lobbyist may have told her they need to maintain the right to canoe in their traditional methods...

 

[TomC]

I wonder if she's actually quoting (or misquoting) something a tribal rep told her about why they needed to be exempt from this legislation.
I mean, if she's pushing legislation to protect voters, i doubt that she, herself, initially identified exceptions. But a lobbyist may have told her they need to maintain the right to canoe in their traditional methods...

Pretty much this.
Clumsy phrasing and optics aside, protecting dumbasses (and especially their kids) from themselves might be a worthy goal. Carving out a little exemption to respect the indigenous culture seems reasonable.

She could have explained this better. But only a seriously fragile snowflake could get their panties in a wad over this.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

This is really about the maritime harvest season, I expect, not about ability to drown one way or the other. This falls under my personal category of "why would the state government try to regulate this in the first place?", but it doesn't surprise me that if she is going to put this bill forward that it would have this condition. Trying to enforce it on the reservations would just hand them a massive legal headache, given the jurisdictional questions at play. Treaties are made with the national government, not the state, and most made in the Pac Northwest include explicit references to unimpeded use of the fisheries. Whatever she may say to the press, that's likely the most significant reason for the exemption.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is really about the maritime harvest season, I expect, not about ability to drown one way or the other. This falls under my personal category of "why would the state government try to regulate this in the first place?", but it doesn't surprise me that if she is going to put this bill forward that it would have this condition. Trying to enforce it on the reservations would just hand them a massive legal headache, given the jurisdictional questions at play. Treaties are made with the national government, not the state, and most made in the Pac Northwest include explicit references to unimpeded use of the fisheries. Whatever she may say to the press, that's likely the most significant reason for the exemption.

To add--there are 29 reservations in Washington state and fishing is a very common livelihood among Native Americans there. Based on this and "unimpeded use of fisheries" above, it sounds like there are significant reasons for exemption.

 

[Politesse]

This is really about the maritime harvest season, I expect, not about ability to drown one way or the other. This falls under my personal category of "why would the state government try to regulate this in the first place?", but it doesn't surprise me that if she is going to put this bill forward that it would have this condition. Trying to enforce it on the reservations would just hand them a massive legal headache, given the jurisdictional questions at play. Treaties are made with the national government, not the state, and most made in the Pac Northwest include explicit references to unimpeded use of the fisheries. Whatever she may say to the press, that's likely the most significant reason for the exemption.

To add--there are 29 reservations in Washington state and fishing is a very common livelihood among Native Americans there. Based on this and "unimpeded use of fisheries" above, it sounds like there are significant reasons for exemption.

Yes, though in fairness, her statement to the press, if misreported in this thread, does seem to have encouraged confusion.

 

[TomC]

, though in fairness, her statement to the press, if misreported in this thread, does seem to have encouraged confusion.

Everybody knows what those Korean chicks are like. /snark

Honestly, I just don't see this as difficult to grasp. I can't help but think that the problem is media folks looking to get "the base" riled up over a total nothing burger.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Honestly, I just don't see this as difficult to grasp. I can't help but think that the problem is media folks looking to get "the base" riled up over a total nothing burger.
Tom

Also true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While I think Ms. Nantz's comments are pretty inane, the article from a conservative talk radio site is disingenuous.

It is pretty clear that Ms. Nantz is saying that Native Americans know how deal with being dunked into cold water. That does not mean they cannot drown, but that she thinks they know enough to avoid drowning.

Is it a stupid thing to say? Absolutely. But there is no need to exaggerate or lie about it either.

This is really about the maritime harvest season, I expect, not about ability to drown one way or the other. This falls under my personal category of "why would the state government try to regulate this in the first place?", but it doesn't surprise me that if she is going to put this bill forward that it would have this condition. Trying to enforce it on the reservations would just hand them a massive legal headache, given the jurisdictional questions at play. Treaties are made with the national government, not the state, and most made in the Pac Northwest include explicit references to unimpeded use of the fisheries. Whatever she may say to the press, that's likely the most significant reason for the exemption.

Most mistakes-in-nature deaths are from people not used to doing the activity, not from the people who do it a lot. A tribe that spends a lot of time on the water, the people will generally know how to get themselves safely out of the water if they fall in. The guys who occasionally go out to drink beer and fish are quite another matter.

I also agree that it would bring up enforcement headaches.

 

[Derec]

While I think Ms. Nantz's comments are pretty inane, the article from a conservative talk radio site is disingenuous.

You mean Ms. Ryu? At least you agree she is inane.
As far as the opinion piece, I do not think it is disingenuous, but it is written in a style of an opinion piece and not a straight news article.
As to it being from a conservative site, should only 'liberal' media sites be allowed? Note also that most media in Washington State is rather left-wing and they are loathe to criticize a Dem like Ryu for being too woke.

It is pretty clear that Ms. Nantz is saying that Native Americans know how deal with being dunked into cold water.

I do not know who this Nantz woman is you keep referencing. The idiot lawmaker's name is Cindy Ryu. The writer of the opinion piece is Jason Rantz.

That does not mean they cannot drown, but that she thinks they know enough to avoid drowning.

Again, it's an opinion piece. It's making fun of her stupid statements. And just being Indian does not mean they know anything, much less enough to avoid drowning. Such knowledge is not genetic, but must be learned, and people of all racial and ethnic groups can acquire it.
Note also that Indians are more likely to drown. That is probably mostly due to them spending more time on the water, but note that their transgenerational "eons of experience" do not lead to them rarely drowning.

Is it a stupid thing to say? Absolutely. But there is no need to exaggerate or lie about it either.

It's not lying. It's making fun of her woke stupidity.
Unfortunately this is Washington State, so this nanny state bill is probably going to pass with racist exemptions intact.

 

[prideandfall]

This is some "this is your brain, this is your brain on woke" type of shit.

well no, because "woke" doesn't exist except as a delusion of the right.
but it's certainly some "this is your brain on stupid" type of shit.

is your contention that democrats don't have stupid members? or that democratic politicians aren't stupid?
statistically speaking, quite nearly 100% of humans are fucking idiots, so obviously pretty much every democrat is necessarily a moron.

What happened to the liberal idea that people should be equal before the law? Or that people are individuals, and not ciphers for racial and ethnic groups? Also, water knowledge is not transmitted genetically over eons. Those that call themselves liberals today (so called "modern liberalism") is anything but.

see the vague ideological point you're trying to gaslight us into buying would have a bit more legitimately IF the rest of the DNC took this up as a party platform, if biden got involved and issued an executive order exempting native americans from water related safety regulations, and if... well i would say "the left wing media" except there isn't any in the US, so there's no equivalent of FOX to carry water for a democrat.

anyways, as usual, it's not so much that every single post you make on this forum is either a textbook example of a moore/coulter fallacy, or whataboutism... it's that you're so transparently, pathetically awful at doing it.

stupid people are stupid. congratulations on your astonishing revelation about the nature of reality.
this particular stupidity will have zero long term political impact, because that's not how the democrats work.
nice try though.

 

[Derec]

Pretty much this.
Clumsy phrasing and optics aside, protecting dumbasses (and especially their kids) from themselves might be a worthy goal. Carving out a little exemption to respect the indigenous culture seems reasonable.

So, you are saying protecting Indian dumbasses and their kids is not a worthy goal?

She could have explained this better. But only a seriously fragile snowflake could get their panties in a wad over this.
Tom

Only a serious "indigenous" snowflake could get their loincloths in a wad over the idea that they should be subject to the same laws as every other citizen of Washington State.

 

[Derec]

How does "situations where (C or D) or E." ==> they can't drown?

Nobody is suggesting that she thinks they literally can't drown. But she does seem to think that just because their ancestors were on the water a lot it somehow magically imputes water skills on Indians more than anybody else. Which is just idiotic.

 

[Derec]

g (or misquoting) something a tribal rep told her about why they needed to be exempt from this legislation.
I mean, if she's pushing legislation to protect voters, i doubt that she, herself, initially identified exceptions. But a lobbyist may have told her they need to maintain the right to canoe in their traditional methods...

Yeah. "Traditional methods". I bet they have no problem putting outboard motors on their craft though ...

 

[Derec]

Trying to enforce it on the reservations would just hand them a massive legal headache, given the jurisdictional questions at play.

If they get to vote for WA governor, state legislature as well as US Senators from WA, then why should they not be subject to WA law the same as everybody else?
The mere fact that there has to be a racist exemption means that they are not exempt from these laws as a matter of course.

Treaties are made with the national government, not the state, and most made in the Pac Northwest include explicit references to unimpeded use of the fisheries. Whatever she may say to the press, that's likely the most significant reason for the exemption.

The misinterpretation of these treaties is one of the biggest blunders of US jurisprudence and probably the biggest one after the idea of "punitive damages". The treaties made some sense when Indian tribes were in fact separate nations from US. When you have Indians vote in US elections, get federal and state government benefits etc. they should also be subject to all federal and state laws as well.
If you want independence, get independence. No double dipping!

 

[Derec]

Most mistakes-in-nature deaths are from people not used to doing the activity, not from the people who do it a lot.

The "per event" risk is higher for unexperienced, but not the cumulative one.

A tribe that spends a lot of time on the water, the people will generally know how to get themselves safely out of the water if they fall in. The guys who occasionally go out to drink beer and fish are quite another matter.

There are inexperienced Indians as well as experienced non-Indians.
It's stupid as well as racist to give exemptions based on race.

I also agree that it would bring up enforcement headaches.

Only because the entire US approach to Indian affairs is in need of a major overhaul. But unfortunately we are moving in the exact wrong direction - i.e. more special treatment when we should be working to end special treatment altogether.

 

[Derec]

well no, because "woke" doesn't exist except as a delusion of the right.

Bullshit.

https://jezebel.com/in-the-aftermath-of-ferguson-stay-angry-and-stay-woke-1622364931/amp

is your contention that democrats don't have stupid members? or that democratic politicians aren't stupid?
statistically speaking, quite nearly 100% of humans are fucking idiots, so obviously pretty much every democrat is necessarily a moron.

My contention is that it is woke ideology that made her a moron, not inherent intellectual limitations.

see the vague ideological point you're trying to gaslight us into buying would have a bit more legitimately IF the rest of the DNC took this up as a party platform, if biden got involved and issued an executive order exempting native americans from water related safety regulations, and if..

This was a particularly stupid example, what with the silly notions of "eons of experience" making floatation devices unnecessary. I mean British Empire ruled the seas for centuries, but that does means jack shit about the abilities of Nigel from Yorkshire. Same goes for Winona Looking Cloud from Bumfuck, WA and her ability to survive on the water with no safety devices.

So yes, Ryu's statements were particularly stupid, but the ideology that laws and rules should apply differently based on race and ethnicity is the dominant ideology in the contemporary Democratic Party. That's the underlying philosophy underlying so-called "affirmative action" as well as the concepts of "equity" and "disparate impact".
Gender too. Before the 2016 election, Hillary wrote an op-ed for CNN arguing women should serve less prison time than men for the same crime because she is blaming a man when a woman breaks the law.

. well i would say "the left wing media" except there isn't any in the US, so there's no equivalent of FOX to carry water for a democrat.

Most media carry water for the Dems. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, New York Times, etc.

it's that you're so transparently, pathetically awful at doing it.

Well, I disagree.

stupid people are stupid. congratulations on your astonishing revelation about the nature of reality.
this particular stupidity will have zero long term political impact, because that's not how the democrats work.
nice try though.

The philosophy underlying it has been the dominant one in the Democratic Party for at least half a century.

 

[TomC]

So, you are saying protecting Indian dumbasses and their kids is not a worthy goal?

I said no such thing.

I rather prefer the laws here in Indiana. I don't know them precisely, but basically people under a certain age are required to wear a life vest in an open boat. Darwin's Law handles adults. IIRC.
But I don't live in Washington, they can play by their own rules.

Only a serious "indigenous" snowflake could get their loincloths in a wad over the idea that they should be subject to the same laws as every other citizen of Washington State.

You started the thread.

For all I know, indigenous people in Washington are fine with the invaders tossing their kids out into the river, sink or swim. I dunno.

An interesting question would be "Of deaths and injuries that could have been prevented by life vests, how many were indigenous people and how many outsiders?"

Maybe hardly anyone but Ms. Ryu cares and this is mostly politicking. Maybe her biggest campaign donor is a national sporting goods retailer. I don't pretend to know what's really going on there.

You started the thread. Why do you find this interesting?
Tom