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

[laughing dog]

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.

Writing she implies they cannot drown is either incredibly stupid or dishonest.

As to it being from a conservative site, should only 'liberal' media sites be allowed?

It bills itself as a conservative.

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.

Irrelevant.

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.

Are you serious that "being Indian does not mean they know anything"?

As to the rest of your comment, it should be obvious she was not referring to genetically inherited knowledge.

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.

You are going to great lengths to defend such bigotry.

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.

Deliberately mischaracterizing someone's statement is lying.

 

[Derec]

I said no such thing.

You implied it by saying that the law is a good idea to protect "dumbasses and their kids" but at the same time you said that it was a good idea to exempt Indians.

But I don't live in Washington, they can play by their own rules.

But those rules should be applied equally. No matter how many eons your ancestors were on the water.

You started the thread.

Indeed. To point out Ryu's stupidity.

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.

Invaders? Also, Indians are not really "indigenous". They came from Siberia.

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?"

It would be an interesting question but it would not do anything to make the law any less discriminatory.
Nor would it change Ryu's racist notion that skills are determined by race (which she as I said probably does not believe literally but still subscribes to on a practical level).

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.

Sporting goods retailer who is averse from selling to Indians?

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

I found the idiocy of Ryu's racial determinism interesting because that's the thing Dems pretend to be opposed to but tend to subscribe to when it comes to Indians.
I also wanted to see how the usual suspects will defend this one. They did not disappoint.

 

[Derec]

Are you serious that "being Indian does not mean they know anything"?

Of course I am. Just because they are Indian does not mean they know anything about a particular subject, even if such knowledge is widespread among Indians. Skills and knowledge are individual attributes, not corporate ones.

As to the rest of your comment, it should be obvious she was not referring to genetically inherited knowledge.

It is not very obvious though, because she wants to make exemptions based on ancestry and not skills or experience.
I agree that she probably doesn't literally believe that, but her racial exemption, and her justification for it, would only make logical sense if such knowledge was hereditary and not learned. In other words, she is the victim of the contradictory worldview of the woke Left.

You are going to great lengths to defend such bigotry.

Bigotry is Ryu's and of those who defend her BS.

Deliberately mischaracterizing someone's statement is lying.

Except he is not. Nice try with your trademark hair splitting because you know you lost on substance of the issue.

 

[prideandfall]

Bullshit.

one unconvincing opinion piece on a random website does not a sound argument make.

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

ah, so then like of your contentions it's simply an assertion of delusion. good for you.

This was a particularly stupid example

oh for certain, and in a vacuum it's definitely chuckle-worthy in terms of "stupid thing some idiot in public office said"
if any of us were blind enough to think that was your only intention with posting this, we could potentially let it sit as merely a "man bites dog" sharing of a silly news story.

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".

i would point out the sheer lunacy of your example, as the former exists independent of context is based on nothing but one person being a tit, and the latter exists as a response to the last 300 years of laws and rules applying different based on race and ethnicity and gender and the fundamental damage that has done to a certain segment of the population in an economy that predominantly (though not exclusively) operates on generational wealth, but we all know that you're utterly incapable of even processing that information much less letting it impact your world view so why bother.

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

HA! oh that's fucking rich.

most media carry water for ensuring the status quo of a corporate-elite driven economic model.
that the dems are the pro-business conservatives who currently do the most to work towards that end, it's less of one rooting for the other and more that their interests align in certain areas.

the media shreds democrats equally to republicans, "media bias" is a delusion cooked up in a sad attempt to justify a victim's complex.

[/QUOTE]The philosophy underlying it has been the dominant one in the Democratic Party for at least half a century.[/QUOTE]
and what philosophy is that exactly?
because we all know you absolutely do not understand the concept of historical grievance, unless it's painting white men as victims.

 

[Swammerdami]

Others have explained why Ms. Ryu's comment wasn't as moronic as an out-of-context soundbite suggests, but let's ignore that.

In fact, let's abbreviate OP down to the only part that matters.

... State Rep. Cindy Ryu (D-Shoreline) ...

Oh my God! :horror: A Demoncrat (and don't forget the three silent K's!!) said something stupid!

And she wasn't just some random government official like the Supreme Court Justices who harass women, or the treasonous Congresscritters, or the Senator who thinks a glass of ice water disproves climate change, or the National Security Advisor who pushes a lie about sex slaves in a pizzeria basement. Or the President who eats(!) official documents. She was a State Rep. The Horror! The Horror!

Derec, get back to us when she's smearing shit on the Capitol walls, or meeting one-on-one with Putin with zero other Americans present, or grifting millions of dollars.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Nobody is suggesting that she thinks they literally can't drown.

No, that's exactly the exaggerated claim from the article you posted. Further, the author pretends by "eons" Ryu meant billions of years which is not common usage of the word. If you are not going to defend the article, then retract it.

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.

No, she is not suggesting it is magic or genetic, but instead knowledge and custom passed down over generations. Recall Native American tribes in Washington state have indeed been fishing on the water in that region a very long time and customs, traditions, knowledge are passed down in each tribe. First, I have no knowledge it is true that within that body of tribal knowledge and tradition, there is anything that would give tribal members a relative advantage--I am ignorant. Second, Ryu didn't claim every tribal member had this knowledge because she also mentioned training and supervision as other factors. Third, while it's true that any individual person in Washington might also have knowledge how to be safer around cold water, those individuals do not have tribal sovereignty which may obligate the state to treat them differently.

I don't agree with specific things Ryu said and I am skeptical about this bill. But that doesn't excuse posting an article that makes stuff up.

 

[Politesse]

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?

They are. Are you under the incorrect assumption that treaties do not hold the force of law? Or that they don't apply to US citizens somehow? No one has argued nor would argue that any US citizen is above the laws of their state or country, but "the law" gets complicated when one level of government tries to legislate in a way that contradicts already established law at a different level. Washington (or any other state) is no more an independent nation than the Snoqualmie Tribe is; ultimately, they too are subject to federal law and federal oversight, and violations of that principle become legal cases that eventually must be decided by a judge rather than a legislator. Never the best outcome from anyone's perspective.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you serious that "being Indian does not mean they know anything"?

Of course I am. Just because they are Indian does not mean they know anything about a particular subject, even if such knowledge is widespread among Indians. Skills and knowledge are individual attributes, not corporate ones.

That is not what you wrote. You wrote the very telling "being Indian does not mean they know anything" .

Moreover, I find your defense of your vile statement very interesting, since you routinely assume that black people or supporters of _____ all think alike.

As to the rest of your comment, it should be obvious she was not referring to genetically inherited knowledge.

It is not very obvious though, because she wants to make exemptions based on ancestry and not skills or experience.

It was obvious to anyone with basic reading skills.

I agree that she probably doesn't literally believe that, but her racial exemption, and her justification for it, would only make logical sense if such knowledge was hereditary and not learned. In other words, she is the victim of the contradictory worldview of the woke Left.

Utter nonsense. It is consistent with the idea that Native Americans know about water safety, etc...

You are going to great lengths to defend such bigotry.

Bigotry is Ryu's and of those who defend her BS.

You are probably the only person in this thread who might actually believe that crapola.

Deliberately mischaracterizing someone's statement is lying.

Except he is not.

Yes, he is mischaracterizing it.

Nice try with your trademark hair splitting because you know you lost on substance of the issue.

I am not the one denying reality with pedantry - you are.

I get it. A woman of color who is Democrat said something you don't like, so any attack on her is okay.

 

[TomC]

You implied it by saying that the law is a good idea to protect "dumbasses and their kids" but at the same time you said that it was a good idea to exempt Indians.

I see two different issues going on here.
One is the nanny state thing. I'm not fond of difficult to enforce regulations intended more to "send a message" than fully address an issue.
But here in Indiana, our waterways are more of the relaxing variety than the exciting. There just aren't many drownings, and they're nearly always related to alcohol. The state did pass regulations putting motorboats into the "motor vehicle" category for the purposes of impaired driving.
Washington is probably very different. Kayaking and such are huge, rivers are mountain rivers, things are just different there. Maybe they need such regulations.

Then there's the indigenous thing. Whole different issue.
I used the term "invader" quite deliberately.
One the one hand, we are all Afro-American. In the longest sense of the term, like the Afro-Dutch and Afro-Chinese and Afro-Everyone.

But indigenous Americans are different, from the stand point of U.S. policy and law. It's fairly recent, but most decent folks have learned enough history to realize that non-indigenous Americans are almost always invaders. And not from the ancient past like Greeks invading the middle east. If the USA government recognized all the treaties made with indigenous peoples, the Iroquois would have a country bigger than Egypt. Indigenous peoples as whole would have more real estate than Alaska, by far. We are not talking about ancient history, we're talking about legal documents signed by representatives of our current government. In many cases, there are still physical copies of these treaties in the possession of tribal leadership.

So, there's plenty of times that the invaders have no moral leg to stand on when the issue is minor regulations like this. No, but "it's the fair thing to do" bullshit.
I'm not saying(or 'implying') that we invaders should give Ohio back to the Iroquois. But claiming that indigenous people owe you legal fairness or whatever is ridiculous.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Disagree. I live in a desert, I haven't been on water in ages. I do, however, head into the backcountry with reasonable frequency. I see two fairly distinct groups out there:

1) People who started out going with groups of more experienced people. Their bloopers are for the most part minor, they're helped by others in the group and search & rescue doesn't get called. The only S&R callouts I'm aware of from this group involve people doing somewhat dangerous activities.

2) People who start out without experienced guides. These are the ones much more likely to need help.

Now, for the dangerous activities I will agree the experienced people are most of the problems. However, most of us out there aren't engaging in dangerous activities.

 

[Bomb#20]

You implied it by saying that the law is a good idea to protect "dumbasses and their kids" but at the same time you said that it was a good idea to exempt Indians.

...
Then there's the indigenous thing. Whole different issue.
I used the term "invader" quite deliberately.

Yes, of course you did. The question is, why?

One the one hand, we are all Afro-American. In the longest sense of the term, like the Afro-Dutch and Afro-Chinese and Afro-Everyone.

But indigenous Americans are different, from the stand point of U.S. policy and law. It's fairly recent, but most decent folks have learned enough history to realize that non-indigenous Americans are almost always invaders.

The great majority of so-called "non-indigenous" Americans didn't invade anywhere. They were born here.

An awful lot of rightists have a habit of calling U.S.-born Mexican-Americans "immigrants" even though they didn't migrate anywhere. Do you agree with them? I'd have thought migrating was something living organisms do, but apparently the pre-born can do it too.

An awful lot of Christians have a habit of calling all people "sinners" even before they've had a chance to follow or break any of their Supreme Fascist's rules, on account of inheriting "Original Sin" from somebody who ate a fruit off the wrong tree. Apparently it's Darwin 0, Lamarck 1 -- turns out inheritance of acquired characteristics is real.

So is having invaded one of those acquired characteristic like sinfulness that you can inherit? What exactly are the differences between the Doctrine of Original Invade, and the Doctrine of Original Migrate, and the Doctrine of Original Sin? Because from out here they all look like exactly the same doctrine.

So, there's plenty of times that the invaders have no moral leg to stand on when the issue is minor regulations like this. ... But claiming that indigenous people owe you legal fairness or whatever is ridiculous.
Tom

I don't think Derec claimed indigenous people owe us legal fairness. It sounded more like he was saying Cindy Ryu owes us legal fairness.

 

[Gospel]

Yes, of course you did. The question is, why?

Judging by the meaning of the word and the context in which TomC used it, that's duck soup.

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.

Then Derec replied with some dumb shit about Siberia as if that makes Europeans any less of invaders. The word means a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place. Who invaded who first is irrelevant.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Not sure why Bomb#20 snipped this part:

We are not talking about ancient history, we're talking about legal documents signed by representatives of our current government. In many cases, there are still physical copies of these treaties in the possession of tribal leadership.

Anyone entering such territory without the legal right could be said to be an invader or trespasser. Another term that might be better suited to successive generations born within the territory is "occupying power."

 

[Derec]

Now, for the dangerous activities I will agree the experienced people are most of the problems. However, most of us out there aren't engaging in dangerous activities.

Which is why I do not understand why you disagree with me on the point about the cumulative risk.
If somebody is on the water (or other potentially dangerous activities) frequently, their cumulative risk over time is going to be relatively high even if they are skilled and experienced, simply because they engage in the activity a lot.

 

[Derec]

Judging by the meaning of the word and the context in which TomC used it, that's duck soup.

Duck soup? The dish or the movie?

Then Derec replied with some dumb shit about Siberia as if that makes Europeans any less of invaders.

It makes everybody invaders, including Indian tribes vs. other Indian tribes. Singling out white Europeans for the label "invader" is as disingenuous as it is racist.
Why is Tom not calling say Turks invaders? They are from central Asia and only invaded Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace relatively recently in human history.

The word means a person or group that invades a country, region, or other place. Who invaded who first is irrelevant.

Again, why single out white Europeans then? Borders have shifted many times in human history.

 

[Derec]

I used the term "invader" quite deliberately.

I bet you did!
One the one hand, we are all Afro-American. In the longest sense of the term, like the Afro-Dutch and Afro-Chinese and Afro-Everyone.
But indigenous Americans are different, from the stand point of U.S. policy and law.[/quote]
First of all, they are not "indigenous". And I think US policy and law are very misguided on this issue. We need to move toward the liberal ideal of laws applying to all people equally. Not away from it by carving even more exceptions and special treatments for politically correct racial and ethnolinguistic groupings.

It's fairly recent, but most decent folks have learned enough history to realize that non-indigenous Americans are almost always invaders.

As are so-called "indigenous" Americans and for that matter everybody else

And not from the ancient past like Greeks invading the middle east.

It's from more recent past than ancient Greeks, sure. So what? How does that change the fact that laws should apply to all citizens equally?
Indians should not be able to have it both ways - be full citizens and also pretend to be "sovereign nations" to get out of following laws or paying taxes.

If the USA government recognized all the treaties made with indigenous peoples, the Iroquois would have a country bigger than Egypt. Indigenous peoples as whole would have more real estate than Alaska, by far. We are not talking about ancient history, we're talking about legal documents signed by representatives of our current government. In many cases, there are still physical copies of these treaties in the possession of tribal leadership.

And what is your solution? Have Indians be "supercitizens" in perpetuity? All benefits of US citizenship, but with special racially-based rights? I do not think that is the proper approach in a liberal society.

So, there's plenty of times that the invaders have no moral leg to stand on when the issue is minor regulations like this. No, but "it's the fair thing to do" bullshit.

If Indians in Washington want to seek independence, that would be one thing. But they want all benefits of US citizenship but also want that laws do not apply to them.

I'm not saying(or 'implying') that we invaders should give Ohio back to the Iroquois. But claiming that indigenous people owe you legal fairness or whatever is ridiculous.

I think we need to take the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment seriously. Equality before the law is a liberal value. One that so-called US "liberals" no longer even pretend to support.

 

[Derec]

Are you serious that "being Indian does not mean they know anything"?

Right. Just because somebody is Indian does not tell us anything about any knowledge they may or may not have.

That is not what you wrote. You wrote the very telling "being Indian does not mean they know anything" .

Which means that the quality of Indianness does not in itself impart any knowledge. It does not mean that being Indian means they know nothing.
Discussing anything with you is very tiresome because you are not interested in discussing the topic at hand, but are rather only interested in meaningless hair splitting.

Moreover, I find your defense of your vile statement very interesting, since you routinely assume that black people or supporters of _____ all think alike.

I never made that assumption about black people. And who is this _________?

It was obvious to anyone with basic reading skills.

Which you obviously lack, since the exemption is based on race and ethnicity and not skill level.

Utter nonsense. It is consistent with the idea that Native Americans know about water safety, etc...

Exactly. Racial knowledge. Which is utter nonsense. Knowledge is learned, it is not a function of being a so-called "Native American".

I get it. A woman of color who is Democrat said something you don't like, so any attack on her is okay.

So being "of color" and female means that she can't be attacked?
But it would be PC to attack a white man in a similar way?

 

[Derec]

They are. Are you under the incorrect assumption that treaties do not hold the force of law?

Obviously there is no treaty exemption for water safety devices or else there would be no need to write them into this misguided law.
On a more general note, I think the entire US approach to Indian treaties is misguided and highly damaging to both US as a whole and to the Indians (unless they are wealthy Casino Indians).
Treaties as a way to deal with Indian nations made sense in the 19th century when they were actual nations and not just a legal fiction of nationhood. With Indians being US citizens since the early 20th century, the whole idea of nationhood is really moot.
What should be done is to distribute any treaty claims (land if extant or compensation if not) to individual Indians and treat them as regular citizens in the future. No special treatments.

Or that they don't apply to US citizens somehow? No one has argued nor would argue that any US citizen is above the laws of their state or country, but "the law" gets complicated

In other words, it's a mess.

 

[Derec]

No, that's exactly the exaggerated claim from the article you posted. Further, the author pretends by "eons" Ryu meant billions of years which is not common usage of the word. If you are not going to defend the article, then retract it.

It's an opinion piece. The author is making fun of Ryu's stupidity.

No, she is not suggesting it is magic or genetic, but instead knowledge and custom passed down over generations. Recall Native American tribes in Washington state have indeed been fishing on the water in that region a very long time and customs, traditions, knowledge are passed down in each tribe.

But not to everyone equally. And non-Indians can also be skilled. There is absolutely no logical reason for the law to treat people differently based on their race and ethnicity. I know such is now popular in Lefty circles but it does not make it right.

First, I have no knowledge it is true that within that body of tribal knowledge and tradition, there is anything that would give tribal members a relative advantage--I am ignorant. Second, Ryu didn't claim every tribal member had this knowledge because she also mentioned training and supervision as other factors. Third, while it's true that any individual person in Washington might also have knowledge how to be safer around cold water, those individuals do not have tribal sovereignty which may obligate the state to treat them differently.

She did not use so-called "tribal sovereignty" as a justification for her racist bill.
And if you admit that Indians can be ignorant of water safety and that non-Indians can be skilled, what is the remaining justification for the discriminatory bill? That your ancestors may have spent a lot of time on the water does not mean you know how to handle yourself.

I don't agree with specific things Ryu said and I am skeptical about this bill. But that doesn't excuse posting an article that makes stuff up.

Again, it's an opinion piece. It is pointing out the stupidity of Ryu's position by following its "logic".

 

[Derec]

Oh my God! :horror: A Demoncrat (and don't forget the three silent K's!!) said something stupid!

But it's not "January 6th" so we need to shut up about it?