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

[Swammerdami]

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?

Hunh? Wasn't I agreeing with you?
Stories of Republicans acting stupid or criminal are a dime-a-dozen — Ho-hum, dog bites man. But a Democrat saying something stupid? That's welcome as a revelation that we're all human and "To err is human."

And you found a blunder by a State Rep. Not just some plumber in Oshkosh who votes for the D's but an elected State legislator, maybe just a heart-beat away from throwing her hat in the ring for State Senator.

But is she qualified for higher office? Does this blunderer come up to the standards of Lauren Boebert or MTG?

 

[Derec]

Stories of Republicans acting stupid or criminal are a dime-a-dozen — Ho-hum, dog bites man. But a Democrat saying something stupid? That's welcome as a revelation that we're all human and "To err is human."

Nah. Plenty of dumbass Democrats too. Especially in Congress. But this story had some local flavor, so it was more interesting than AOC et al.

But is she qualified for higher office? Does this blunderer come up to the standards of Lauren Boebert or MTG?

Or a Sheila Jackson Lee? Two Vietnams living side by side. AR15s shooting .50 cal bullets and weighing as much as 10 moving boxes. Come on, Swam, do not sell your Dems short! Plenty of idiots among their ranks!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Namecalling does not mean a wrong "opinion" should be excused. Let's review:
1. Author claimed Ryu mplied Native Americans can't drown - false.
2. Author claimd by "eons" Ryu meant billions of years which in context of Astronomy or Geology would be so, but not in common usage. Author seems to be deliberately trying to take Ryu's word out of context.

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.

The bill does not have people take a dna test. It treats differently federally recognized tribal members.

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.

She said she talked to the "community." I think that means she included tribal members in discussions.

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.

No, it doesn't which is why she says if they don't have the knowledge, there is supervision or training. Remember she said C, D, or E? I may be skeptical of her claim, but it is implied by your writing that she only said D. Telling me "lighten up, Francis," does allow you to skip over what Ryu actually said.

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".

That it is an opinion piece does not excuse false claims of fact, exaggeration, or taking out of context.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

As far as claims about Native Americans... The conservative raging in the op's referenced talk radio piece is exaggerating and taking out of context. That said, they also counter with statistics from CDC about Native Americans drowning at a higher rate. While we cannot say for sure this is a fact in Washington state, I would bet that it is. So, the question is how do we reconcile an alleged extra care by federally recognized tribes to have passed down cultural knowledge, to have supervision, and to have training against a claim that Native Americans [in Washington state] drown at a higher rate than non-Native Americans? Both can actually be true, because it could be that drowning is an occupational hazard to a job of fishing and that further Native Americans in Washington state spend way more time on the water due to this occupation. So, the probability at time t could be much less of a tribal member drowning, but because there is far more time there is increased opportunity for drowning overall. I strongly suspect that there are also cultural and economic differences that could lead to tribal members being more frequent on natural waterways than say, swimming pools, when comparing to non-tribal members. Those differences could also play out in similar ways to a probability at time t of less drowning, but overall an increased probability of drowning because of more time spent in those activities.

To me, this means that Ryu's argument is flawed because she is considering probability at time t of drowning as mitigated by supervision, training, and knowledge. Instead, she ought to consider probability across a large span of time of a drowning incident and the average time spent on natural water may differ by demographics . I suspect she had discussed with tribal community and they had told her that they manage water safety through supervision, training, and knowledge and that is what she is repeating by giving them leeway since they have tribal sovereignty to manage themselves on the waterways unimpeded, at least for fishing purposes. Presumably, there is some kind of demographic statistic that shows Native Americans drowning at a higher rate in Washington state, and so Ryu ought to discuss that further with the community.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Well sure it is. The "why?" was a cross-examination, not a profession of ignorance. You know what lawyers say -- never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. The previous poster is welcome to offer a reason more supportive of his claim than the duck soup* reason, if he has one.

(* I.e., that he's been infected by a brain parasite that induces its hosts to believe in inherited guilt.)

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Well then, let me resolve your unsureness for you. I snipped it because there is no conceivable rational basis for thinking it might be relevant to the point that was in dispute. People who didn't ride on horseback do not magically qualify as horseback riders just because somebody has a copy of a signed legal document. Likewise, people who didn't invade do not magically qualify as invaders just because somebody has a copy of a signed legal document. See how it works? Legal documents do not have magical powers. This is not rocket science.

Anyone entering such territory without the legal right could be said to be an invader or trespasser.

But the so-called "non-indigenous Americans" the previous poster said were "almost always invaders" were, for the most part, born and conceived here. They were here from the very beginning of their existence. That is not "entering such territory". To "enter" a territory is to cross the territory's boundary from a place outside that territory. This is not rocket science.

(And if you're suggesting that being born is something one needs legal authorization to do, that's some serious totalitarianism you're into there.)

Another term that might be better suited to successive generations born within the territory is "occupying power."

"Occupying power" refers to military occupation by foreigners. Successive generations born within a territory are not foreigners. People are not foreign to the countries they're born in. They're natives. That's what the word "native" means. Furthermore, the vast majority of so-called "non-indigenous Americans" are not military. Pretending that native civilians are foreign soldiers for purposes of political rhetoric is Orwellian language abuse.

 

[TomC]

First of all, they are not "indigenous".

I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation on this subject without a mutual understanding of the term "indigenous". It's a problematic term, given the ugly human history of invasion, genocide, oppression and occupying culture's assumptions that decent folk will assimilate.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The plain reading of the your "being Indian does not mean they know anything" does mean they don't know anything. That may not have been your intent (but it is consistent with your posts), but the words mean what they mean.

The rest of your post is not worth the effort of response.

 

[laughing dog]

First of all, they are not "indigenous".

I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation on this subject without a mutual understanding of the term "indigenous". It's a problematic term, given the ugly human history of invasion, genocide, oppression and occupying culture's assumptions that decent folk will assimilate.
Tom

You are asking that from someone who is refering to Native Americans as "Indians" even though they are not.

 

[Derec]

Namecalling does not mean a wrong "opinion" should be excused. Let's review:
1. Author claimed Ryu mplied Native Americans can't drown - false.

He did not. He followed her "logic" of racial/ethnic exemptions to safety laws.

2. Author claimd by "eons" Ryu meant billions of years which in context of Astronomy or Geology would be so, but not in common usage.

Ryu deliberately used "eons" rather than say "hundreds of years" to make the whole thing seem more grand and ancient.
It's fair to call her out on it.

The bill does not have people take a dna test. It treats differently federally recognized tribal members.

Distinction without a difference, as being a so-called "federally recognized tribal member" does not automatically confer water skills either.
What either one boils down to is this:

She said she talked to the "community." I think that means she included tribal members in discussions.

Does not change the stupidity of her statements nor the racism of her bill.

No, it doesn't which is why she says if they don't have the knowledge, there is supervision or training. Remember she said C, D, or E? I may be skeptical of her claim, but it is implied by your writing that she only said D. Telling me "lighten up, Francis," does allow you to skip over what Ryu actually said.

And non-Indians can't get "supervision or training"? Again, there is no logical reason to have a race-based exemption for safety regulations.
It's like arguing blacks should not be required to wear seat belts because reasons.

That it is an opinion piece does not excuse false claims of fact, exaggeration, or taking out of context.

It's hyperbole as a rhetorical device. It would not be appropriate in a straight news article, but it is perfectly appropriate in an opinion piece.

 

[Derec]

You are asking that from someone who is refering to Native Americans as "Indians" even though they are not.

Siberians then?

 

[Derec]

Your "being Indian does not mean they know anything" does mean they don't know anything. That may not have been your intent (but it is consistent with your posts), but the words mean what they mean.

Only if you deliberately misread what I wrote and try too hard to play inane "gotcha" games that you are so infamous for.

 

[Derec]

I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation on this subject without a mutual understanding of the term "indigenous". It's a problematic term, given the ugly human history of invasion, genocide, oppression and occupying culture's assumptions that decent folk will assimilate.

It is a highly problematic term, which is why I think we should best not use it at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Except that's not what we see.

S&R mostly helps novices and people engaging in high risk stuff. Not experienced people engaging in low risk stuff. And being on the water falls into low risk, not high risk. Now, if you're talking white water rafters....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

On one hand, US Sen. Hawley is normalizing the Fascist actions on January 6th. On the other, a State Democrat Representative possibly says something that is stupid.

Let's lead with the innocuous bullshit and whine about woke.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Namecalling does not mean a wrong "opinion" should be excused. Let's review:
1. Author claimed Ryu mplied Native Americans can't drown - false.

He did not. He followed her "logic" of racial/ethnic exemptions to safety laws.

No, he did not follow logic. To review, we already went over this: Ryu said C, D, or E. Your conservative talk radio guy focused on D only and somehow attached also a meaning that it meant Native Americans can't drown as opposed to mitigating risk of death. So, no, it's still a false claim of implication against Ryu.

2. Author claimd by "eons" Ryu meant billions of years which in context of Astronomy or Geology would be so, but not in common usage.

Ryu deliberately used "eons" rather than say "hundreds of years" to make the whole thing seem more grand and ancient.
It's fair to call her out on it.

No, Ryu used the term properly in common usage which is a long, indefinite time. Your conservative talk radio guy lied that she meant billions of years.

The bill does not have people take a dna test. It treats differently federally recognized tribal members.

Distinction without a difference, as being a so-called "federally recognized tribal member" does not automatically confer water skills either.
What either one boils down to is this:

She said she talked to the "community." I think that means she included tribal members in discussions.

Does not change the stupidity of her statements nor the racism of her bill.

There isn't racism in the bill and the point is that she talked to tribal members in order to give leeway to tribal sovereignty.

No, it doesn't which is why she says if they don't have the knowledge, there is supervision or training. Remember she said C, D, or E? I may be skeptical of her claim, but it is implied by your writing that she only said D. Telling me "lighten up, Francis," does allow you to skip over what Ryu actually said.

And non-Indians can't get "supervision or training"? Again, there is no logical reason to have a race-based exemption for safety regulations.
It's like arguing blacks should not be required to wear seat belts because reasons.

That it is an opinion piece does not excuse false claims of fact, exaggeration, or taking out of context.

It's hyperbole as a rhetorical device. It would not be appropriate in a straight news article, but it is perfectly appropriate in an opinion piece.

No, it's not appropriate to make claims of fact by masquerading them as opinion. It's like if I said my opinion is that you are a 12 year old, you can say my opinion is wrong.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

The plain reading of the your "being Indian does not mean they know anything" does mean they don't know anything. That may not have been your intent (but it is consistent with your posts), but the words mean what they mean.

The plain reading of "being Indian does not mean they know anything" is (Not(For All X(If I(X) Then K(X)))). The plain reading of "they don't know anything" is (For all X(If I(X) Then Not(K(X)))). Those don't mean the same thing. Jumping from the one to the other is a non sequitur.

 

[Bomb#20]

First of all, they are not "indigenous".

I don't think we can have a meaningful conversation on this subject without a mutual understanding of the term "indigenous". It's a problematic term, given the ugly human history of invasion, genocide, oppression and occupying culture's assumptions that decent folk will assimilate.
Tom

You are asking that from someone who is refering to Native Americans as "Indians" even though they are not.

English just doesn't have a non-problematic term for the ethnicity under discussion. All the candidates are problematic, so everybody just has to pick his poison.

"Indigenous" is problematic as Tom said. "American Indian" is problematic because it's based on a navigational error. "Indian" is problematic because it's based on a navigational error plus it's ambiguous. "Native American" is problematic because it's a half-truth, rather like using "Christian" to mean "Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant". "First Nations" is problematic because it's a lie. "Siberian-American" is problematic because the designated people's ancestors didn't come to America from Siberia. The obvious reasonable term derived from the pattern commonly used for other ethnicities, "Beringian-American", is problematic because hardly anybody would know what it means. (And of course any term at all will become problematic on account of impoliteness if a discussion participant who is of the relevant ethnicity just dislikes it, for any reason or no reason. But that needn't concern us unless a Beringian-American complains or a non-Beringian-American uses an ethnic slur.)

That being the context in which we make our respective terminological choices, pulling a rhetorical power move by seizing on somebody else having picked a different poison from one's own preferred poison is problematic.

 

[Politesse]

I don't know why people find it so complicated to simply call people as they prefer to be called.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know why people find it so complicated to simply call people as they prefer to be called.

"problematic" is not the same as "complicated". But if you want an answer, mine would be that it depends on the case, but here's a possible and in my experience realistic scenario:

1. A is not present and is not saying what he wants to be called, but A1, A2, ..., An, demand that B either utters 'A is an X', or refrains from speaking about A altogether.

2. B believes that A is not an X (for example; or for instance B believes that A is an X but B is also an X and in context, uttering that A is an X would be interpreted as implying B is not). As a result, B does not want to utter 'A is an X'. However, B wants to speak about A because she believes there is an injustice involving A and wants to talk about it.

3. A1, A2, ..., An will become outraged and punish B if she fails to obey. They will not punish her physically, but will condemn her behavior, and make several false accusations against B - accusations they believe to be true, and even obviously so.

4. B is outraged by the demand; she knows that she will be punished for failure to comply, but she chooses to go ahead anyway, as she will feel worse for having been coerced into submission by A1,.., An.

Alternative scenario:
1'. A also demands that B either utters 'A is an X', or refrains from speaking about A altogether.

The rest is similar.

So, B does not find it complicated, though she does find it problematic. More specifically, she considers it a demand she is not willing to submit to.