6
   

Standing Rock Protestors - Sprayed with water in 26 Degrees

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2016 10:41 am
@edgarblythe,
If you step back from a bit, it's a very good sociological study.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2016 01:12 pm
@ehBeth,
Yes, it is.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2016 02:01 pm
@ehBeth,
I read most of the thread. It's about what I expected. I understand why she calls us what she does and she is essentially correct.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 23 Nov, 2016 02:25 pm
@ehBeth,
This thread is also a good sociological study. No one seems to care about facts, or about what the end goal is. It is just a lot of anger and attacks on anyone who asks any questions.

I think the sociological term for this is "group-think".
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2016 06:58 am
Holy ****, thumbs down for 'facts'?

Talk about a sociological study!
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2016 07:36 pm
@maxdancona,
(applause)
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2016 07:54 pm
While I concede that not every statement I posted is 100% true, the two ignored posters appear to be bent on making the protectors the bad guys. The bottom line in my view is, they are all that stands in opposition to the pipeline. They cannot go to court to stop it, because they would be stalled while the construction is completed. Their bodies are the only tools they have.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2016 11:09 pm
@edgarblythe,
I don't think Edgar understands the meaning of the word "ignore". If you write a post to whine about posters, then you aren't ignoring said posters.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 24 Nov, 2016 11:17 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
The bottom line in my view is, they are all that stands in opposition to the pipeline. They cannot go to court to stop it, because they would be stalled while the construction is completed. Their bodies are the only tools they have.


This logic is flawed.

1. I am not making the protesters the "bad guys". I am simply asking questions that aren't being answered. I asked in this post for an explanation of what would satisfy the protesters and what solution might be worked out at a negotiating table. I have yet to see any attempt to answer this question either here or elsewhere.

I think that Edgar should answer these questions. Without these answer, these protests are just ineffectual rage.

2. I can't imagine that the fact that there is no longer a legal avenue to stop something justifies extra-legal actions. This is a very partisan way to look at things.

In that case, protesters for causes with which Edgar disagrees would also be justified to take extra-legal action once the courts ruled. Same sex marriage opponents come to mind.

The posters on this thread seem to be ideological partisans who are unable to even discuss the other side of the argument.

I can be sympathetic to the cause... particularly the issue of Native American Sovreignty. However the goals of this movement need to be clear, and the path to a negotiation table where the needs of the other stakeholders are also weighed must be clear. No one either here or elsewhere has given me any idea on how far the pipeline would have to be moved (and at what cost) to satisfy the goals of this protest. That is a problem.

This movement either doesn't have clear goals, or they aren't communicating them very well. Expressions of rage without reason or direction aren't generally very productive.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2016 07:00 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

(applause)


I liked your bold statement against groupthink and the knee-jerk reaction most people rely on when conversations go in an unexpected direction.

I wasn't applying criticism to anyone you were talking to on this thread.

After reading your further comments on the thread, Max, and your ideas about how the protesters/protectors are held to a higher standard than the rich-funded, bullying, violent attack-squad who is torturing them and endangering their water source, I wanted to clarify my previous post to you and part ways on this topic.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2016 08:09 pm
https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/15171323_1104841402948109_5183962887964439531_n.jpg?oh=d0dd4e97798f89104df30131f47aa5d7&oe=58C11C4A
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2016 08:26 pm
@edgarblythe,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/22/standing-rock-protests-taste-of-things-to-come-donald-trump

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/11/president-elect-donald-j-trump-owns-stock-in-standing-rock-pipeline-001287413.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trumps-stock-in-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-raises-concerns/

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/11/25/13719562/trump-dakota-access-pipeline-standing-rock-sioux

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/standing-rock-protesters-vow-to-remain-despite-vacate-order.html
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Nov, 2016 08:42 pm
@ehBeth,
I already knew Trump has a financial stake in this. I also feel certain that the protectors will soon be cleared away, no matter how brutal the process.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 27 Nov, 2016 09:57 am
And it's about time.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 27 Nov, 2016 02:14 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

They cannot go to court to stop it, because they would be stalled while the construction is completed. Their bodies are the only tools they have.


Wrong, Ed. If they have any valid legal claims they can get an injunction which would halt all proceedings until the issue can be fully litigated. But therein lies the rub.

"I just don't want to see it happen" aint no valid legal basis
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 27 Nov, 2016 02:35 pm
@layman,
I presume you're right about the first part of your claim, at least, to wit:

edgarblythe wrote:

They cannot go to court to stop it...


They have the legal right to peacefully protest, so long as they're not trespassing or committing some other crime in the process. But they're gunna go all Bundy on us, they say. There are going to illegally occupy federal land. Do you approve of that, Ed?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 27 Nov, 2016 08:25 pm
The Young Turks did a story today:
"Bernie Sanders Protests DAPL Outside White House
Bernie Sanders went to the White House to directly implore President Obama to stop the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline."

I don't think it will change anything. I have little to no faith in Obama.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2016 10:47 am
@edgarblythe,
It should stop just because Bernie asks Obama to stop it? WTF
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2016 11:12 am
Here's a FACT to ponder:

The original path of the pipeline was planned to cross the Missouri River just north of the state capitol city of Bismarck. Because the danger was too great that an oil leak would contaminate the capitol city's drinking water, the path of the pipeline was moved southward to cross immediately north of the reservation.

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/pipeline-route-plan-first-called-for-crossing-north-of-bismarck/article_64d053e4-8a1a-5198-a1dd-498d386c933c.html
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Nov, 2016 11:20 am
@Debra Law,
Let's compare the population of Bismarck to Standing Rock

Or not. It might be a bit of a faux pas.
 

Related Topics

history - Question by dezzie
The case of Leonard Peltier - Discussion by edgarblythe
Dennis Banks - Discussion by edgarblythe
Standing Rock - Discussion by edgarblythe
Of Redskins and the American Dream - Discussion by edgarblythe
Are tribal mascots racist? - Question by boomerang
Urban American Indians Rewrite Relocation's Legacy - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 09:51:23