[ExI] it's the yoga! was: RE: The Doomsday Clock

[Dave Sill]

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 9, 2018 9:57 AM, "Dave Sill" <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, we can't undo the damage that's been done. But we can stop inflicting
> more and we can leave them the fuck alone.
>
>
> What exactly would this entail?
>

 "Stop inflicting damage" would entail not forcing native Americans to
relocate, not stealing their land, etc. "Leaving them alone" would entail
leaving them alone.  Stop meddling in their affairs. Stop telling them how
to live.

One person's "we've done it this way longer than I've been alive" can be
> another's "violating our sacred ways", whether or not said ways have slim
> to no documentation of actually being ancient.
>

What business is it of ours whether some practice is ancient or not?


> Likewise, and as an extension, one person's "not inflicting more damage"
> can be another's "reparations forever".
>

I'm sorry, I don't see how those can be confused. But, as I said, I oppose
reparations.


>   Both of them involve one party being aware of and caring about another
> for a potentially infinite period of time ("forever" and "it will never be
> okay to resume inflicting damage").
>

Leaving people alone should be the default. It shouldn't be a burden to
remember not to violate someone's rights. "Oh, crap, I forgot I'm not
supposed to steal my neighbor's stuff and rape his wife!."


>   The distinction is whether the one party must give more or different
> care and attention to this specific other party than to any other ordinary
> fellow member of the first party's civilization.
>

I'm not talking about giving native, or African Americans, or ... different
care. I'm talking about respecting other people's rights.

They are part of our society.
>

Are they? What are reservations, then?


>   It can no longer be otherwise.  To leave them alone would be to expel
> them and forbid all further contact, an impossible task (and even if it
> were possible, morally dubious at best).
>
> To not inflict further damage requires defining what constitutes further
> damage.  Most clarifications I have seen of this, quickly reduce to endless
> repstations - whatever the victims, or more often their self-appointed
> guardians, demand each day.
>

No reparations. No guardians. Just mind your own business. It's not that
hard and not that complicated.

-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20180209/2ccd3c06/attachment.html>