• adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    by voting to become a state - especially to such an overwhelming majority - you can hardly argue a dispositive attitude towards the US being there or towards joining the union. so, not only have you moved the goalposts, you’re arguing a straw man and your own emotions.

    I’m sticking with provable facts.

    • ikilledtheradiostar [comrade/them, love/loves]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory. Not for independence. It'd be like offering a scrap of bread to a starving man in exchange for the man legitimizing your ability to keep him malnourished.

      The ole adage of "the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited " comes to mind.

      Since you can't be assed to read your own damn wiki article I assume you're just in bad faith.

      • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
        ·
        1 year ago

        Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory

        Show

        Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.

        That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.

        • Kaputnik [he/him]
          ·
          1 year ago

          Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?

          • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

            sure. why not? people can object to or protest anything.

            the fee expression of speech in a democratic forum, however, certainly argues against any of this being “fascist”, though. thanks of pointing this out!

            • Kaputnik [he/him]
              ·
              1 year ago

              So then your point about

              Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.

              Is false

              So to quote you

              That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.

              • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                ·
                1 year ago

                Is false

                only if you intentionally take them out of context and twist the meaning. because they didn’t do that before the vote. as you said:

                Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?

                so, despite your obviously bad-faith and disingenuous argument, I’m not as stupid as you think I am. nice try.

                That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure. NOR how much you try to twist my words.

                • Kaputnik [he/him]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nice job replying on your other account first lol, are you in here upvoting yourself too?

                    • Kaputnik [he/him]
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      I dunno what to tell you dawg if you can't understand that a referendum of Hawaiian residents from 1959 doesn't represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians after 60 years of American control and immigration to the island. If you're so into facts and stats you should know a representative measure of their opinion could only be done through a survey of Native Hawaiians

                      • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                        ·
                        edit-2
                        1 year ago

                        doesn’t represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians

                        1. that was never my argument
                        2. this is a straw man argument because you couldn’t argue agains the facts I initially stated and moved the goalposts from Hawaiian residents to Hawaiian natives
                        3. as such, it’s irrelevant

                        even if it were relevant then it isn’t now just because you’re angry about… whatever.

                        If you’re so into facts and stats you should know a representative measure of their opinion could only be done through a survey of Native Hawaiians

                        well, why don’t you do that and come back when YOU have some relevant facts to present, and we can talk again.

                        • Kaputnik [he/him]
                          ·
                          1 year ago

                          Okay we're in a thread talking about how Native Hawaiians feel about the American government. I actually want to know why you are arguing this point and what you feel it accomplishes, in genuine good faith. Like are you Native Hawaiian, do you like in Hawaii, do you just like the idea of being able to visit Hawaii without a passport, or is there some other reason?

                          For me, I'm arguing this because I believe Indigenous people around the world have a right to self governance and freedom from colonial occupiers. So what's your reason?

                          • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                            ·
                            edit-2
                            1 year ago

                            Okay we’re in a thread talking about how Native Hawaiians feel about the American government

                            due to your amnesia, I’ll remind you that this is how it started:

                            Show

                            once the facts were presented, goalposts were moved to “native” Hawaiians because the argument couldn’t be “won" without that straw man, and I’ve been posting that out since.

                            I actually want to know why you are arguing this point and what you feel it accomplishes, in genuine good faith.

                            I doubt that, as I’ve made this clear many, many times, and you keep ignoring it.

                            Like are you Native Hawaiian, do you like in Hawaii, do you just like the idea of being able to visit Hawaii without a passport, or is there some other reason?

                            not only is my personal information irrelevant, I’d be pretty stupid to give someone like you any personal details that you’d very obviously weaponize against me at your first opportunity. as I’ve said before, I’m not as stupid as you think I am.

                            For me, I’m arguing this because I believe Indigenous people around the world have a right to self governance and freedom from colonial occupiers. So what’s your reason?

                            no, you’re here to “win” because you hate the US and think I’m your enemy. i've seen your comment history. I sonly presented facts and you and your cohorts don’t like the facts as they clash with your ideology, so you attack me rater than argue the facts rationally. It’s hostile, toxic bullying, and the mere suggestion that you’re interested in god-faith discussion outside of your own echo chamber is a joke.

                              • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                                ·
                                edit-2
                                1 year ago

                                Alright I tried doing this on your terms, peace

                                if that were true, you would have argued honestly, with the facts, and in good faith. I have demonstrated, many, many time, how you have not. again, you lie to comfort yourself against facts you refuse to accept.

                                best of luck with that.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if 90% of Hawaiians had revolted (and lost) while 90%+ of the other 10% of Hawaiians voted in the referendum?

        • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.

          • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state

            I never made this argument, but several others here did. in fact, I, several times, pointed out that there were other possibilities.

            clearly you’re confused.