Gobbeldygook posted:

The dismissal is a pro click and completely obliterated any sympathy I may have had for the standing rock sioux. What loving idiots. The company and the army corps of engineers bent over backwards to accommodate them and they refused.

CommieGIR posted:

You realize they are protesting mostly because of the river it crosses right? And because most of these companies have a lovely record when it comes to pipeline integrity, and that river is the reservations primary water source?

I'd be protesting too.

Even worse, looking at that map: Why is the pipeline crossing the river. Twice, when it looks like it could have easily been routed around those cities to get to that exact location without crossing the river?

CommieGIR posted:

You're right, maybe this pipeline idea isn't as good as we're being told. Its not like we've had any explode in the past 3 months or so....

But, the point stands: Why shouldn't they protest? Its not like companies and the government don't have an established legacy of loving the Tribes even more than they gently caress everyday US citizens.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Actually, what's best for the most is to put nobody at a slight risk when oil prices are already super low. If you accept a potential risk to human lives, 8000 of them at that, then there's no way that the value of 8000 statistical lives is exceeded by the boost in supply created by a minor oil pipeline.

mitztronic posted:

I guess you are morally right, because things are hosed up and our climate is being destroyed its OK to gently caress it up even more and destroy it even more for a slight increase to profits. Thanks for showing me the light!

Hell lets just bring back the industrial revolution, at the peak they were burning how much coal, everywhere? That makes it OK right, since everyone was doing it

Goodpancakes posted:

The pipe was originally slated to cross at Bismarck but was moved over concerns about the water supply. Sioux county, the reservation, is the sixth poorest county in the nation. Having done work there its a bombed out poo poo hole.

coyo7e posted:

At the very beginning, before it ever even gets to your precious 1% figure, we have this caveat: "About 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum)." So it's cool because only 1% percent of power on the grid is literally provided by burning petrofuels, so gently caress it we need to pump more oil to provide more power to the commercial sector instead of providing them with a reason to not waste so much energy. Cars don't exist. Gotcha. Way to dodge the point by sperging on a tangent.

Or perhaps you're being disingenuous about what the difference between coal and petrofuels and natural gas (methane) is, in terms of environmental cost, production cost, etc, in pursuit of your agenda?

Condiv posted:

among the nearly six million Americans living within three miles of a coal plant, 39% are people of color – a figure that is higher than the 36% proportion of people of color in the total US population. 

Dead Reckoning posted:

On the contrary, law and morality are orthogonal. The proper role of law is to define the relationship between citizens and the state/society, not to encode morality. Most people would agree that adultery is immoral, but far fewer think it should be illegal. Not everything immoral is illegal, and not every lawful action is moral. Complaining that the law does not prohibit someone from doing something you find morally objectionable is like complaining that you've been working out and eating right, but your car still doesn't go any faster.

Dead Reckoning posted:

That's kind of my point, really. I'm not denying that people have tried to use the law to push a moral agenda in the past, I'm saying that is a bad thing when people do, whether they are conservative Christians or hardcore leftists.

Silento Boborachi posted:

More accurately, it's about the pipeline leaking and denying a sovereign nation their one source of water.

logger posted:

How is it then that the same pipeline that is being protested against was first considered to be placed near Bismark until public outcry led to them moving the project into Sioux land?

Funny how oil is tolerated until a pipeline is placed too close to a city full of white people. When that happens the safety of the water source magically becomes a concern to the public, but when it comes to native land it's "How dare those protesters hurt our economic security."

RBC posted:

thats just plain false

RBC posted:

I've read the judges ruling. Saying the tribe ignored notices of pipeline planning is a clear misrepresentation of what happened in fact and their issues with the consultation process.

RBC posted:

Your posts are misleading and misrepresenting what happened. I think that was pretty clear when i used the word "false," otherwise known as "lying" or more charitably, being "confused" by what you read.

RBC posted:

Because you make no mention of their issue with the absence of consulting on land outside of the corpse's jurisdiction, the corpse setting timelines that may not be realistic for a group of 9,000 peoples with no highly paid and trained government bureaucrats to aid in responding, that they over several years, did respond to the corpse's inquiries, but those responses were simply not what the corpse wanted, and refused to engage with. Furthermore, you comparing this same small group of peoples who have been historically marginalized and abused by the government with a metro area of 120,000 people with federal, state, municipal government representation and bureaucracy is absurd.

blowfish posted:

e: it warms my heart to know I, too, have outraged a posting superstar enough to buy me unimaginative redtext

Liquid Communism posted:

Here's a consideration for you, though. It is possible to use something, even to consider that thing necessary, without having to condone and accept everything tangentially related to that thing.

Gobbeldygook posted:

Let's imagine some time in the next year the Lakota decided to start building a new school for the reservation. In this imaginary world, Dakota Access decides to get back at them for delaying the pipeline by paying people $200/day to squat on the land the school is to be built on and says they'll pay more squatters to squat anywhere they try to build the school for the next seven months. Would you support the squatters right to protest construction projects they don't like? Would it be any different if they were just Dakota Access employees who took some leave time? Or if instead of Dakota Access paying for it it was crowd funded?

twodot posted:

To be clear, I'm totally fine with an ends justify the means analysis (that's just consequentialism made to sound scary), you just can't claim to be engaging with rights while doing it.

Poland Spring posted:

In all my years I'll never understand why white people hate Native Americans so much. Y'all are arguing over the definition of the word "right" while people are getting amputations over access to clean water. Who gives a single flying gently caress if they didn't dot every i and cross every t on the "please don't poison our water" form 133-A? If this was a town of white people, would the posters in this thread arguing against #NODAPL be as vehement in their condemnation? I sincerely loving doubt it.

Rated PG-34 posted:

This is not a NIMBY protest. It's a not in any backyard protest.

Rated PG-34 posted:

The protesters don't want the pipeline anywhere not just not in their backyard.

Mercrom posted:

you can someday be less reliant on supporting terror states for your oil.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Good point, we should probably move away from fossil fuels in general as opposed to this singular case

blowfish posted:

NIMBY redneck idiots to successfully block solar farm construction (a less major but still useful contributor to fixing climate change).

blowfish posted:

Depends whether survivalism in the face of Obummer DEATH PANELS or accusing Obummer of spending ARE TAXES on Solyndra takes priority.

CommieGIR posted:

So: You are telling me that they will stop shipping by rail as soon as this 'critical infrastructure' is built, right?

Cugel the Clever posted:

So I wandered into this thread yesterday to simply ask how building a pipeline in empty land constituted genocide. Judging by my newfound red text, someone doesn't know what genocide means.

linoleum floors posted:

They're going to move the pipeline. The protestors won.

linoleum floors posted:

Condiv posted:

imo, the dapl should be built, but only if it's routed through the richest and most affluent neighborhoods

DeusExMachinima posted:

So like seriously here which one is it here: is it a) beyond belief that someone could've been wounded by their own IED or is it b) a very real possibility that people damaged the pipeline regardless of the elders' wishes?

Jarmak posted:

No it's not, and "firefighters start forest fires to stop forest fires so that's just like causing oil spills to stop oil spills" is in contention for the worst dumb reductionist D&D analogy I've ever seen.

Jarmak posted:

Destruction of property not being violence is only the case if you are using the legalistic definition of the word violence, which you've consistently complained about.

skeet decorator posted:

This is the crucial point you actually have to make the case for: Why do you think the amount of oil leaked from sabotage would be as much or more than the amount of oil that would be leaked over the pipeline's decades long lifespan?