|
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. Of course, but it's way more productive to protest certain energy policies or certain instances of corruption in oil companies than to just vaguely protest against oil or oil infrastructure in general. Protesting against oil at large is just a call for society to return to the Stone Age.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:Protesting against oil at large is just a call for society to return to the Stone Age.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Of course, but it's way more productive to protest certain energy policies or certain instances of corruption in oil companies than to just vaguely protest against oil or oil infrastructure in general. Protesting against oil at large is just a call for society to return to the Stone Age. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Its possible to move away from oil and the petrochemical industry without calling for total regression. Even if we were, we managed up to the era of Steel without oil, so bring up the Stone Age is double ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Of course, but it's way more productive to protest certain energy policies or certain instances of corruption in oil companies than to just vaguely protest against oil or oil infrastructure in general. Protesting against oil at large is just a call for society to return to the Stone Age. What, exactly, in this thread about a specific bit of privately owned oil infrastructure, indicates to you that people are vaguely protesting against oil infrastructure in general? I mean, I'm personally in agreement that we could stand to be a lot less reliant on oil now, before it starts getting direly expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:What, exactly, in this thread about a specific bit of privately owned oil infrastructure, indicates to you that people are vaguely protesting against oil infrastructure in general? mitztronic posted:It shouldn't be put anywhere. We shouldn't be building oil pipelines in 2016, period. This is a moral issues as far as I'm concerned, I'm against any oil pipelines. I don't care if people in Illinois or wherever want gas that is 5% cheaper. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...roject/?0p19G=c "Now, activists are trying something new — disrupting how the fossil fuel industry transports its products. Their objective is to prevent the fossil fuel industry from accessing the pipelines and railroad networks they need to move their products. The logic is simple; if products cannot be moved, they cannot be sold and will not contribute to global warming."
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:From earlier in this thread
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:The only thing I can grasp is that it is all falls back to native lands/treaty violations. I am paraphrasing/generalizing here: The tribe makes the argument that the corps did not do their duty in reviewing the entire pipeline route, the corps responds that they can only assess the parts where they have jurisdiction to do so (which I think includes both federal and tribal land, I know EPA regulates on tribal land) because a majority of the pipeline route is on "private" land (yes I understand that the definition of private land is wrong in a historical context, I am going off of the court's opinion right now), which then taking the tribe's stance that their land encompasses "wherever the buffalo roamed"* seems to indicate the tribe is trying to make the point that the corps does have jurisdiction over the entire pipeline route because the corps have jurisdiction over federal/tribal land, thus they have jurisdiction over the entire route because it is all on land taken from native peoples. So is this just a proxy in the treaty disputes then? They want this because the CoE is required to consult with affected tribes when making these decisions, (although it is not required to make its decision based on those consultations,) and they are hoping to use that as a lever to hold up permitting of the river crossings while the tribe demands to do a cultural survey of the entire length of the pipeline. It is not a good argument, both because the CoE cannot arbitrarily redefine its statutory jurisdiction, and because most of the pipeline on private property has already been built following cultural surveys paid for by the company, so any hypothetical unidentified cultural sites would have already been disturbed. It is also worth noting that the tribe refused at various times to participate in CoE or company sponsored surveys, apparently because they wanted to deny the company and the CoE the ability to say that they had met their obligation to consult with the affected tribes. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
There was also some legal bullshit involved in cutting the entire length of the pipeline into thousands of individual easement claims rather than anything large enough to form a cohesive resistance against legally without an utterly massive amount of lawyering
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:There was also some legal bullshit involved in cutting the entire length of the pipeline into thousands of individual easement claims rather than anything large enough to form a cohesive resistance against legally without an utterly massive amount of lawyering Gonna need a cite for that, since it turns out the whole "white people in Bismarck objected and got the pipeline moved" thing wasn't true either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:From earlier in this thread So you're just plain not arguing in good faith, then? I mean, that's a thing around here, but it's a bit shameful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Gonna need a cite for that, since it turns out the whole "white people in Bismarck objected and got the pipeline moved" thing wasn't true either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:They want this because the CoE is required to consult with affected tribes when making these decisions, (although it is not required to make its decision based on those consultations,) and they are hoping to use that as a lever to hold up permitting of the river crossings while the tribe demands to do a cultural survey of the entire length of the pipeline. Yeh I kinda got that argument from the court decision, I just thought it was in support of the "greater" discussion of treaty lands themselves, thanks for summarizing it though. coyo7e posted:I find it telling that you had to go back to Nov 2 to find an example to back up your blanket generalizations You asked for a exact example from this thread, I don't think we've been talking about it because it was generally understood to be one of extra arguments that the protest has evolved into. Unless I am misunderstanding your response, if you just want sources that part of the protest is now about fighting fossil fuel use then read about the "keep it in the ground" movement: http://www.hcn.org/articles/how-the-keep-it-in-the-ground-movement-gained-momentum Also I don't think anyone wants to tread too deeply into the fossil fuels debate, since there are/was other threads to debate that in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Gonna need a cite for that, since it turns out the whole "white people in Bismarck objected and got the pipeline moved" thing wasn't true either. quote:The whole pipeline was approved through something called the Nationwide Permit number 12, which means they could it into a lot of little pieces and never do an EIS, and pretend like—you know, that’s intended for like if you have like a pipeline from a school to the water service center or something like that. It’s not intended for a 1,600-mile pipeline. Total misuse of the law, you know, and the president really needs to intervene and uphold the law. http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/nwp/2012/NWP_12_2012.pdf quote:Utility Line Activities. Activities required for the construction, maintenance, repair, and edit: if you skim through that piece of documentation it ought to be very clear that it is indeed intended for utility->residential easement rights, and not hundreds of miles of continuous access by declaring the entire structure a piece of "public utility". I mean if they literally provided meters and hook-ups along the length of it, then hey, I could maybe even countenance the risk (if it was natural gas and not tar crude) coyo7e fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:You asked for a exact example from this thread,
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Sorry, I thought you were the one that asked:Liquid Communism posted:What, exactly, in this thread about a specific bit of privately owned oil infrastructure, indicates to you that people are vaguely protesting against oil infrastructure in general? When it was liquid communism that asked it instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Nope I was just poking fun at your best proof, sorry for the confusion
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/nwp/2012/NWP_12_2012.pdf In the case of Lake Oahe, the pipeline will go 92 feet under the lake bed and never touch the water, thus little to no disruption of the water at all. I imagine this is how they dealt with most if not of the crossings. Liquid Communism posted:So you're just plain not arguing in good faith, then? I mean, that's a thing around here, but it's a bit shameful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Oil is bad but also good. Coal is just bad. People who are still using old timey steam locomotives are just going to have to deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
You know who I sourced that quote from right? Or would you care to share your own credentials against a two-time vice presidential nominee and economist?Gobbeldygook posted:I believe they are talking about Gobbeldygook posted:I don't see how anything I said there could be interpreted as arguing in bad faith. I am genuinely interested in hearing you explain why you think my post was plainly done in bad faith. You see there's this double standard where one half-assed gun-rights forum's post is being used as proof of everything anti-DAPL, while most of the pro-DAPL people keep finding more and more sources and live coverage yet you keep hand-waving it away and then demanding proof. So get the gently caress out. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, it's the real Coyote....can I have your autograph?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Of course, but it's way more productive to protest certain energy policies or certain instances of corruption in oil companies than to just vaguely protest against oil or oil infrastructure in general. Protesting against oil at large is just a call for society to return to the Stone Age. A lot of (even most) environmentally conscious people have relatively positive views towards things carbon taxes, more stringent regulation on fossil fuel extraction, removal of subsidies to the fossil fuel companies, increased subsidies towards renewables, or R&D efforts to make renewables more cost competitive or efficient. Fundamentally, all of these efforts seek to reduce the relative favorability of fossil fuel energy to non-carbon producing sources, by changing their relative costs. In this context, protesting at oil "at large" isn't fundamentally different than just wanting to tax carbon emission "at large", or reduce the costs of solar power, or reduce the demand for oil through better efficiency. The goal in all cases is simply to tilt the scales towards a more environmentally favorable energy profile. Realistically, no such effort is going to abruptly end fossil fuel consumption, and interfering with the establishment of a few pipelines isn't going to return society to the stone age any more than e.g. a significant carbon tax would. Whether or not protesting against oil infrastructure is the most effective means of action is another discussion. But if you consider the difficulty and costs associated with political and technological means of shifting energy away from fossil fuels, this kind of direct action can look relatively attractive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I kind of wish I would have gotten a There Will Be Blood 'I am an oilman' avatar, after writing my post about how most people who do the low-effort vague protesting against oil at large, are pretty huge hypocrites and actually are heavily reliant upon oil and would be kicking and screaming if it weren't cheap and plentiful. Oh well. It's a bit like a World's Fair here, at Oceti Sakowin, and /all/ the tech is being evaluated for sustainability - in addition to /ability to survive *this* winter/ (it /just/ began snowing in Cannonball, as I type this). The objection here is not to grandma's remains being disturbed; The people here belong to cultures that /remember/ what Turtle Island (what many folk call 'North America') looked like before the Bellows arrived. The Lakota were symbiotic with the Buffalo, and the white man /killed all the buffalo/, *DESTROYING* their way of life. If the buffalo had not been killed, they would have continued following them as a tribe. They had no need for gasoline with that lifestyle. The objection here is to the impact that our gas-powered economy is having upon Turtle Island, a /living organism/ as they understand it. The pipeline does not bode well for the health of the body of the Turtle. And the Turtle is already ailing bad. Buffalo face an oncoming storm. 400 parts per million. How 'bout we not double-down on gasoline?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Stay safe, stay warm, uglycat. I don't know if you're Lakota or how knowledgeable you are about standing rock itself, but I've got some questions if you can answer them, I've only dealt with the MHA folks so I don't know much about the current affairs of standing rock: Do you know if the protest is spurring interest in big-capital renewables down there? I know the big electrical providers have been putting wind farms all over the state, but I don't know if they've put any on standing rock, or if the tribe would be interested in it since that kind of construction also comes at some environmental cost, but I figure with the attention standing rock has now, this would be the time to start trying to fund something like that. I know a lot of the protestors are vegetarian, is this also growing in popularity with the Lakota, despite their history with the buffalo, or is it just a personal preference?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:Stay safe, stay warm, uglycat. I don't know if you're Lakota or how knowledgeable you are about standing rock itself, but I've got some questions if you can answer them, I've only dealt with the MHA folks so I don't know much about the current affairs of standing rock: As to the first, I honestly don't know. Sacred Stone, which is on the Res, is definitely striving to be a sustainable town. They've got lots of wind and solar there. Many protestors are vegetarian or vegan, and I feel compelled to acknowledge that the beef industry is /not/ sustainable - but the Lakota people are definitely /not/ Vegetarians (they didn't even use the Three Sisters; I didn't get a good recipe for Three Sisters Soup until an algonkian woman visited our kitchen for a weekend), and they will bitch loudly if there is not meat at every meal. I've had elk, venison, LOTS of buffalo... we just had some shark meat (!?) arrive today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
I don't know if this source is legit, but it would appear the ACoE has decided to evict the entire protest camp sometime this or next week: http://inhabitat.com/us-army-to-evict-dakota-access-pipeline-protestors-next-week/ gently caress the US government and their cowardice 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Tias posted:I don't know if this source is legit, but it would appear the ACoE has decided to evict the entire protest camp sometime this or next week: Alternately: Good on the US Government for doing its job despite the certainty of generating a shitstorm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Alternately: Good on the US Government for doing its job despite the certainty of generating a shitstorm. See: Trail of Tears
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Alternately: Good on the US Government for doing its job despite the certainty of generating a shitstorm. Do you agree or disagree with the senators statement that this pipeline is not worth a single protestors life? If not, then go ahead and celebrate, because it will get bloody, and the blame rests squarely on oil company greed and the timidity and cowardice of Obama and his cronies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:See: Trail of Tears DAPL: Definitely equivalent to the Trail of Tears.  Tias posted:Do you agree or disagree with the senators statement that this pipeline is not worth a single protestors life? Participating in violent civil disobedience means you embrace the possibility that you may come to harm if you won't back down. Is it regrettable that anyone might get hurt? Yes. Would it be 100% the fault of the protesters for engaging in illegal activity and refusing to knock it off once they've lost? Yes. You are not in the right just because you're protesting. edit: If you're absolutely committed to sitting down in the path of a moving bulldozer, the operator is almost obligated to run you over or your gesture is for nothing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:DAPL: Definitely equivalent to the Trail of Tears. They haven't lost if they can block the pipeline, which is why they attempt to block it. Can you please stop being dense and understand that your own government is ready to kill its citizens in order to build a dead object under them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Huge snow storm. Stay safe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Tias posted:They haven't lost if they can block the pipeline, which is why they attempt to block it. Can you please stop being dense and understand that your own government is ready to kill its citizens in order to build a dead object under them? They understand, they're just okay with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Tias posted:They haven't lost if they can block the pipeline, which is why they attempt to block it. Can you please stop being dense and understand that your own government is ready to kill its citizens in order to build a dead object under them? Dude, that's pretty drat hyperbolic. Direct action is not going to block a pipeline that has gone through every permitting process, through the courts, through rounds of stakeholder consultations, and in general through every process society has deemed necessary for a project such as this one to be done. The Lakota have specifically been able to participate and make their voices heard in multiple steps of the process. Various protesters who have no stake in this at all, and are just out there to wank, have been able to make themselves heard. That some of them don't like the outcome (pipeline gets built) or dispute the basis of its validity (we should own ALL THE LAND THE BUFFALO ONCE ROAMED therefore this is subject to our own approval [lol]) doesn't change the fact that it was justly done and that ultimately, after all the appeals and processes, they are impotent before the law and the project is going to happen. So no, I don't have much sympathy for the protesters. That they put themselves in harm's way is their choice, and the consequences they reap from that are justly theirs as well. That is just the bargain you accept when you decide to step outside the law. All anyone has to do to avoid being removed from the area is go home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So no, I don't have much sympathy for the protesters. That they put themselves in harm's way is their choice, and the consequences they reap from that are justly theirs as well. That is just the bargain you accept when you decide to step outside the law. All anyone has to do to avoid being removed from the area is go home.  If only those Civil Rights protesters had the foresight you could give them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Dude, that's pretty drat hyperbolic. So you value the letter of the law over the human rights of your fellow citizens, gotcha. Do you understand that If everyone felt that way, we would literally be stuck in the bronze age?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
... so now we're at Opposing DAPL: Just Like The Civil Rights Movement?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Tias posted:So you value the letter of the law over the human rights of your fellow citizens, gotcha. In letter and spirit the law is fine in this case, is the thing. That the protesters won't get their way doesn't mean the process was unjust. edit: Pardon the double post. You don't get to claim "mah civil rights!!" if you're tresspassing and the police use necessary force to get you to move. That is just not how it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You don't get to claim "mah civil rights!!" if you're tresspassing and the police use necessary force to get you to move. That is just not how it works.  do you have any idea how many protestors in the civil rights movement were forcibly arrested for trespassing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
botany posted:
Plenty, of course. And it wasn't unjust to arrest them for tresspassing. Why would you think it was? edit: How much do you think society should care, WRT not forcinbly removing you, about your reasons for something like setting up a roadblock to stall traffic or occupying university buildings to stop classes? What about the rights of the people who need to use the roads or go to class? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Plenty, of course. And it wasn't unjust to arrest them for tresspassing. Why would you think it was? I don't know mate, arresting people for sitting in the "whites only" section seems pretty loving unjust to me
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:58
|
|