DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

They are not entitled to veto power over all construction near their land just because some of their ancestors were killed by white men with guns.

Actually, they are

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 09:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:13

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

You should do what is best for the most. Better to put 8k at slight risk than 100k.

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.

Everyone please stop calling this guy a utilitarian, this isn't a coherent utilitarian position, he's just someone who's looking for reasons to not like the native american protesters for some reason

Gobbeldygook posted:

If their ancestral burial grounds and magic rocks are so important to them, they should have responded to the Army Corps many attempts to reach out to them and get their assistance in not accidentally defiling their cultural sites. Given that they did so minimally, they probably aren't that important to them.

Nobody ever had trouble navigating a bureaucracy, and Native Americans have no reason to distrust the US Government (particularly the Army). I guess that they must not care about their "magic rocks". jesus

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 19:47

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

Because it's not a risk of 8,000 people dying. Even a catastrophic pipeline failure directly under the lake is not going to kill all 8,000 people on the reservation. It's a slight risk of 8,000 people being seriously inconvenienced. The worst case scenario is they can't fish or drink the water for a while and the Red Cross rushes in with pallets of food and bottled water.

Which is really really really bad. It's not as simple as the Red Cross rushing in with pallets of food and water; we can see in Flint MI that it's actually incredibly hard to coordinate the distribution of safe water, even when the affected area is nearby and well-connected to other major population centers. Distributing food and dfrinking water, and actually fixing the environmental damage, in a rural part of the American west, with tribal government sovereignty issues? This would be a nightmare. Especially because, if this pipeline is built and then the worst fears of its detractors come true, a huge swath of the residents will completely distrust the state and federal governments.

Native Americans will most likely never receive back the land that was taken from them by genocidal force, despite the near-complete destruction of entire civilizations creating a legacy that continues to ruin lives today. Reservations are awful, terrible places to live by any statistical measure. The Sioux have been offered a billion dollars to legitimate the seizure of their land, and they have declined it. For some reason it really matters to them that the government that committed genocide against them does not have its land theft legitimated. But that will never happen. They will never have that land. It's a political impossibility. In lieu of that, can we at least cut a tribe some slack on not attending the right bureaucratic meetings in the past and listen to them when they say they don't want to deal with this risk?

silence_kit posted:

The price of oil is kind of important economically. I'm sure that thousands of posts were written in D&D back when the oil prices were high, whining about how high the oil price was and how it and the associated increase in price of about everything was an unfair burden on the poor in the US.

The price of oil is very economically important. Its downswing, after years of predictions that oil prices would be permanently over $100/barrel, indicates that attempts to predict swings in the price of oil are doomed; it's too affected by geopolitical instabilities and unknowable environmental factors (like how much oil is under any given part of the Earth). Predictions about the value of the pipeline are thus incredibly difficult; predictions about its costs, in the form of contribution to climate change and in the form of creating a small but significant risk to a poor community, can be made more confidently.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 21:39

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

silence_kit posted:

I'm not going to make a claim about the precise effect and whether we really need the pipeline or not

If you find yourself starting off your post by noting that it's going to be useless, you can just stop posting.

This is a dumb discussion because it's not the government's job, or the tribe's job, or any uninvolved party's job, to determine if this pipeline will produce a high or low-priced product. It's solely the job of Dakota Access, LLC. By building the pipeline, they're betting that the price of oil will be high enough to make the whole thing profitable. They're estimating that the oil will be worth something, and the tribe is complaining that it won't be worth the risk of damage to tribal lands.

What a reasonable government would do here is listen to the Sioux and work to put a price estimate on the damage that the pipeline would do to them (mainly from the potential risk of spillage, I imagine). And then charge Dakota Access, LLC exactly that much money if it chooses to go through with the pipeline, and redistribute the proceeds to the people/firms affected. If the pipeline goes through, then it must be more socially beneficial than its costs. If it doesn't, it wasn't worth the costs anyway. In other words, force Dakota Access, LLC to pay the costs that the tribe pays and see if it's still worthwhile

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 21:54

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

The idea that the tribe should have a veto over construction on private land outside the borders of any current or previously recognized tribal territory based on free-floating ideas of historical connection and white guilt isn't really workable within a system of laws.

True. Meaning that, if you wanted to get the construction prevented, you wouldn't be able to petition in court. You would have to obtain the attention of elected officials who actually do have the power to veto/alter/slow the construction of the pipeline. You would have to lead a campaign to attract public attention while simultaneously putting pressure on those elected officials. Which is literally exactly what the tribal protectors are doing.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 22:09

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm fairly certain the company would be liable for any actual damages caused by their pipeline. The idea that they should have to pay now to offset hypothetical future damages as valued by the people hypothetically affected is nuts.

Maybe don't be so certain. A lot of what the protesters are worried about is that the company won't be forced to fully confront its own liabilities at that time. They have good reason to think this, after BP avoided significant liability for the spill in the Gulf and how Native American communities are neglected across America especially when competing with rich private interests.

quote:

The concept that a project must prove its "social benefit" as a dollar figure is unworkable, because it requires arbitrarily defining what constitutes "social benefit" and arbitrarily assigning a dollar figure to it. Can you provide any example of a system of building permits that works this way?

Reread my posts. That's what I'm saying! You and I agree on this. Only Dakota Access, LLC should have to determine how much it values the pipeline. So if you want to see if the costs outweigh the benefits, force it to pay the costs.

I repeat: ideally, the government shouldn't tell Dakota Access, LLC whether or not to build the pipeline. It should charge Dakota Access, LLC a tax in accordance with the costs of the pipeline, and then let Dakota Access, LLC decide whether or not to build it. All the social benefits belong to Dakota Access, so if you attach all the social costs to Dakota Access as well, their self interest will drive them to make a decision that benefits the whole public.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 22:21

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

coyo7e posted:

Shockingly, this means that business customers of a utlity providert pay more for their power than most residential customers.

Gobbeldygook posted:

I thought business consumers paid more simply because they can pay more? I know some (most? all?) areas charge on a sliding scale where as you use more electricity you pay more per watt.
edit:

Actually residential consumers pay more for electricity than business consumers, because business consumers get better rates for electricity than residences.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a

quote:

Your proposal would not satisfy the protesters at all. They would still be protesting the building of the pipeline and in need of some water cannon therapy even if Dakota Access had to pay a lot more money to build it.

Please think about why you posted this

Dead Reckoning posted:

"Should this customer pay for utilities based on the current rates for commercial or residential customers?" is not even remotely the same thing as "how much social benefit does this private construction project provide, numerically speaking?"

You're right about this, the electricity point is dumb.

quote:

I'm not sure what you consider significant liability, but BP ended up settling to the tune of $20 billion, including a $5.5 billion in Clean Water Act penalties, the largest such penalty in U.S. history.

Dakota Access has already valued the pipeline and found it to be a positive, potential future liabilities and all. Otherwise they wouldn't be building it. You want to add an arbitrary additional tax to their activities based on an undefined concept of hypothetical future social harms. That's stupid.

It took a long time for BP to pay out, a much longer time to distribute those funds to the affected populations and industries. Some people still had their lives ruined by the spill. BP had a team of incredible lawyers and the people affected by the spill had only unreliable and corrupt elected officials. And a lot of them where white - imagine trying to coordinate a fair settlement between a Native American tribe that's undergoing an emergency situation and a huge oil firm. It'd be almost impossible, and the tribe is understandably concerned about it! Also, the construction of the pipeline is going to at least temporarily disrupt the ability of these people to visit their sacred sites. These aren't potential costs to be handled in the case of a future emergency, they're 100% unavoidable costs that need to be addressed now (unless you think that the costs are equal to 0). Not all the liabilities are risks; the ones that aren't risks, at least, should be addressed prior to construction.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 22:41

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Coyo7e, who's publishing your book?

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 08:26

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

So I see we've moved from "BP avoided significant liability for the spill in the Gulf" to "OK, they paid one of the largest penalties in US history, but that took time to sort out." Quite the walk back there.

I still think BP underpaid, (the liability was huge but the disaster moreso) but there's no point in overextending claims

quote:

The claim that "some people still had their lives ruined" is too vague to respond to.

Businesses collapsed, and others went on hiatus for years. People were unemployed for ages, some people still haven't rebuilt their businesses or gotten re-hired. Their lives were ruined.

quote:

Which corrupt and unreliable officials were these? The US Deptartment of Justice? Eric Holder? Their private attorneys? I don't think anyone in a position to sue BP had trouble finding a lawyer willing to take the case. Your argument that it would be impossible for the tribes to access the courts is belied by the fact that their attorneys are pursuing several motions right now to try to halt the pipeline construction.

You're right. It's not difficult for a bunch of poor people to sue a major company. Rich entities have no advantages in our courts over poorer ones. These cases are often resolved swiftly and efficiently in the plaintiff's favor. Thus, in a time when their food and water are poisoned, a bunch of poor native americans will have a really easy time acquiring the funds needed to swiftly fix the issue. Nobody would possibly fear that a large, rich firm could dominate all legal proceedings through seemingly endless capital and legal expertise. There have not been, like, a trillion movies about this that permeate the public consciousness

But seriously: the fact that attorneys are pursuing a motion in court doesn't indicate anything about how easy it would be for them to sue a rich firm.

quote:

The claim that construction would somehow unduly impede access to identified sacred sites on public or tribal land does not appear to have been substantiated, in court or otherwise

Yeah, it has.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/dapl-dakota-sitting-rock-sioux/499178/

"�This is one of the most significant archeological finds in North Dakota in many years,� said Tim Mentz, a Standing Rock Sioux member and a longtime Native archeologist in the Great Plains. �[Dakota Access Pipeline] consultants would have had to literally walk directly over some of these features. However, reviewing DAPL�s survey work, it appears that they did not independently survey this area but relied on a 1985 survey.�

These newly discovered finds may no longer exist. The tribe and its legal team say that less than 24 hours after evidence of the new sacred sites were provided to the court, the Dakota Access company began construction on those same exact sites, perhaps destroying many of them forever. "

There are people who are protesting the DAPL even though they're getting bitten by attack dogs, even though they're being shot at. These people aren't all dummies, they're people with concerns so major that they're making this colossal stand. At least get yourself straight on what those concerns are before you dismiss them, please. You can maybe group the concerns into two groups: potential risks from the pipeline spilling, and guaranteed destruction of sacred sites emerging from the construction of the pipeline. You and I/the protesters disagree on whether the first has the infrastructure to be handled correctly, but there's no time to handle the second other other than now. And those concerns aren't being handled now - the sacred sites and archaeological finds are being destroyed without any compensation - so there's an issue worth protesting.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Nov 3, 2016

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 17:46

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

twodot posted:

Doesn't this directly indicate that? I agree they have an uphill battle to fight, but they've plainly demonstrated both an understanding that protective laws exist, and that they have access to legal representation.

That's my point! It's an incredibly uphill battle and the tribe would rather fight it before a disaster than during one. Or at least see some assurances that the battle won't be so uphill if/when it has to be fought.

quote:

Here's Dakota Access's response to Mentz's report:

Like I understand that people are making allegations, but I think substantiation requires something more than interested parties making claims.

Yes, which is why we need a more-or-less impartial third party (the government seems like the best option) to carry out that substantiation. And, given the obvious risks of proceeding if the tribe is correct, pipeline construction should cease until that substantiation has been carried out.

Although consider this: what motive does the tribe have to lie about this? Do you think they're working incredibly hard, even to the point of lying about important archaeological sites, just to protect land they really don't care about at all?

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 18:09

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Again, this is a free-floating assertion. Who are these people? Have they been compensated? Did they take the settlement? Are they still litigating against BP?
Are you seriously telling me that your whole opinion about how the legal system should operate is based on, "I saw Erin Brockovich once, and Julia Roberts was so brave"? Some times plaintiffs' cases fail, not through the machinations of soulless corp lawyers and an indifferent legal system, but because they fail on their merits.

I'm not interested in making this a thread about the BP oil spill. If you think that the BP oil spill has been completely fixed, that's weird, wrong, and irrelevant, because my point is that the tribe has concerns about how easy it is to sue a major company - and those concerns are rooted in very real realities about America's complex and expensive legal system! It's actually hard as hell to take on a major corporation and win. Sometimes meritorious cases win, but sometimes meritorious cases lose when they ought to win.

quote:

Given that the article contains several factual inaccuracies (the land the pipeline is on was not part of the Treaty of Laramie, it's 30 miles north; the ACE doesn't permit interstate pipelines except where they cross waterways) and credulously reports the tribe's claims with no rebuttal, I'd hardly consider that proven. Twodot already posted the company's response, which the courts acknowledged seems compelling.

When people disagree on whether or not sacred artifacts are being destroyed, maybe we should wait until there's some certainty before we continue to maybe destroy them? "Seems compelling" isn't good enough here, you need "we got some independent factual confirmation that there are/aren't artifacts here"

quote:

"The tribe's hypothetical lawsuit might fail, so everyone should be required to act like they already won."

No, the tribe should have a mechanism to ensure compensation relative to the risk involved in setting up the pipeline and the potential destruction of sacred artifacts.

quote:

The Standing Rock already had a chance at to participate in additional surveys on private land with the cooperation of the company. Other tribes did. They declined to do so. They're trying to get a do-over now that their injunction was dismissed for lack of merit.

Not participating in those surveys was a mistake. It's unreasonable and dumb to punish that mistake by destroying artifacts, especially considering past interactions between tribal governments like the Standing Rock and the government (genocide). They've earned a little slack, c'mon

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 18:52

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

twodot posted:

I would assume there is broad agreement the tribe doesn't want the pipeline where it is.

Okay, but why not? If they'll always be able to sue for any damages, and there's no risk of construction destroying artifacts, why should they care?

You clearly disagree with the Standing Rock on whether or not they have any cause to protest the pipeline. Do you know better than the Standing Rock about how this pipeline will affect their lives and sacred sites, or are the Standing Rock fighting - and suffering literal violence in the process - to prevent a pipeline that they actually wouldn't mind at all?

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 18:57

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

twodot posted:

A number of people have put forward a number of arguments, I doubt there is a hivemind consensus on why in particular the pipeline is bad.

"Cause to protest" is a weird concept. I don't think they have any legal cause to prevent the pipeline being built. I typically regard protest as a thing you do after attempts to work with the system has failed. I can't really conceive of a scenario where protesting would be preferable to working in the system, if you thought working in the system would succeed (presuming your goal is to actually succeed).

Agreed

quote:

I don't know better than the Standing Rock how this pipeline will affect their sacred sites, I haven't surveyed poo poo, but the government, so far, doesn't think the Standing Rock has cause to stop the pipeline from being built, regardless of how passionately they feel about it, so I'm going with the neutral third party that we've already agreed is the party that should be responsible for resolving this dispute.

Has the government independently worked to verify the arguments made over the sacred sites, or just examined the legal arguments made by both parties? So far I see the government siding with the pipeline in a he-said she-said; I think it's fine to say that the government should do the work of actually carry out an independent fact-checking operation.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 19:19

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

DeusExMachinima posted:

Well the bad news is that by not participating in the survey process, Standing Rock's leadership has probably allowed the vast majority of any potential damage to already occur since like 97% of the pipeline is constructed so uhhhh I certainly hope that the average Standing Rock-er is calling for their heads in addition to everything else.

Sure, but changing the Standing Rock leadership is a long-term solution to a short-term problem.

twodot posted:

Is this not what the Corps already did to the extent that the government has any responsibility at all?

My understanding is that the Corps just contacted the tribes to try to accomplish this goal, the Standing Rock didn't respond back, and they assumed that was the end of it.

But it turns out that the Standing Rock should've responded back, because there were some important artifacts on the grounds (maybe). And the administration hosed up badly, but the ideal response to that isn't "I guess we just have to accept that we might wreck some artifacts because the paperwork wasn't filed properly." It's a huge headache for everyone now and it's the government's job to put an end to it by going and actually examining the claims being made now by the Standing Rock. And it seems obvious that, if that's going to happen, construction needs to be put on hold until then

CommieGIR posted:

Pipelines spill less often, but spill more in quantity, and are less easily detected. Trains spill more often, but in lower quantities and are more easily detected.

Ironically, tanker trucks apparently suck.

I wonder if this is because trucks suck as a transporting mechanism or because truckers are always drowsy as hell.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 20:06

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

3. So we have to honor treaties whenever doing so would benefit Native Americans (e.g. they have a right to hunt and fish on land that isn't theirs) but they are not required to abide by the terms of the treaty except when they want to. Are you actually reading what you type?

Turnabout is fair play.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 04:39

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Hey guys

Why do you think the Standing Rock distrust the Army Corps of Engineers?

Do you think it might have to do with when the Army Corps of Engineers flooded their land in the 60s, destroying entire towns and sacred sites

http://www.msnbc.com/interactives/geography-of-poverty/nw.html

I'm not going to quote any of this, read the whole thing it's appalling

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 04:55

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Okay, but it's 2016 and the United States is pretty well established, and filled with non-native people, so there has to be some sort of formal delineation of which land the Sioux have a legal claim of ownership to and which land belongs to other people.

Yeah but it's fair to dispute that the current legal claim is appropriate and it's fair to protest for the Sioux to have more extensive land rights than they currently do

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 05:02

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Based on what?

Based on the fact that the only reason that they don't have more land is that the US government carried out a program of genocide against them to seize that land

The Standing Rock don't want to own part of the Vegas Strip, they want some administrative power over some acres that directly border their own, acres they say contain priceless spiritual sites and relics, acres that were literally stolen from them as a critical component of centuries of organized slaughter and the attempted wholesale destruction of their culture and way of life

Regretting/criticizing that genocide, without listening to the Standing Rock on their terms and working to return at least some power over the land to them, is like mugging someone for their wallet, apologizing, and then keeping the wallet and using the money to buy a steak dinner for yourself while they watch

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 05:07

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

1. That we were lovely to them in the past does not mean we are obligated to let them do whatever they want now. We are doing better. For example, the Indian Health Service is a functional fully socialized healthcare system that is only available to Native Americans. It's not funded as well as it should be, but it exists. The pipeline's planned route was diverted over 100 times in North Dakota alone just to appease Native Americans. We give Iceland poo poo for diverting construction over elves but somehow it's normal that we divert construction for Native American's belief in magical rock formations.

2. I don't know if you got the point of the China comparison. "This used to be China at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW China!" is no different from "This used to be Sioux land at some point in the past, therefore it is NOW Sioux!".That the Native Americans are incapable of reclaiming their territory is immaterial.

3. There's a $1.3 billion apology check for taking the Black Hills from them in violation of the treaty waiting for the Sioux if they would just accept it. We're being nicer.

Native Americans are 2% of the population but 4.5% of our land is set aside for reservations. In the specific case of the Standing Rock Sioux, currently a population of 8,250 people occupies 3,571.9 square miles of land for a population density of 2.3 people per square mile. Why do you think giving them even more land to not live on would help them in any way? It is my understanding that they live like most destitute people in America in trailer parks and such, but I'm open to evidence that they are actually modern hunter-gatherers in need of more territory to roam.

Gobbledygook please read this short play it is an analogy for the present situation

MUGGER: Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you to death
GUY: Please don't, that has all my money and credit cards and irreplaceable pictures of my family that mean the world to me
MUGGER shoots GUY in leg
GUY: Holy poo poo
MUGGER: Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you to death
GUY: OK
Time passes
MUGGER: Hey I'm sorry I took your wallet, it was a terrible moral error
GUY: You know what, it's fine, just please give me back the wallet
MUGGER: No it's my wallet now
GUY: What
MUGGER: But I'll give you some cash so we can say that you sold me the wallet fair and square
GUY: No, I didn't sell you my wallet, you stole it, give it back
MUGGER: No
GUY: Can I at least have those pictures of my family
MUGGER: Don't be so sentimental
GUY: ...
MUGGER: I think I'm gonna wipe my rear end with these photos of your family. I can do that because they're mine now
GUY: Please don't
MUGGER: They're my pictures, prove to me that they have sentimental value to you and I'll consider not wiping my rear end with them
GUY: I don't have to prove poo poo to you rear end in a top hat, those are my photos, not yours, give me my wallet
MUGGER wipes rear end with pictures of GUY'S family
GOBLEDEGOOK: The real problem here is that the guy didn't take the cash

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 05:24

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

A truly beautiful story.

Thank you did you understand the moral?

The moral is that the practitioners and profiteers of a genocide should not be able to dictate the terms of reparations to the victims, while you seem to believe that the Sioux are acting like spoiled brats for wanting to exercise control over more of the land that was taken from them

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 06:12

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

.
I see we're back to the "Standing Rock have a free-floating right to the land" argument. Show me. Get out a crayon and a map and show me the extent of Sioux territorial claims, the area that they feel they should be able to veto construction in. Show me what documentation they are based on. Then we can talk about abolishing the current system of property rights in the Dakotas. You have to actually make some sort of cognizable, bounded claim before we can realistically discuss anything.

My claim is that they deserve control over the land immediately adjacent to theirs which contains some of the proposed pipeline, the land on which they're seeking to prevent pipeline construction, and that doesn't require a position on whether they should have control over any other land as well

But that's an uninteresting answer to your question, so I'll tell you that I'm leaning toward "convene a panel of historians, determine the extent of Standing Rock land that was stolen by genocidal US forces, give them all of that land that was taken from them and allow them to choose whether or not to sell any part of it back to anyone. Do the same with all other Native American tribes." As a non-historian I wouldn't be on that panel, but if the tribe feels really strongly about this patch of land, and it historically controlled this patch of land before being marched off at gunpoint, it obviously should be returned to their control

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 06:47

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

I reject any argument for reparations based on crimes committed exclusively by dead people against dead people.

The victims of the crimes are still alive today. Native Americans and Black Americans aren't impoverished because they chose to be.

Dead Reckoning posted:

"I'm asserting that there is definitely a property right here, but I cannot comment on where it may be bounded or what it is based on." Come on, we've already started. You've established that granting the tribe sovereignty over Las Vegas would be ridiculous, but that the land ten miles north of their current reservation should definitely be theirs. Does it extend north to Bismarck? Let's work east from Vegas, too. What about Denver?

The tribe isn't expressing interest in any sort of control except over the lands they already own and the land 10 miles north where the pipeline will be, so obviously they shouldn't have Bismarck/Denver because they don't want it.

If something is stolen from you, and you want it back, you should get it back. This is a really really good law for civilization to have, because it simultaneously provides for restitution and deterrence against stealing. If you're never going to be forced to return what you stole, why not steal? Practicing this principle with Native American tribes, after they were brutally genocided for literally hundreds of years, seems appropriate

Dead Reckoning posted:

Okay, so your plan is to displace a large portion of the 1.6 million people in North and South Dakota (and presumably every other state in the Mississippi river basin as well) from their homes, presumably at gunpoint, if the native tribes decline to allow them the "opportunity" to purchase their homes again at full market value. That's a strange sense of justice you have there. I think I'm gonna take a pass on that, along with all the other not-crazy people

Why do you think that the Standing Rock would be so cruel as to kick everyone off of the land? Because that's what was done to them? If any of the lives of those 1.6 million people are ruined, then create a robust social safety net so that they can still lead decent and comfortable lives. Doing the right thing is expensive sometimes

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 07:10

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Telsa Cola posted:

For people saying the cultural/archaeological side of things has been addressed it really hasn't been to the standards of the broader archaeological community and theres buzz around of possible repercussions for the archaeologists that okayed the project. Its not super uncommon (sadly) for archaeologists to "survey" a site and okay it so they can make some semi quick cash. Its one reason Native groups still dont trust archaeologists.

Could you share some articles about this? Sounds fascinating, but I don't know where to go looking for news about the archeological community

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 07:24

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Gobbeldygook posted:

Again, you are proposing a world where no-one ever forgives or forgets anything, forever re-litigating past slights in the name of "justice".

It's impossible to forget about slavery because its legacy permeates basically every single interaction and facet of American life. If we were to set out forget slavery or other "past slights", the first step would be somehow repairing the incredible damage that was done. Erasing the evidence by cleaning up the mess. Making everything look as if the terrible crime had never occurred. Repertory transformation. Reparation.

You can't forget about a wound until it's healed, otherwise you can try but you'll be reminded every time you see it in the mirror. If something precious was taken from you, you can't forget about it until it's returned, even if you'd rather forget than remember.

Do you see the analogy to Native Americans?

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 10:02

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

Ah, but if they did want Bismarck or Denver, would you think that they should have it? If not, why not? Your entire claim that they have a right turns pretty heavily on this.

Well, you yourself said that the Standing Rock would have the option of deciding to sell. Declining to sell would be retaining the property right for themselves, and property rights are by definition the right to exclude. Would they be extracting rents from the people who previously thought they owned their homes outright? Your whole scenario depends on the Standing Rock either having a property right that they never exercise, or mass expulsion/extortion.

What if we agree that the Standing Rock should be able to decide whether pipelines are built or not built on land so long as:

A. It was seized from them during genocide
B. Nobody lives on it
C. They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it

So we don't have to worry about Denver or Bismarck or any other town where people live. Do you have any concerns with this policy? It seems to me like very literally the least that could be given to them - and, incidentally, all that they're asking for.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 10:17

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

twodot posted:

I'm not being ironic, I just want people who want to grant land rights to people to explain the extent of the land that they want those rights to extend to. We can't even begin the conversation until we know what is being proposed.

You already saw this:

Civilized Fishbot posted:

A. It was seized from them during genocide
B. Nobody lives on it
C. They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it

Denver clearly isn't included because, while I haven't independently verified this myself, I've been told people live in Denver.

I don't know what the geographical layout of these territories would look like, but that's a coherent way to draw them out. A compromise between absolute reparations (which would involve the return of ALL land) and kindness toward the people who have settled on the stolen land. And, above all else, listening to the tribe about what they want - which isn't that much at all!

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 17:26

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

twodot posted:

I'm not the one who brought up Denver, I was replying to a person who claimed they had a strategy that precluded worrying about Denver, but wasn't able to actually draw borders that precluded Denver.

Please draw these borders on a map. I don't know how to measure "They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it".
edit:
Oh you provided actual content. There are areas of Denver that no one lives in.

Dude, I don't know what those borders look like geographically because I'm not an expert on the layout of residential and commercial land use in the American west, and an expert on the history of native land seizure in the United States, and also well-aware of what the Standing Rock do and don't want land-wise. I'm providing a principle by which those borders can be drawn, which should be enough to determine if any given parcel of land fits.

The region can be defined and described by the rules that I've provided, that should be enough to start a discussion. This is actually :goonsay:

as all hell

For example: some parts of Denver are occupied, which means that the Standing Rock can't have those. Other parts, the Standing Rock have never expressed any interest in, so they won't have those either.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 17:34

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

twodot posted:

I have no idea how you could go about falsifying the idea that Standing Rock (the community, the individuals that make up that community, the leadership?) has never expressed any interest in Denver. Nor have you been explicit about whether your rules permit Standing Rock to express interest in Denver having learned that expression of interest is sufficient to gain land rights. You need to understand what your proposal actually is before you can think it is good or not.

Well, I think we're getting to an issue here, which is that I privately believe that justice demands the Standing Rock should be able to hold a lot of land in Denver. But I'm not working to convince you of that, I'm working to convince you that the Standing Rock should be able to control whether a pipeline is built in this very small part of land. So let's add a fourth rule:

A. It was seized from them during genocide
B. Nobody lives on it
C. They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it
D. The land lays at most 15 miles from the current borders of the Standing Rock Reservation as it exists today in 2016.

Are you fine with these rules? Do they strike you as a reasonable compromise between restoring the impact of genocidal land theft and allowing modern-day occupiers of that land to live their lives uninterrupted?

Also, one can actually draw this shape super easily if you have the right software (I don't). Take the border of the reservation; at every point along that border, draw a circle of radius 15. You'll now be able to observe a potential new border. Alter the border so that it goes around/leaves out all places that lay outside the old reservation and contain residential land use. Then, contact the Standing Rock and ask them if they want control over any of this land, and let them identify the parts they want. Give them those parts.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 17:54

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

twodot posted:

I would oppose those rules personally. If I thought Standing Rock had some claim on the land 15 miles from its current borders, I would argue the government should pay them the current market value of that land, but it shouldn't forcibly take rights to privately held land just to compensate Standing Rock. I also don't understand how you came to the figure 15 miles, and whether you would argue the same figure were their borders bigger or smaller than they are today.

15 miles is an arbitrary figure I chose to include the disputed pipeline land while leaving out anything else of note.

As for the government paying them current market value: don't you think genocide victims should have the right to dictate the manner in which they're paid reparations? The land has spiritual and sentimental value due to both elements of the Standing Rock faith and the fact that it was stolen from them in genocide; its absence from their administration is gaping wound. The government doesn't have to seize that land to return it; it can just buy it back from its private owners. It might be expensive for the government to buy that land, but it can be expensive to make up for mass genocide and cultural extinction programs. I'm a Jew and we got a whole country, we can give the Standing Rock back a few parcels of land in the middle of nowhere.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 18:07

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

rudatron posted:

Isn't there's a compelling strategic & economic interest in something like a pipeline? Even if you grant native ownership, won't that just mean it gets eminent-domained? Though considering the impacts of something like a pipeline, you may have to compensate at an above market rate, for possible long term damage. I'm not sure what a reasonable dollar figure would be, per hectare.

Eminent domain has a really high standard that the government has to meet, and then they have to significantly overpay. And a quick google search tells me that it's a lot harder to get eminent domain over land held in trust for Native Americans (as it should be)

rudatron posted:

Uhhhh, that may not be the best example here, buddy.

It's actually a perfect example, the west is willing to tolerate everything incredibly lovely about Israel because of the Holocaust but we're unwilling to give the Standing Rock a few more acres despite the fact that that land was actually literally stolen from them

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 18:13

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

rudatron posted:

You got to build it somewhere, and you're probably going to have to payoff someone wherever you decide to build it.

The issue with placing it next to the reservation, and then having that be used as grounds for a payoff, sets a bad precedent when it comes to any future pipelines, or really any large projects that use eminent domain at all. If having a pipeline near you means you deserve compensation, what about people near a dam, or near a highway? It would quickly blow up. On those grounds alone, I don't think you can grant them a payoff.

This is a concept called an 'externality' and it's a very basic idea applied by public finance people and environmental economists all the time. If someone is doing something near your property that interferes with your property (i.e. building a pipeline that forces you to plan for a major spill), then it's fair to seek costs commensurate with the impact that it has on your property. Forcing externality creators to pay for negative externalities - or be paid for positive externalities - encourages socially beneficial construction

twodot posted:

I mean I assumed as much, but acknowledging this fact just gives me even less reason to think these rules are reasonable. (edit2: Like your previous set of rules could at least be justified as being based on some independent principles, the new set of rules is directly "I just think they should be allowed to block the pipeline, here are a set of rules engineered to allow them to block the pipeline")

Well, yeah, because I'm trying to show that the pipeline should be blocked. And I started by saying that the Standing Rock deserve reparations, you pointed out some pretty reasonable concerns about giving them all their land back, so I pointed out that there's a wide middle ground in which one respects both their right to reparations and the realities of modern day land use in the area. And throughout pretty much all of that middle ground, they get control over this land that they're disputing for.

These rules are a compromise between total justice for genocide victims and compassion for those who've built lives on the land taken from those victims. If you believe that we should have such a compromise, then literally the least that can be done is giving the Standing Rock the small parcel of land that they say contains sacred sites.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 18:36

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Condiv posted:

i question this. first of all, i don't think there's a valid strategic or economic concern to build this pipeline. the pipeline is not going to increase employment much at all, and i don't see that the US as a whole would benefit enough from its construction to justify its constuction, even if you think eminent domain for economic reasons is valid. as for strategic reasons, i don't see how a pipeline is strategically better for the us than the railways we already have, especially considering pipelines are much less secure than rail transit. second of all, i don't think eminent domain for economic reasons is ever justifiable. from an economic standpoint you prevent those who would sell from maximizing the return on their property, and from a justice standpoint money is a poo poo analog for property for those who would never sell.

If the tribe actually legally owned the land (which of course they don't), the federal government would probably just expect Dakota Access LLC to buy the land from the tribe the way that it's bought the land from everyone else. And if the project were really worth more as a pipeline than it's worth to the tribe, that transaction would happen.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 18:57

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Condiv posted:

if they don't legally own the land does eminent domain even enter into play? anyway, this

No, you can't seize land from people who don't have it

quote:

is what should be happening. there would probably be people who refused to sell, but the government should not be in the business of forcefully taking land for the economically powerful of the day, such power is way too prone to abuse.

At least not for an oil pipeline which can be planned to go around certain plots of land if a straight line isn't possible. Eminent domain makes more sense if it's super important to build the thing exactly where you want to build it (the classic example is a highway)

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 19:05

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

DeusExMachinima posted:

Actually meeting with the Corps probably didn't hurt.

The Corps didn't listen to Standing Rock concerns in the 60s, when they destroyed entire towns, why should the Standing Rock expect them to listen now

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 20:29

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Dead Reckoning posted:

No, I want to talk about your "land reform" idea more. Are you still in favor of it? Do you still think displacing 1.6 million people is in the interests of justice? See, psychologists say that you're supposed to give people an "off ramp" to changing their minds, a way to save face and not look like they backed down. Otherwise they'll double down in order to save their ego. But what you said was so wrong headed that I want to see you either repudiate it or try to defend it.

OF COURSE returning the stolen land to the genocide survivors - every last acre of it - is the just thing to do. It's undoing a crime and making the victims as close to whole again as possible. Justice is often difficult, and sometimes the most just thing to do is also the wrong thing to do.

Our task as we proceed into the future as a society is to balance justice with other concerns about the impact of such a massive transfer of land. There are compelling arguments to give the tribes every single molecule of the land that was stolen from them, and to pay them millions for every single man, woman, or child who was killed in a US-led massacre or kidnapped from his or her parents, because that's how we establish as a world society that this can and will never happen again, that crimes against humanity cannot benefit the criminals. Which is justice, recompense, and deterrence all rolled into one. That would be ideal.

Of course, to do so would also probably hurt a lot of people who really didn't do anything wrong. Innocent residents of places across America who just chose to live on land which was stolen by rapists and murderers before they were born. We'd have to provide for them too, because justice demands that people have a basic standard of living that includes financial security, a place to live, the ability to raise a family, etc. So justice demands that we provide for them.

At the same time, we're going to have to implement reparations for slavery and Jim Crow and redlining, right? And that's going to be incredibly pricey for the government, and it's going to be incredibly hard to figure out who gets the money and how much each person gets. But it's ideal.

The ideal implementation of justice - where we right all distributional wrongs and provide for all people - is so expensive and logistically mindboggling as to be fundamentally unworkable in our present world. So we need something that's a lot more moderate, something that listens to the Standing Rock and gives them at least a little of what they want. As it happens, they're only asking for a little! They don't even want direct ownership of any land, they just want to be able to dictate whether a pipeline is built on land that neighbors them! Land which was stolen from them by rapists and murderers. Land which they say contains sacred artifacts. Land which they say would be ruined by the construction of the pipeline. This land was seized from them by the US government because it was seen as too valuable for the Natives to have it; if we continue to refuse Native control over it because of the potential value of the land for pipeline construction, we are directly endorsing the genocide which was practiced against the Standing Rock.

TL;DR What I really want is full reparations for everyone, a robust social safety net, clear and effective international law on genocide and the use of government force, and unicorns to be real. I view hearing the Standing Rock about the DAPL as the minimum we can do, a reasonable compromise between the demands of justice, the demands of social welfare, and the limits of the modern world to redistribute capital and power. There are a billion compromises that we could also do, a billion combinations of rules to negotiate how we're going to heal the gaping wound of the Native American genocide without opening up a lot of other wounds in the process. In every one of the compromises that are remotely reasonable, there is no DAPL unless the Standing Rock consents.

Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:26

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

blowfish posted:

ehhh a nuclear waste dump isn't the best example to support your argument here. it's the #1 example of nimby bait that sounds scary but won't actually affect anyone negatively (unless your house got eminent domain'd for being within the actual facility's area) so choosing the path of least resistance and building it wherever is totally fine

I remember the good old days where the #1 topic of discussion on this forum was whether or not Bernie was a racist for voting to put some safe nuclear waste near a small town in texas

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:44

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

The Vinja Ninja posted:

I was born in a Native Hospital that the army corps of engineers dumped nuclear waste under.

Sure feeels good. Abandoned gold mines are fair game esp when there are houses directly on top of it.

Its and endless line of suffering

I hope you didn't read my post as saying that environmental racism isn't real (it is, and it happened to you, and that's heinous and you deserve reparations)

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:54

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Condiv posted:

reading the report, it seems a lot of really badly maintained and lovely coal plants just happen to be near low-income colored peoples. for example, the top 12 worst environmental justice offenders (e.j. is defined in the report, but basically measures the plant's impact on low-income people of color) produce .8% of america's power while producing 1.8% of the total pollution from coal plants.

"just happen to be"

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 23:56

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 02:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 01:13

Civilized Fishbot: Apr 3, 2011

In which the police shoot a journalist for no reason.

http://fusion.net/story/365922/standing-rock-erin-schrode-shot-police-no-dapl/

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 07:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

«‹›2 »