politicartoons | Native American protests at an Arizona Illegal Immigration Rally

Than what is silly? It's like limousine liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal), same logic. They consume goods that they deny in words.

And on the other side of that coin, "family value Republicans."

But yeah, your logic isn't the same, I'm afraid.

Edited 2013-02-08 03:02 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, my logic isn't the same, my logic is not hypocritical: if I say I don't like bikers, they are illegal, I didn't invite them, than I don't drive a bike.

Well that's a silly statement too.

It's not a "statement", just a human reaction.

Whatever you want to call it (and it was a statement): it wasn't logical, just like your initial comment about the stroller.

OK, it wasn't logical, it was ethical.

That's just another variation of the same idea though, so no. The Native American wasn't unethical as you claim because he's using a simply using a baby stroller because he was complaining about the illegal immigration protestors.

He wasn't complaining about protesters. He said that he is only legal and only people of his race can "invite" somebody here. "You’re all illegal! We didn’t invite none of you here!". "We" means people of his race.

If something looks like strawberry jam, smells like strawberry jam, and tastes like strawberry jam then this is probably strawberry jam. This man wears western clothes, speaks European language and lives in western city with all it goods like medicine for his kid -- and he thinks that all people that created this robbed him. He is a western man with crisis of his identity. He may do two things to fix it and live in accordance with his ideology: either he accept western people together with their civilization and goods, if he use them, or he deny their civilization if he considers them illegal intruders, with all their gadgets and firewater:

The protestors mostly ignored the man though some responded by informing him that they too were of Native American descent, and yet others simply suggested he'd had too much to drink. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/native-american-man-immigration-protesters_n_2630577.html)

Yeah he was protesting the protestors. And your list of what he can do is silly, as though they're the only legitimate things he can do. Bullshit. "Some responded they were Native American." *One* person said that, and off camera. How do we know it's true? And if it's true? So what? And those suggested he had too much to drink? Really? How would they know other than he was yelling at them? Did they do an breath analyzer alcohol test on the spot?

he was protesting the protestors

Yes, he was protesting the protestors but with what idea? Protesters were against illegal immigrants. Therefore those who is against protesters should support illegal immigration. But this guy didn't say "everybody welcome", right? He said "We didn’t invite none of you".

Yeah, an example of you being pedantic, and not understanding the broader point he was making.

You can't parse the nuance of the statement unfortunately.

A likely drunk person who starts his speech with "Y’all f*cking..." doesn't look like a person whose words contain any additional sense and nuances. That's just primitive aggression.

Completely speculative and not based on any collaborative evidence.

And your opinion that the message "Y’all f*cking illegal... We didn’t invite none of you here!" contains "broader point" and "nuances" is based on which evidence?

Protesters were against illegal immigrants

Yeah, see, he doesn't agree that they are any less "illegal". Try to get your head around that. No one is illegal.

No one is illegal.

Any law says so or you just think so?

I just think so. And please explain the "legality" of raping, killing, pillaging and spreading disease, destroying crops, and so forth to displace an indigenous population.

If you cannot justify it, then you are taking baby steps to seeing the irony the native american was pointing out.

Edited 2013-02-21 02:38 (UTC)

(no subject)

morgulis.livejournal.com - 2013-02-21 02:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

yes-justice.livejournal.com - 2013-02-21 17:05 (UTC) - Expand

some responded by informing him that they too were of Native American descent

Their great great great great great grandmother was a Cherokee princess, right? And? What have they learned from that? That being Native American is hip but being Mexican (which is fucking Native American after all) is not hip?

Troll today, gone tomorrow.

Their great great great great great grandmother was a Cherokee princess, right? And? What have they learned from that?

They probably learned that it is senseless to live in contemporary world with tribal ideology.

And by tribal ideology you mean what exactly?

That's ideology of besieged fortress when everybody behind the wall is enemy (since tribes are normally at enmity fighting for resources).

http://www.zurinstitute.com/enmity.html#definition

"The 1984 edition of Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary defines "enemy" simply as a "hostile force or power," "a member or unit of such a force," or "something having destructive effect"... Psychologists have long been aware that "hostile forces" and "destructive effect" are not always clear objective realities but are inextricably linked to the complex relationships between the participants in a conflict. Considering the role of perception, "enemy" can be defined as a person or a group of persons perceived to represent a threat to or to be hostile towards the perceiver."

1984 edition, huh? Ever heard of the term Neo-tribalism?

Needless to say, that's the whole point. Those protesters haven't learned anything. And the Native calling them out on their shit was putting up a mirror for them with his satirical take on their demonstration. You don't actually think he really believes all non-native peoples are illegals and wants them out of his country, right?

Same logical fallacy you mean. Tu quoque much?