You're viewing a single thread.
Also, yes they should.
If you commit evil, evil should be done to you so you can compensate your victims properly.
there is literally zero chance that landback will result in any violence or violence-adjacent stuff on the part of native american people
the settlers outnumber the rightful keepers of the land like 100 to 1Well, not at the instigation of the indigenous you mean.
good point, i should have been more specific
You were plenty clear, I was just making a sad but humorous observation that some people might respond violently.
Doing evil onto evil doesn't "compensate victims" lmao. Retributive justice is poison. It's also worth noting that none of the literature I've read on Land Back stuff advocates for anything like that to be done to settlers. And reperations aren't "doing evil" onto white people.
Retributive justice is poison.
"B-B-B-but if I don't have muh punishments then muh ebil human nature means soyciety collapse!"
not sure about that one.
we are at this point talking about the descendants of people that did these things
Permanently Deleted
This point doesnt follow from what GarfieldYaoi was advocating for with the language he used. He said "evil should be done [onto evil]". Unless he thinks reparations and Land Back are "doing evil" onto white people (which would be fucking silly).
Permanently Deleted
Yeah obviously I agree with that and Malcolm was spot on. I totally support Land Back initiatives. But I think usernamesaredifficul was responding to the way GarfieldYaoi phrased it. I'd be suprised if he thinks nothing should be done. Like hey if he thinks doing Land Back and/or reperations would be bad because it "punishes people for what their ancestors did" then thats obivously wrong and fuck him. But I think it was in response to Garf's idea that "evil" should be done.
Permanently Deleted
Guess we're giving charitable interpretations to opposite people then lol. I can see what you meant though.
Permanently Deleted