doctorpotatomd

"actually, most sports became segregated because a woman beat a man and the men got mad" cool, do you have a source or are you just regurgitating an anecdote you heard because it makes you feel validated?

"there's no biological or physiological basis for men to perform better than women in any sports" cool, have you ever been seriously involved in any sport of any type? have you ever experienced, say, walking into the gym and outbenching a serious female lifter of the same height and weight on your first day? have you ever experienced wrestling with a woman of a similar height and weight and experience and realising how much *easier* it is to overpower her than it would be one of the guys in your class? Because I've experienced both of those and things like them, many times.

"oh, at school there was this one girl who could beat all the boys with her hands tied behind her back" cool, do you think that a random collection of highschool kids is a representative sample without any outliers? do you understand what an anecdote is?

"oh, but women are taught to eat less and exercise less and stay small and quiet" cool, there's probably some truth in that, broadly speaking. do you think that possibly applies at all to serious athletes, many of whom were scouted when they were knee high to a grasshopper and put into serious training programs designed to maximise their chances of being a competitor?

"they should just segregate by height/weight/ability/etc." cool, do you understand that they already do this? do you realise that women have more essential visceral fat, and a female athlete in peak condition has something like 15-20% bodyfat compared to a male athlete's 8-12%, putting a female athlete at an objective disadvantage compared to a male athlete of equal height and weight? do you understand that the muscles of the upper body are much more testosterone-dependent than the muscles of the lower body? do you understand that no woman has ever been able to perform the iron cross in gymnastics, despite it being a "B-grade" skill in mens gymnastics?

"women only don't win because they're not allowed to compete with the men" cool, do you realise how completely divorced from reality this is? Most sports have the figures as a matter of public record, for christ's sake, you can very easily look at the records and say "hmm, 20 is lower than 22". And if you desegregate sports and force the women to compete with the men, the women who were previously winning their divisions—even world champions!—just start losing, and quit their sport because they'll never be competitive, and then young girls don't get inspired to get into sports and nobody wants to foster their talents, and now you just have no women in sports at all!

with sports like this, it's still often desirable to segregate, depending on the gender demographics of the sport in question. you want the less-represented gender to have its own league, because that league will be easier on account of it having less competition, which will help attract more competitors of that gender to the sport. note that this should be women's and open (or theoretically men's and open, for a female-dominated sport), not men's and women's; the larger and more competitive league should be open to competitors of all genders.

chess is the best example: there have only been about three women ranked in the worldwide top 100 chess players ever, despite there being no physiological basis for disparate performance between genders. why? sociological and cultural reasons; the female talent pool for chess is tragically small because girls don't get interested in the game and parents/teachers/etc. are less likely to notice and foster female talent. so by having women's leagues, not only do we show women that they can play chess and provide an incentive for mentors to look for female talent, we also create a nicer and more welcoming competitive environment for girls, especially young girls (going to a competition is scary enough even before you take into account the specific type of male personality that chess seems to attract); and we also allow the best female players to win titles, recognition, accolades, visibility instead of simply being someone in the top 100 or top 1000; and the women's chess world champion can become a hero for little girls who might never have thought about playing chess otherwise.

I could SWEAR you’ve made this post before, or perhaps this is such a characteristically “you” concept that I already imagined a world in which you had

[21:08] * Topic is 'No topic set'

[21:08] * ChanServ gives channel operator status to taNDy

[21:09] * You have left #dis-hyper-re-assembly

[21:09] * Now talking in #re-dis-hyper-assembly

[21:09] * Topic is 'No topic set'

[21:09] * ChanServ gives channel operator status to taNDy

[21:09] * You have left #re-dis-hyper-assembly

[21:09] * Now talking in #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:09] * Topic is 'Loadouts: reactor choice | hydraulics vs. pneumatics | Balance: sprocket expert cost | you have to CRANK it | RDHA general discussion'

[21:09] * Set by cennostar on Thu April 17th 1998

[21:09] <Varilyth> yea

[21:10] <Varilyth> wrenchy knows more about it then me but

[21:10] <taNDy> hey guys

[21:10] * Extronaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:10] <Sulfur> Welcome!

[21:10] <cennostar> hey tandy

[21:10] <Zalubrio> welcome!

[21:10] <sweetums|AFK> Welcome!

[21:10] <Varilyth> you can make some DISGUSTING fixes when you can ignore chirality like that

[21:11] <Varilyth> like it should be an 8 pt ability at least

[21:11] <Varilyth> hi

[21:11] * Sulfur nods sagely.

[21:13] <Sulfur> Fair enough. I might talk to my group about house-ruling it for our next run. Nobody had any fun this session. Except the wrenchman, that is.

[21:13] <wrenchy|AFK> i had so much fun

[21:13] <Varilyth> right

[21:14] * sweetums|AFK is now known as sweetums

[21:14] <Sulfur> Not you, Wrenchy.

[21:14] <wrenchy|AFK> :'-(

[21:15] <taNDy> hey guys

[21:15] <taNDy> can I ask a rules question?

[21:16] * sweetums rolls eyes

[21:16] <sweetums> oh here we go

[21:16] * cennostar slaps sweetums upside the head with a large trout!

[21:16] <cennostar> be nice!!

[21:16] <cennostar> go ahead tandy

[21:17] <cennostar> ask away

[21:17] <taNDy> thx

[21:19] <taNDy> so im a noob and have only played one session but ive been reading the rules for playing as the chief and

[21:19] * Extronaut has joined #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:19] * Extronaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:20] <Sulfur> Sure.

[21:20] <taNDy> and i wanted to ask what happens when the reactor goes critical *during a jump*?

[21:20] <sweetums> lol

[21:21] <taNDy> like it says I can work any system at -1 and do any repair at -5

[21:21] <taNDy> attempt* any repair

[21:22] <Sulfur> Depends on how much of a sadist the captain is.

[21:22] <taNDy> but it also says i can only repair the system im working on right now

[21:22] <sweetums> my first run ended like that

[21:23] <taNDy> so if im working the jump drive and the reactor starts playing up i have to choose between either doing the jump and stabilizing it after, or aborting and stabilizing now, right?

[21:23] <sweetums> reactor go boom-boom, need jump and go buy new core

[21:23] <sweetums> we try jump, captain rolls, captain laughs

[21:23] <sweetums> ship got folded

[21:24] <taNDy> folded??

[21:24] <Sulfur> Folded.

[21:24] <Varilyth> lmao get folded

[21:24] <Varilyth> pwned

[21:25] <Zalubrio> lol

[21:25] <Zalubrio> tandy read tha jumps chapter in tha captain's book and ull get it

[21:26] <Varilyth> or don't

[21:26] <Varilyth> and experience the game the way it was meant to be played :-)

[21:26] <taNDy> oh

[21:26] <sweetums> yea

[21:27] <Sulfur> Seconded.

[21:27] <Sulfur> Or thirded, rather.

[21:27] * Extronaut has joined #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:27] * Intranaut has joined #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:28] <Extronaut> fffffffffffucking dial-up

[21:28] <Extronaut> Hey guys

[21:28] * Extronaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:28] * Intranaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:28] <Sulfur> Hey Naut. Hey Mrs. Naut.

[21:28] <Varilyth> lmao

[21:29] <Sulfur> :(

[21:30] * Sulfur stares melancholily out of the closest viewport.

[21:30] <sweetums> melancholily isnt a word

[21:31] <Sulfur> Buy a dictionary, sweetums.

[21:31] <Zalubrio> lol

[21:31] <Zalubrio> but yea tandy

[21:32] <Zalubrio> tha good news is that if ur reactor goes critical during a jump

[21:32] <Zalubrio> ur captain is *trying* 2 TPK u already

[21:33] <Zalubrio> so ure dead newai

[21:33] <sweetums> dead n folded

[21:34] <Zalubrio> unless it was obv precrit before tha jump

[21:34] <Zalubrio> like sweetums group

[21:35] <Zalubrio> so dont worry about it

[21:35] <taNDy> oh ok

[21:36] <Zalubrio> besides u shuld have a fields engi on tha reactor n nav on jumps newai

[21:36] <Zalubrio> most important roles 4 shure

[21:37] <Varilyth> yeah forget the reactor and the jump drive, you're forgetting about the chief's most important ability

[21:37] <cennostar> lol

[21:37] <Varilyth> +3 on the best action in the game

[21:38] <Sulfur> Uh oh.

[21:38] <taNDy> ???

[21:38] <Varilyth> hand. cranking. machinery.

[21:38] * Varilyth CRANKS it!

[21:38] * sweetums CRANKS it!

[21:39] * wrenchy|AFK CRANKS it1!

[21:39] * cennostar CRANKS it!

[21:39] * Zalubrio cRANKS IT!!

[21:39] <sweetums> llmmmaaaooooooo

[21:40] * Sulfur doesn't crank anything.

[21:40] * Extronaut has joined #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:40] * Extronaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

I could SWEAR you’ve made this post before, or perhaps this is such a characteristically “you” concept that I already imagined a world in which you had

[21:08] * Topic is 'No topic set'

[21:08] * ChanServ gives channel operator status to taNDy

[21:09] * You have left #dis-hyper-re-assembly

[21:09] * Now talking in #re-dis-hyper-assembly

[21:09] * Topic is 'No topic set'

[21:09] * ChanServ gives channel operator status to taNDy

[21:09] * You have left #re-dis-hyper-assembly

[21:09] * Now talking in #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:09] * Topic is 'Loadouts: reactor choice | hydraulics vs. pneumatics | Balance: sprocket expert cost | you have to CRANK it | RDHA general discussion'

[21:09] * Set by cennostar on Thu April 17th 1998

[21:09] <Varilyth> yea

[21:10] <Varilyth> wrenchy knows more about it then me but

[21:10] <taNDy> hey guys

[21:10] * Extronaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:10] <Sulfur> Welcome!

[21:10] <cennostar> hey tandy

[21:10] <Zalubrio> welcome!

[21:10] <sweetums|AFK> Welcome!

[21:10] <Varilyth> you can make some DISGUSTING fixes when you can ignore chirality like that

[21:11] <Varilyth> like it should be an 8 pt ability at least

[21:11] <Varilyth> hi

[21:11] * Sulfur nods sagely.

[21:13] <Sulfur> Fair enough. I might talk to my group about house-ruling it for our next run. Nobody had any fun this session. Except the wrenchman, that is.

[21:13] <wrenchy|AFK> i had so much fun

[21:13] <Varilyth> right

[21:14] * sweetums|AFK is now known as sweetums

[21:14] <Sulfur> Not you, Wrenchy.

[21:14] <wrenchy|AFK> :'-(

[21:15] <taNDy> hey guys

[21:15] <taNDy> can I ask a rules question?

[21:16] * sweetums rolls eyes

[21:16] <sweetums> oh here we go

[21:16] * cennostar slaps sweetums upside the head with a large trout!

[21:16] <cennostar> be nice!!

[21:16] <cennostar> go ahead tandy

[21:17] <cennostar> ask away

[21:17] <taNDy> thx

[21:19] <taNDy> so im a noob and have only played one session but ive been reading the rules for playing as the chief and

[21:19] * Extronaut has joined #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:19] * Extronaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:20] <Sulfur> Sure.

[21:20] <taNDy> and i wanted to ask what happens when the reactor goes critical *during a jump*?

[21:20] <sweetums> lol

[21:21] <taNDy> like it says I can work any system at -1 and do any repair at -5

[21:21] <taNDy> attempt* any repair

[21:22] <Sulfur> Depends on how much of a sadist the captain is.

[21:22] <taNDy> but it also says i can only repair the system im working on right now

[21:22] <sweetums> my first run ended like that

[21:23] <taNDy> so if im working the jump drive and the reactor starts playing up i have to choose between either doing the jump and stabilizing it after, or aborting and stabilizing now, right?

[21:23] <sweetums> reactor go boom-boom, need jump and go buy new core

[21:23] <sweetums> we try jump, captain rolls, captain laughs

[21:23] <sweetums> ship got folded

[21:24] <taNDy> folded??

[21:24] <Sulfur> Folded.

[21:24] <Varilyth> lmao get folded

[21:24] <Varilyth> pwned

[21:25] <Zalubrio> lol

[21:25] <Zalubrio> tandy read tha jumps chapter in tha captain's book and ull get it

[21:26] <Varilyth> or don't

[21:26] <Varilyth> and experience the game the way it was meant to be played :-)

[21:26] <taNDy> oh

[21:26] <sweetums> yea

[21:27] <Sulfur> Seconded.

[21:27] <Sulfur> Or thirded, rather.

[21:27] * Extronaut has joined #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:27] * Intranaut has joined #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:28] <Extronaut> fffffffffffucking dial-up

[21:28] <Extronaut> Hey guys

[21:28] * Extronaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:28] * Intranaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:28] <Sulfur> Hey Naut. Hey Mrs. Naut.

[21:28] <Varilyth> lmao

[21:29] <Sulfur> :(

[21:30] * Sulfur stares melancholily out of the closest viewport.

[21:30] <sweetums> melancholily isnt a word

[21:31] <Sulfur> Buy a dictionary, sweetums.

[21:31] <Zalubrio> lol

[21:31] <Zalubrio> but yea tandy

[21:32] <Zalubrio> tha good news is that if ur reactor goes critical during a jump

[21:32] <Zalubrio> ur captain is *trying* 2 TPK u already

[21:33] <Zalubrio> so ure dead newai

[21:33] <sweetums> dead n folded

[21:34] <Zalubrio> unless it was obv precrit before tha jump

[21:34] <Zalubrio> like sweetums group

[21:35] <Zalubrio> so dont worry about it

[21:35] <taNDy> oh ok

[21:36] <Zalubrio> besides u shuld have a fields engi on tha reactor n nav on jumps newai

[21:36] <Zalubrio> most important roles 4 shure

[21:37] <Varilyth> yeah forget the reactor and the jump drive, you're forgetting about the chief's most important ability

[21:37] <cennostar> lol

[21:37] <Varilyth> +3 on the best action in the game

[21:38] <Sulfur> Uh oh.

[21:38] <taNDy> ???

[21:38] <Varilyth> hand. cranking. machinery.

[21:38] * Varilyth CRANKS it!

[21:38] * sweetums CRANKS it!

[21:39] * wrenchy|AFK CRANKS it1!

[21:39] * cennostar CRANKS it!

[21:39] * Zalubrio cRANKS IT!!

[21:39] <sweetums> llmmmaaaooooooo

[21:40] * Sulfur doesn't crank anything.

[21:40] * Extronaut has joined #re-dis-hyperassembly

[21:40] * Extronaut has quit (Connection reset by peer)

And the modern trumpet is still fully capable of making an unimaginably loud and *nasty* sound like its military predecessors, it's just that they... don't do that because it wouldn't sound very nice. Unless you specifically ask them to, I'm pretty sure some of Mahler's symphonies have ffff (quadruple-loud) markings for trumpet and the other brass, which I'm told brass players understand to mean "do not even try to have a nice, blended orchestral tone; punish the audience with the wall of sound that is your birthright".

I'd also say that being Deep is not necessary or even particularly relevant to the formation of a subculture. I'd say that punk rock is not particularly deep or complex, in general, in fact I think that simplicity is a core part of its musical identity—growing as it did out of the great democratization of music that the electric guitar brought about—and that it values genuineness over depth.

so. uh yeah if you happen to really like orchestra or perhaps just a really specific song please yap at me. my inbox is there.

i’m listening to a playlist of apparently popular orchestra songs and this one is my favorite so far if you want to send similar ones it reminds me of a sunny day

tagging this with a bunch of shit so the right people find it

Symphony no 101 in D, "The Clock", all movements are good but I especially love the first movement (this album also has another of his symphonies, but I haven't listened to that one)

Trumpet Concerto in Eb, especially the first movement

Mozart:

Eine Kleine Nachtmusik first movement (you know this one, overplayed but great)

Symphony no 40 in G minor, another classic

Clarinet quintet in A, I only discovered this the other day and haven't listened to the whole thing yet, but the first movement was so good it made me kinda mad (?)

Schubert:

Unfinished Symphony, the second movement is absolutely gorgeous

Strauss II:

Blue Danube Waltz, cheesy and overplayed, but my personal favourite piece of music of all time

Kaiser Waltz, another great one

Waldteufel:

Les Patineurs (Skater's Waltz), I play timpani and there's a bit towards the end where the music stops and the timps go BONG which is one of my favourite things to do on timps (also can you tell I'm a waltz guy yet)

Grieg:

Peer Gynt Suite no 1, you'll recognize the first and fourth movements (Morning Mood and the Hall of the Mountain King, respectively), but the second and third movements are lovely too. Morning Mood definitely fits your "sounds like a sunny day" thing the most out of anything on this list.a

Liszt:

Un Sospiro, first piece of solo piano music on this list (I recommend watching a youtube video, the spectacle of the hand crossings is part of the fun of this piece)

Brahms:

Hungarian Dance no 5, what a banger

Chopin:

Nocturne no 2 in Eb, maybe the second-most famous piece of piano music ever written, you'll know this one

Nocturne no 20 in C# minor, this has some history; it wasn't published during his lifetime, but gained wide recognition when a Jewish-Polish pianist's live radio performance of this piece was interrupted by the Nazi bombing of Warsaw (Chopin's hometown) in 1939

Grande Valse Brillante, what a bop

Gounod:

Funeral March of a Marionette, I just think it's really fun

Leroy Anderson:

The Typewriter, it's just so incredibly fun (and it quite literally uses a typewriter as an instrument)

Debussy:

Claire de Lune, possibly the third-most famous piece of piano music ever written and absolutely gorgeous

Beethoven:

Piano sonata no 14 in C#m, "Moonlight", the second movement is forgettable on its own but it's a perfect palette cleanser between the first and third movements (this album also has his Pathetique and Appassionata sonatas, which I hear are incredible, but I specifically haven't listened to them yet because I know if I hear them I'll get obsessed with learning them and I'm not that good yet lol)

Symphony no 5 in Cm, you'll recognize the opening of the first movement immediately, but the rest of it completely holds up too. (Most people would recommend Beethoven's 9th symphony over his 5th, but I'd only recommend the 9th if you're going to see it in concert, so much of the effect is lost when you're not in the room. Plus it's really, really long, like over an hour in total IIRC).

Tchaikovsky:

Waltz from Sleeping Beauty, a beautiful piece of music that got arranged as Once Upon a Dream for the Disney film

Saint-Saens:

Carnival of the Animals, it's just so fun. Don't be intimidated by the fact that there's 24 movements, they're mostly really short. Highlights: Introduction, The Elephant, Aquarium, Fossils, The Swan, Finale

Poulenc:

Flute Sonata, I discovered this by asking our principal flautist who I should study to compose music that flutes love to play, the first movement especially is really great

Holst:

this falls over for the obvious reason that even the smartest people aren't smart enough to be able to reliably override their own short-term self interest! consider doctors, who are presumably smart and rational given the barriers to becoming a doctor, and yet regularly advocate on behalf of their own interests in ways that harm others, and not just because they're forced to share a civilisation with people less smart than they are.

we can enumerate similarly smart subgroups of society that struggle to transcend their own interests, whether it's economists ironically or military generals or tech CEOs, who regularly act against each other and their workers and their customers to enrich themselves even as it makes us all poorer.

now this could be equivocation: possibly the most rational people don't exist yet, and when they do they will make everything better, but even they will face the core problem that rational people can still have diverging interests, and a strong incentive to mislead each other as to the importance of those interests, and as a result cooperation for mutual gain challenging to guarantee -- if it were not we would not have cancer, along with many other maladies.

A world where everyone understands economics enough to say "no" when doctors selfishly propose those things you brought up is not better because being smart makes the doctors nice. It is a better world because they can't get away with it.

If other people get impressed by nonsense arguments made by someone intelligent such that said intelligent person manages to get laws passed that harm those tricked and me, I'm not wishing people were smarter because I think it will make that person nicer.

Drunk driving.

Is at least 30% of drunk driving done irrationally or stupidly, rather than a rational and intelligent but selfish decision? This seems likely, it isn't like drunk driving doesn't put the person doing it at risk.

Would there be some equilibrial force such that if that 30% went way 10% or more would come back? There are equilibrial forces, yes, but it seems unlikely that there would be such a potent backfire here.

Would a 20% reduction in drunk driving result in a better world for innocent bystanders?

If you agree to my answers for these, this suggests at least one area where you would expect a world of more rational and intelligent people to be better.

This isn't because I expect the drunk drivers to be doing some careful reasoning about 2% gains to everyone vs 20% gains to themselves.

This is because there is no rule that one's stupid mistakes can't hurt other people who wouldn't make that stupid mistake.

And further, I claim that there are broader cases like that. For example, as I understand farmers and other selfishly benefiting people are taking advantage of people to get crazy water rules passed in California.

Without changing the farmers and such, if not making them nicer, nor even smarter nor more rational, not changing them at all, it seems like the case that if more of the public was like me in certain key ways, they would be unable to get those crazy water rules passed.

Which would be an improvement.

A world where a welfare cliff appearing in a policy gets met with "...you appear to have set the marginal tax rate here to fifty thousand percent. This only makes sense if this is an activity we really hate people doing, but you appear to be applying it to the activity of... having a job while disabled, which I personally don't feel is nearly as bad as murder, and in fact seems positive." by lots of ordinary people is one where it seems unlikely for welfare cliffs to appear.

Oh, and it looks like person A has a really bad day at work and knocked back a bottle of bourbon before getting behind the wheel and putting their car through a servo, despite never having drink-driven before in their life and being completely against drink-drinking and cognizant of the reasons why it's bad. And then person B flipped on those crazy water rules because their doctor, who they respect as an intelligent authority figure, made an offhand snide remark (that was motivated only by the prospect of their favourite golf course being forced to close, and not considered at all beyond that). Turns out people are messy and complicated, and that it's beyond unrealistic to expect every member of society to 100% understand every detail of every issue and policy.

First-person shooters where you gun down angels

RPGs where you kill God at the end

honestly it's weird that you DON'T fight the pope in silksong

I agree that Silksong is a remarkably Catholic game for presently lacking a Pope fight, but I wouldn't rule it out just yet – Team Cherry have added major boss fights in DLC in the past, and we already have at least one DLC confirmed.

"actually, most sports became segregated because a woman beat a man and the men got mad" cool, do you have a source or are you just regurgitating an anecdote you heard because it makes you feel validated?

"there's no biological or physiological basis for men to perform better than women in any sports" cool, have you ever been seriously involved in any sport of any type? have you ever experienced, say, walking into the gym and outbenching a serious female lifter of the same height and weight on your first day? have you ever experienced wrestling with a woman of a similar height and weight and experience and realising how much *easier* it is to overpower her than it would be one of the guys in your class? Because I've experienced both of those and things like them, many times.

"oh, at school there was this one girl who could beat all the boys with her hands tied behind her back" cool, do you think that a random collection of highschool kids is a representative sample without any outliers? do you understand what an anecdote is?

"oh, but women are taught to eat less and exercise less and stay small and quiet" cool, there's probably some truth in that, broadly speaking. do you think that possibly applies at all to serious athletes, many of whom were scouted when they were knee high to a grasshopper and put into serious training programs designed to maximise their chances of being a competitor?

"they should just segregate by height/weight/ability/etc." cool, do you understand that they already do this? do you realise that women have more essential visceral fat, and a female athlete in peak condition has something like 15-20% bodyfat compared to a male athlete's 8-12%, putting a female athlete at an objective disadvantage compared to a male athlete of equal height and weight? do you understand that the muscles of the upper body are much more testosterone-dependent than the muscles of the lower body? do you understand that no woman has ever been able to perform the iron cross in gymnastics, despite it being a "B-grade" skill in mens gymnastics?

"women only don't win because they're not allowed to compete with the men" cool, do you realise how completely divorced from reality this is? Most sports have the figures as a matter of public record, for christ's sake, you can very easily look at the records and say "hmm, 20 is lower than 22". And if you desegregate sports and force the women to compete with the men, the women who were previously winning their divisions—even world champions!—just start losing, and quit their sport because they'll never be competitive, and then young girls don't get inspired to get into sports and nobody wants to foster their talents, and now you just have no women in sports at all!

Me, I rent, so I've always been quite aware that I don't own the land I reside on, although a lot of other people don't seem to know it.

Could be "People of Color" or BIPOC or the proletariat, whatever. The US has built its power by exploiting that group both in and out of the country, and it therefore owes that group some sort of restitution whether they be in or out of the country.

I don't put much stock in such views but they don't strike me as particularly incoherent on that level, at least if the people espousing them have even a modicum of sophistication.

Besides, even if you look past that, a land acknowledgement is still perfectly congruent with being pro-immigration; the two issues are orthogonal. if the land was wrongfully stolen from the indigenous inhabitants, allowing more non-indigenous people to live there doesn't make it any more or less stolen.

Even if you move up a step to land back, to argue that being pro-immigration conflicts with being pro-land back requires the land back stance to be an extreme one; one that includes the dismantling of cities, towns, governments that were built on stolen land. Whoever's in charge of administering the land in question should be trying to make the best choices they can w.r.t. administering that land as it exists today, not as it might have existed if it hadn't been wrongfully stolen in the first place, and that includes decisions on immigration policy. There are certainly some undeveloped areas where there wouldn't be much or any dismantling of colonial structures required to return the land to a (mostly) pre-colonial state, but these areas aren't ones that are going to be affected by immigration; immigrants primarily live in metropolitan areas, ones where the dismantling of colonial structures would be catastrophically harmful to all inhabitants, including any indigenous ones.

Is it year they or their ancestors entered “Turtle Island”? Their country of origin? Their religion, language, or ethnicity? Their motives for emigrating? The conditions of their transit presumably matter as it’s rather hard to see a person who was kidnapped and brought against their will to a place (ie enslaved African) as an invader rather than another victim.

I expect that a real life Land Back would involve at least some cities and towns being dismantled and it definitionally involves dismantling governments. I wasn’t under the impression that any argument about possible results being “catastrophically harmful” to settlers was considered relevant in this discussion, because it’s not for them and it’s not about them. The new government by the Natives would be setting the standards for residents, preexisting or incoming, in whatever way they choose and settlers would be expelled or taxed or whatever the Natives chose to do, and quite likely different tribal governments would have significantly different policies.

I expect that a real life Land Back would involve at least some cities and towns being dismantled and it definitionally involves dismantling governments. I wasn’t under the impression that any argument about possible results being “catastrophically harmful” to settlers was considered relevant in this discussion, because it’s not for them and it’s not about them. The new government by the Natives would be setting the standards for residents, preexisting or incoming, in whatever way they choose and settlers would be expelled or taxed or whatever the Natives chose to do, and quite likely different tribal governments would have significantly different policies.

I don't think that this type of extreme land back is seriously in consideration by anyone, and if anyone was seriously considering it I'd call them stupid and reckless. Two wrongs don't make a right, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Maybe I'm just sheltered from the discourse, though, it's been a while since I've been accosted by someone with an alt soc pamphlet on a university campus.

If “the fact that it was wrong to colonize a given area doesn’t really change anything about how it should be administered in the present day” why are you defending landback at all? Are you actually a supporter of landback? If not, are you a supporter of land acknowledgments? If yes, why?

Ehh, on a case-by-case basis, perhaps (and I should caveat here that I'm Australian, and the circumstances of indigenous Australians and indigenous Americans aren't identical). If a government is considering returning ownership of a given area to the indigenous people who traditionally owned it, they should consider much more than simply "was this land stolen from these people". Undeveloped land, sacred sites, natural resources? I'm generally in favour of returning ownership, although in my opinion it would be prudent to ensure the traditional owners have the capacity to administer the land in question first. But for, like, Melbourne? San Francisco? That ship has well and truly sailed, and ceding ownership and control to the traditional owners would either deny millions of innocent people their right to democratic representation, or straight-up force them into homelessness. Any land back stance that doesn't take into account the people actually living on the land today because it's "not about them", I'd dismiss out of hand.

Are you trying to draw a distinction between legal, government endorsed immigrants and “illegal” immigrants who have not received authorization from a government? Because that’s the only way that makes a lick of sense.

Individual human beings with names moved to the New World intending to live, work, reproduce, and practice their culture and traditions, knowing full well that they would be entering a land with natives they would displace. Some came specifically to engage in physical violence towards those Natives or knowing that they might need to do so to secure the resources they desired. These people are referred to in American history textbooks as “colonists” and “colonials” frequently.

There is essentially zero ill will towards the British today for the many many of their former territories (eg. USA, Canada, Israel, Australia) despite that being the “foreign government that empowered” among the leftlib land acknowledgment “decolonization is not a metaphor” people. I don’t see evidence to support your interpretation of the real villains to decolonization movements being the long ago expelled and retreated European powers rather than their current day diasporas.

Fair enough, I misspoke there, it should have been immigrant.

Individual human beings with names moved to the New World intending to live, work, reproduce, and practice their culture and traditions, knowing full well that they would be entering a land with natives they would displace. Some came specifically to engage in physical violence towards those Natives or knowing that they might need to do so to secure the resources they desired. These people are referred to in American history textbooks as “colonists” and “colonials” frequently.

Yes, and I'd use "settler" and "colonist" interchangeably there.

There is essentially zero ill will towards the British today for the many many of their former territories (eg. USA, Canada, Israel, Australia) despite that being the “foreign government that empowered” among the leftlib land acknowledgment “decolonization is not a metaphor” people. I don’t see evidence to support your interpretation of the real villains to decolonization movements being the long ago expelled and retreated European powers rather than their current day diasporas.

That's not my interpretation, and I'm not particularly interested in assigning blame or "villainy"; I was merely trying to draw a definitional line somewhere between "immigrant" and "settler". Certainly individual settlers were at the very least complicit in, where not directly responsible for, various atrocities enacted upon various indigenous peoples during colonial times; and certainly the nascent governments of colonial powers had more direct responsibility for those atrocities than the distant European powers that originally empowered them.

[...] but fail to understand that yes it really does mean that the government of San Francisco would change and the opinion of expelling the population and destroying the city would be available.