• adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory

    Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.

    That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.

    • Kaputnik [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?

      • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

        sure. why not? people can object to or protest anything.

        the fee expression of speech in a democratic forum, however, certainly argues against any of this being “fascist”, though. thanks of pointing this out!

        • Kaputnik [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          So then your point about

          Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.

          Is false

          So to quote you

          That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.

          • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is false

            only if you intentionally take them out of context and twist the meaning. because they didn’t do that before the vote. as you said:

            Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?

            so, despite your obviously bad-faith and disingenuous argument, I’m not as stupid as you think I am. nice try.

            That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure. NOR how much you try to twist my words.

              • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                you’re this desperate? wow

                you’ll do anything but make a rational argument based on facts.

                • Kaputnik [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I dunno what to tell you dawg if you can’t understand that a referendum of Hawaiian residents from 1959 doesn’t represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians after 60 years of American control and immigration to the island. If you’re so into facts and stats you should know a representative measure of their opinion could only be done through a survey of Native Hawaiians

                  • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    doesn’t represent the opinions of Native Hawaiians

                    1. that was never my argument
                    2. this is a straw man argument because you couldn’t argue agains the facts I initially stated and moved the goalposts from Hawaiian residents to Hawaiian natives
                    3. as such, it’s irrelevant

                    even if it were relevant then it isn’t now just because you’re angry about… whatever.

                    If you’re so into facts and stats you should know a representative measure of their opinion could only be done through a survey of Native Hawaiians

                    well, why don’t you do that and come back when YOU have some relevant facts to present, and we can talk again.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if 90% of Hawaiians had revolted (and lost) while 90%+ of the other 10% of Hawaiians voted in the referendum?

    • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.

      • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state

        I never made this argument, but several others here did. in fact, I, several times, pointed out that there were other possibilities.

        clearly you’re confused.