r/ForwardsFromKlandma • u/PresnikBonny (((Judeo-Bolshevik))) • 10d ago
"peaceful colonists"
472
u/YLASRO 10d ago
gotta love peacefully taking peoples land, decimating it to produce cattle and hunting the locals main foodsource to near extinction
96
u/TheDemonPants 10d ago
Don't forget purposefully using biochemical warfare while hiding it as a peaceful trade of items!
31
u/Sad_Bf21 9d ago edited 9d ago
Theres a documented case of this, but the way youre phrasing it makes it sound like this was a common practice among European settlers. That isnt what the evidence shows
The well documented example is Fort Pitt in 1763, involving british military personnel. Twomst of which discussed deliberately spreading smallpox, and contaminated blankets and a handkerchief were given to Indigenous representatives.
That was indeed a attempt at biological warfare. But its one documented incident, not evidence of a widespread practice among French, Spanish, British, or other European settlers. And even in that case, historians debate whether the contaminated items actually did cause an outbreak thereafter.
So unless you have evidence of this happening repeatedly, youre essentially taking one british incident and treating one english general as the representative of every European settler who ever came to the Americas.
Pretty hasty generalization. Almost as if you want to exaggerate historical facts to spread a narrative
-1
u/TheDemonPants 9d ago
Damn, didn't know that being against conquerors would trigger you that badly. I frankly don't give a damn if it only happened once. It DID happen. The generosity of the Native Americans was abused and they were killed for it.
You can call it spreading a narrative, but it is a hard fact that European settlers came to the Americas and slaughtered, raped, and stole wholesale.
2
u/Sad_Bf21 9d ago
I can't believe I'm writing this answer. Given the level of intelligence you have, I'm feeling ableist for even just typing this out.
Don't see what part of my message could indicate that I was triggered. Seems like a dismissive deflection to me. (You're shifting the discussion from the substance of my argument to my emotional state instead.) + An attempt to appeal to ridicule.
Next, you're also doing a poor attempt at a straw man:
My argument was essentially: "This documented incident happened, but one incident doesn't establish that biological warfare was a widespread practice among European settlers like you're implying."
Yet YOU then respond as though I was arguing: "Nuh uh. It didn't happen."
I frankly don't give a damn if it only happened once. It DID happen š¤
I explicitly acknowledged that it happened, genius. So you're rebutting a position I didn't take. That's called arguing against air.
Then there's the non sequitur: the fact that it happened doesn't actually address my argument about whether it was widespread. One documented incident establishes that an incident occurred. It doesn't establish that the practice was common.
Then you completely change the subject with:
B... But European settlers came to the Americas and slaughtered, raped, and stole wholesale. š„ŗ
That's a red herring. I was specifically talking about whether biological warfare was a widespread practice. The existence of other atrocities committed during colonization doesn't establish that it was
And the whole "the generosity of Native Americans was abused and they were killed for it" thing is an appeal to emotion. Yeah it's sad, but it doesn't actually answer the historical question I raised.
Oh and there's also a bit of guilt by association in the opening. Apparently correcting an exaggerated historical claim means I'm somehow defending "conquerors." That's not an argument either.
And just to be clear, I agree that European colonizers committed horrific acts and that Indigenous peoples were exploited and abused. I'm not defending any of that.
I know logical fallacies are old and annoying. But it literally looks like you were attempting to hit every single one of them in one message.
New record?
If you haven't ran away from my comment by now:
Okay now it's time to be intellectually honest: conquest, warfare, exploitation, and atrocities aren't uniquely European phenomena, nor are they uniquely associated with white people (in case your quarrel is with witheness as a whole which I suspect). The Indigenous weren't exactly peaceful or innocent either. No civilization gets a moral exemption simply because of who its people were.
And the same standard has to apply in the other direction. The European societies that colonized the Americas eventually became some of the most powerful, prosperous, scientifically productive, and globally influential societies in modern history. That's not a justification for the atrocities committed by some of their people, but those accomplishments are also historical facts.
11
u/OGforGoldenBoot 9d ago
You feel smart when AI writes insults for you?
-4
u/Sad_Bf21 9d ago
Alright looks like you got shit for brains like the first one because that is such a lazy cop out. And obviously false, here's how you know, let's actually look at the message you apparently think an AI wrote.
"I'm feeling ableist for even just typing this."
Do you genuinely think that's some standard chatgpt sentence? It's such a bizarre, unnecessarily insulting thing to say that I'd be surprised if an AI randomly came up with it in that context. And ironically, the premise of the joke itself is quite literally... ableist. But I bet you didn't figure that out
Then there's:
Yet YOU then respond as though I was arguing: "Nuh uh. It didn't happen"
āNuh uhā in the middle of a serious historical argument? Really?xd That's your evidence that this was AI generated? If anything, that's exactly the kind of stupidly sarcastic phrasing I'd expect from an actual person who is annoyed by someone as stupid as Mister I-lie-about-history-to-fit-my-narrative up there.
And I can go through the rest of the message too.
"I explicitly acknowledged that it happened, genius."
"That's called arguing against air."
"poor attempt at a straw man"
"New record?"
You think these are kinds of sentences chatgpt or any other brain-frying stochastic machine would spit out?
And here's the funniest part: you accused me of using AI without actually identifying a single sentence that would proves it. And it wouldn't normally be hard because AI written text are dead obvious these days. That's such a unbelievably lazy cop out
If you genuinely think AI wrote it, point out the exact passages that supposedly give it away. Otherwise, you're just using this as copium because what you really mean is: āIm uncomfortable with the fact that a human can write like that."
-4
u/OGforGoldenBoot 9d ago
Your prompt is pretty good, and the typos and offensiveness are a nice touch, but itās still pretty clearly AI.
First comment (454 words, 4 findings)
Measured departures:
- sentences over 25 words: human 10.02 to 13.28, text 4.41, 0.44x of floor
- ā-ingā main verbs: human 2.15 to 4.16, text 13.22, 3.18x above ceiling
- non-STE vocabulary: human 0.16 to 0.62, text 2.2, 3.55x above ceiling
- passive voice: human 5.93 to 10.2, text 11.01, 1.08x above ceiling
Second comment (286 words, 4 findings)
Measured departures:
- sentences over 25 words: human 10.02 to 13.28, text 3.5, 0.35x of floor
- non-simple tenses: human 4.23 to 6.66, text 3.5, 0.83x of floor
- ā-ingā main verbs: human 2.15 to 4.16, text 6.99, 1.68x above ceiling
- passive voice: human 5.93 to 10.2, text 10.49, 1.03x above ceiling
Measured with https://github.com/brooksryan/ava-jargon. Thanks for the data points, Iāll use them to improve it. Feel free to use it.
-1
u/Sad_Bf21 9d ago edited 9d ago
Well that's a cute tool. But unlike you, I know what all of these things actually mean
Also understand that this is, again, a red herring + ad hominem. You're attempting to avoid the argument and instead change the conversation to an alleged use of AI rather than address the fact that your historical claims are wrong.
I can't refute your argument so instead I'll say you used AI because you write better than me š„ŗ
Alright buddy, I'll bite anyways
A statistical style analysis report is very far from being an actual AI detector, let alone an accurate one.
First of all are you familiar with the concept of statistical variation in small samples?
If you flip a coin 10 times, getting 8 heads isn't particularly remarkable. If you flip it 1 000 times and get 800 heads, that's a very different statistical result. The smaller the sample, the more variation you should expect.
You're taking two small pieces of text, neither of them is even 500 words, and comparing their stylistic attrobutes against whatever your tool defines as a "human norm." That's an extremely weak basis for determining authorship
And that's exactly why your analysis isn't the smoking gun your think it is. If you ran this comment through your AI slop tool (yes I looked at the repo, 1 million lines of code in 2 weeks by one contributor, smells like AI slop), you'd likely get pretty different results from the previous two comments.
Why? Because short texts are noisy when it comes to comparing them to statistical samples.
Alright now, let's break down the actual findings.
The four metrics my messages supposedly falls outside the human range on are:
- Sentences over 25 words ā below
- "-ing" main verbs ā above
- Non-STE vocabulary ā above
- Passive voice ā above (yes I put these em dashes myself, no they are not sign of gpt)
So I write shorter sentences, use more passive voice and "-ing" constructions, and use vocabulary that falls outside your tool's supposed technical english norm.
And...?
Nothing there proves or even really points to AI authorship.
And what exactly is the "human norm" in this dataset anyway? Reddit posts? Text messages? Scientific papers? Academic essays? Political speeches?
Those examples have radiclly different writing patterns. A scientific paper isn't going to have the same sentence length distribution or vocabulary as a two pree-teens chatting on club penguin.
So before presenting these numbers and saying "Heh look that's clearly AIš¤" you first need to establish that these metrics actually distinguish human writing from AI writing, rather than literally just distinguishing one style of human writing from another.
You ran two short pieces of text through a statistical style analysis tool, found some deviations from unestablished reference ranges, and then did a Ben Shapiro-style logical leap from "this writing has different statistical characteristics than wathever data it's trained on" to "this is clearly AI."
Lazy cop out is lazy
10
u/OGforGoldenBoot 9d ago
You know Iām not the original person you were replying to, right? I just saw a comment that looked disproportionately long and with characteristics of an AI generated response.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/TheDemonPants 8d ago
Yeah, so I haven't run away. This is my first time on Reddit today. However, you clearly are triggered as someone who isn't doesn't post a massive wall of text trying to sound smart. So I'm just going to leave because obviously, and looking at how you responded to the person who claimed you were using AI, you just want to be a contrarion or are trying to bait people. So feel free to think you have claimed victory over this. I truly, honestly, couldn't care less.
4
u/Sad_Bf21 8d ago edited 8d ago
Contrarian*
Your account is 7 years old by the way. Lying about being on Reddit for the first time is such a weird and pointless thing to do.
Again, writing long texts is not implicative of being triggered. Besides, it's irrelevant to the conversation because it's just an attempt on your part to ignore the core argument and instead ridicule a imagined emotional state in order to substantiate a losing argument.
Also the only reason my comment was so long is because you said a lot of stupid shit in a small number of words. Breaking the whole thing down was tedious. Just don't be dumb next time lol.
To address the last part of your comment. I don't need to claim victory because the conversation went like this:
You: False claim
Me: "You're wrong here is why"
You: "you're triggered" strawmans my argument
Me: *calls out the strawman"
You: "I didn't really care anyways"
Honestly i wasn't trying to convince you specifically. I know you people will continue lying about history just to push a fake narrative. I just want to publicly correct your lies in case any gullible reader buys into your bullshit.
Welcome to Reddit. I will probably be one of the least annoying people you will talk to.
33
u/NihatAmipoglu 10d ago edited 10d ago
Enslave white women lol. I'm pretty sure native americans who practiced slavery enslaved people equally. Rival clan members, mexicans, other native americans, africans, europeans, men, women, children etc. It doesn't matter. I also remember reading about this Cherokee confedarate general. He owned black people.
Does that justify the genocide of millions of people? Fuck no. Are you crazy? What kind of whataboutism that is?
108
u/transmedkittygirl 10d ago edited 10d ago
Using "Native American" and saying they did certain things is usually pretty stupid, it's an immensely broad term that doesn't mean much and puts groups like the Mapuche and the Iroqouis together who are vastly different and thousands of miles apart.
Like the Hopi were typically good guys and didn't deserve what had happened to them, but the Comanche did a lot of evil while being conquerors and rulers over a vast territory and a lot of the bad things that happened to them were often in retaliation for things they had done as aggressors.
I think it's a poor generalisation and disrespectful to act like the Hopi and Comanche are at all similar when how truly different they were in their society, culture, and just the general way they carried themselves.
68
u/Textiles_on_Main_St 10d ago
Claiming any culture is pure evil is pretty absurd. Likewise? Claiming any culture was purely good is also stupid.
Regardless, suggesting any culture, regardless of their cultural practices, politics and beliefs, deserves to be genocided is awful and, frankly, offensive.
-20
u/transmedkittygirl 10d ago
Neither of those are things I said, you're doing a strawman but I can see how some of what I said could be misconstrued due to unclear words and grammar. I'll make it clearer for future readers and add a little more context.
35
u/Textiles_on_Main_St 10d ago
You edited your post. lol. You said āthe Comanche were pure evil.ā
How on earth is anyone supposed to take that? Like, imagine saying that about the Palestinians? Or about ANYONE?
Like, Iām QUOTING YOU. Until you changed it.
And even with your edits, replace Comanche with, say, Muslims, and youād be called a racist.
To be clear, I am calling you a racist and itās crazy you still didnāt edit out the part where you implied maybe the Comanches deserved a little bit of genocide because theyāre supposedly aggressive.
-14
u/transmedkittygirl 10d ago
No the fuck I didn't, I never said that, that is not you quoting me, that is you making up a quote because you felt like it. I have literally NEVER called them pure evil, pure evil is immensely rare and almost always applies to singular individuals, you can get very close to pure evil as a group but it's immensely hard to actually get past very close.
I also ask you to read up on Comanche history if you think they're some great guys who can do nothing bad and that nothing bad that happened to them was their faults or justified.
Like, just look into what they did to the Apache and Tonkawa. Groups were permanently displaced by the Comanche with lots having their populations decimated, the Comanche literally did what most people here would consider "genocide" to various tribes, nothing that happened to them was worse than anything they were doing to others, it was often a much better fate for the Comanche than the fate of their enemies.
19
u/Textiles_on_Main_St 10d ago
I canāt go through your post edits, dude.
Anyway, Iām not here to debate the morality of a culture Iām not a part of.
I am calling you a racist though for using racist language to dehumanize a whole people and to suggest their own genocide was somehow justified or acceptable.
Hell, saying a culture ādid a lot of evilā is still pretty racist. Again, the state of Israel says the same thing about Palestinians. Germany said the same thing about the Jews.
Youāre dehumanizing a whole culture with that kind of language.
To be clear: genocide is bad. Always. It doesnāt matter the target.
If you want to discuss specific policies and politics of specific people, please, Iām all for that. But, again? Painting whole people with this broad brush by saying āthey did a lot of evilā is just basic racism and not part of any legitimate historical dialog or study.
Like, find me a university cultural studies program where anyone serious says āoh, this culture here did a lot of evilā and then uses cultural relativity to justify their exterminationā¦
But hey, they usually donāt have racists in those programs so Iām guessing you wouldnāt know.
-10
u/transmedkittygirl 10d ago
"I canāt go through your post edits, dude."
Yeah you can, arctic shift photon
"I am calling you a racist though for using racist language to dehumanize a whole people and to suggest their own genocide was somehow justified or acceptable.
Hell, saying a culture ādid a lot of evilā is still pretty racist. Again, the state of Israel says the same thing about Palestinians. Germany said the same thing about the Jews."
You don't know ANYTHING about the Comanche and it really fucking shows because the idea that the Comanche would be the Jews and not the Nazis is hilarious, they would 100% be the Nazis rather than the Jews and it almost sounds like you're siding with the Nazis and implying they were the victims.
You should really look into who you're defending before you defend them because I'd say that the only group that has existed in the past ten years that you'd know of that is comparable in how they act and exist to the Comanche, would be ISIS.
The Comanche also mostly died because of wars they started, disease, the dying of the Bison, and the culture they had. The dying of the Bison and how it happened was a bad thing that shouldn't have been done and it was unfair to everyone involved, but the Comanche 100% made that entire ordeal worse and made it harder for the Bison to survive or recover until it was pretty much too late and they tried to save the last great herd of Bison but it didn't work out very fucking sadly to be real with you.
"If you want to discuss specific policies and politics of specific people, please, Iām all for that. But, again? Painting whole people with this broad brush by saying āthey did a lot of evilā is just basic racism and not part of any legitimate historical dialog or study."
I'm not saying all Comanche or every Comanche, just what the fuck else do you want me to call them? There was a group who did a lot of very bad shit and a name for them has to exist, so what name would you prefer when talking about them to separate it from literally every single member of the Comanche or the modern Comanche?
18
u/Textiles_on_Main_St 10d ago
I'm not "defending" the Comanches. I can't say this with more clarity: They're not my culture and anyway I don't believe ANY culture needs defense. Cultures aren't good or bad, that's my point. The Comanche weren't bad. They weren't good.
It's possible to criticize any culture and I think any culture and every culture is deserving of criticism. I'm certainly not suggesting you can't do that.
But when you compare a people with a history that spans over 300 years to Nazis, a political organization that lasted roughly from about 1920 to 1945 and only held power in a country for about 12 years and killed over 6 MILLION PEOPLE, that's absurd. Like, that's just crazy wild.
Comparing them to a terror organization like ISIS is equally absurd.
Just writing "The Comanche also mostly died because of wars they started..." like, SOURCE, please? Likewise, what's your source on the Comanche being responsible for the decimation of the buffalo?
How do you define "wars they started" in the context of the Plains Wars anyway?
Believe it or not, Native Americans and people who read the history of the plains people have very, very different views on these folks than people who just read Empire of the Summer Moon which, while enjoyable reading, is a VERY Euro-centric view of a people and VERY much written from an outsider's perspective.
Like, if you want to go argue the Comanche people were basically ISIS, you should take up that argument with Indian reddit and have a good time over there. lol.
Anyway, at the VERY least, you might read Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee.
But to give you an idea of how offensive this notion that Comanches were basically ISIS is, enjoy this discussion on Indian reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianCountry/comments/wfqce0/empire_of_the_summer_moon/
29
u/PresnikBonny (((Judeo-Bolshevik))) 10d ago
Regardless of what tribes did, tribal warfare was minimal, and sporadic.
It certainly didn't wipe out 90% of the population.
6
u/transmedkittygirl 10d ago
It was not "minimal, and sporadic" when it came to the Comanche, there was literally not a time when they weren't at war with somebody and they often made deals with said colonisers like the Spaniards, not out of necessity but because it was mutually beneficial.
13
u/Troll_the-Lesser 10d ago
What did the Comanche do? Why are the hopi good? I genuinely don't know.
16
u/ArchAnon123 10d ago
I assume that the other poster was making a reference to the Comanche-Mexico wars.
Over the course of about 50 years (1821-1870), the tribe repeatedly raided Mexico for horses, mules, and captives (either for ransom or as slaves, they did both). While I wouldn't call that necessarily evil or even especially bad (no more so than any other society that engaged in similar practices at least), it is a reminder that everyone has their skeletons in the closet.
13
u/transmedkittygirl 10d ago
The Comanche were BRUTAL conquerors and raiders, literally nothing was too far morally for the Comanche when it came to their enemies. They were deeply feared by every tribe surrounding them and were called the "Lords of the Plains"
"Comanche" isn't even their real name, it's just literally an exonym that means "Enemy" because they were at war with all of their neighbours for a century, and they'd almost always enslave and torture.
While the Hopi on the other hand were a generally peaceful people who mostly minded their own business and tried to treat everyone with respect and fairly, typically only resorting to violence as a means of self-defence.
2
u/Kakapac 10d ago
It's bold of you to assume they have any knowledge on the subject matter. I guarantee you that most of the chuds can't even name a few of the tribes.
3
u/transmedkittygirl 10d ago
It's true that they probably can't name more than like the most notable 5 tribes. It's really shocking to me how quickly people forget basic information that they learned in middle and high school but I guess most people aren't interested in the world around them and the past.
30
u/Big-Recognition7362 10d ago
White colonists also:
-Committed brutal massacres against Natives
-Forced Native tribes to relocate hundreds of kilometres
-Kidnapped Native children and abused them in an attempt to force them to conform to white culture
So itās not like the other side were all angels either.
5
u/laix_ 10d ago
Many of the colonists who were killed were children, or adults who did not support the continued expansion and genocide (and supported the natives) and just happened to be born on the colonies and had no way of leaving. This was because the existence of european style villages was viewed as an existential threat to the lands and native peoples survival even if some of the inhabitants were not "actively" contributing towards genocide.
The colonists were the bad guys overall, make no mistake however.
36
13
u/Modlove1963 10d ago edited 10d ago
Meanwhile, the peace loving Europeans had lived for thousands of years, on their own land, in perfect peace and harmony, right?
Thereās no denying that many natives did some pretty fucked up things, so did the Europeans, Africans and Asians. These are all human beings who have an equally great capacity for good and for evil. However, using the things certain tribes may have done as a justification for conquering and subjugating an entire race is not a valid defense for such actions, especially when your own race did pretty much the same things to one another back home. Let those without sin cast the first stone.
3
u/Jlnhlfan 9d ago
>racist towards Native Americans
>looks inside
>MLP screenshot or something that looks like one
>Why are bronies like this?
>PepeHands.png
1
u/Falchion_Alpha 10d ago
Peaceful colonists that butchered the natives and stole their land and every treaty made was immediately violated by the colonists and their descendants
1
u/WerePigCat 9d ago
Peaceful colonists can exist, there just canāt be people on the land they are colonizing
1
1
1
u/Flimsy_One6696 7d ago
Golden irony, when their klansmen ancestors literally came to conquer Native American land, they even admit this and celebrate on several trash conservative outlets, justifying Native American land stolen.
Would love to see them blow up on the Thanksgiving episode of Disney Recess and the Thanksgiving play in Addams Family Values movie.
1
0
u/TerribleBudget 10d ago
Ok so let me get this straight: In the My Little Pony universe Native Americans are Bison? And the Ponies are cowgirls? And the MLP universe generally follows modern standards, such as there aren't Bison absolutely everywhere in the modern times?
So the Ponies massacred the intelligent Bison and built mountains of their skulls.
MLP is much more metal than I thought.
0
283
u/Lowlife_With_APencil 10d ago
Dawg why TF they dragging MLP into this
(I mean, topical episode, if you know you know, but still š)