Schmoo

Joe Rogan, is that you?

You have to be careful not to go too far in the other direction as well. We may be blameless for atrocities that were committed by our ancestors but we do bear some responsibility to address the lasting effects of those atrocities and to oppose the continued settler-colonial project of which we are still part.

And don't take this the wrong way, responsibility does not equal guilt. Every US citizen is not guilty of invading Iraq, for example, but every US citizen does bear some responsibility to oppose the systems of power that allowed such a thing to be done in our name.

I don't know enough about the history of Australian colonization to speak authoritatively about it. If I had to guess I'd say that those who found themselves on the wrong side of the British empire's laws were given some kind of choice and found the option of being sent to settle Australia preferable to whatever alternative was presented. In that sense they could be considered settlers, but it could possibly have been a choice made under duress.

That being said it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to hear that they were similarly brutal towards the aborigines as settlers in America were towards the native Americans. History is complicated and there is no black and white, but there are rights and wrongs and it's important to recognize that while genocide can be explained, it cannot be excused.

It might surprise you that the prisoners weren't the ones in charge of any so-called prison colonies.

As a white American descendant of colonial settlers, they're not entirely wrong, it's just that their anger is misdirected. It should be directed at those in power rather than regular people. It's unreasonable to expect all descendants of colonial settlers to leave, but it's not unreasonable to ask them to be aware of their history and how the systems of power and control that were put in place then are still going strong today.

Given I can't see your original comment they were responding to I'll reserve judgement regarding whether what they said is reasonable.

In all fairness that was probably necessary to make it to the presidency with her head still firmly attached to her body.

You can't take back what's already been given, so you just learn and move on. Whether to keep their art or throw it out is your choice, just don't support them in the future.

For example, I own a painting by Salvador Dali. Salvador Dali - if you don't know - is a fascist. I inherited the painting, and even the previous owner likely purchased the painting after Salvador Dali was dead. My owning the painting does not support Salvador Dali in any way, and the painting has nothing to do with his fascist views. Most people would not recognize that it is a Salvador Dali painting and even fewer would know about his political leanings. It doesn't bother me to hang the painting on my wall, and in the right context and company it can even make a good conversation piece.

Or you could do that by default while very selectively supporting specific artists. That way you can both stay within your means and exercise moral discretion over who you support.

It's easy to talk out of your ass about how you would have done a better job, but you clearly have no idea what the circumstances were that the prosecution team was dealing with. This particular piece of evidence for example was attempted to be admitted but was denied by the judge for being "irrelevant to the case." The prosecution was fighting a court stacked against them and you would have had a hard time as well.

his solution (for a class of "intellectuals" like him to take charge) however, are just neoliberal swill

This is such a common pitfall that even self-described communists fall into it as well. When you hear people talk about a "dictatorship of the proletariat," what they're describing tends to devolve into "a class of intellectuals needs to guide the working class to the correct decisions" when questioned about what a "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually entails. Often they'll try to justify it by saying it's only temporary, but we all know how that pans out (see the USSR). This is why I consider myself an anarchist rather than a communist and regularly critique marxism-leninism.

I suppose I excluded some important detail. The reason I had wanted to read the Bible then was so I could better understand God's word and confront my family with that understanding. But reading the Bible didn't clarify things for me the way I thought it would, instead of clear instruction on right and wrong I found more hypocrisy and contradiction, as well as a disturbing focus on the appropriate conduct of slave-owners and the treatment of women as property.

Reading the Bible gave me the same whiplash I felt seeing the hypocrisy of the people around me, which made me realize that it wasn't in spite of their faith, but because of it.

When I was young growing up Southern Baptist there was one time where the pastor preached about this verse, and the whiplash I felt when I heard family members bad-mouthing immigrants the moment they stepped outside is partly what led me to read the Bible myself, which led to me losing my faith.