Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmarreck | Hacker News Reader

If these are similar to other "uncontacted" tribes I've read about, they seem to react quite violently/aggressively when confronted (it doesn't matter if it's a reaction to fear... if someone's shooting arrows at you first and asking questions later and you have a gun... most people are going to return fire), so if the gold miners said they either had to kill or be killed, I'm inclined to believe them unfortunately.

View on HN

The ridiculous thing is that they were allowed to go there in the first place. It's relatively common knowledge that these tribes are extremely hostile to outsiders and should be left alone, allowing gold mining there is basically signing their death warrants.

If these are similar to other "uncontacted" tribes I've read about, they seem to react quite violently/aggressively when confronted

As you would do, if a bunch of assholes started encroaching on your ancestral property.

So if the gold miners said they either had to kill or be killed, I'm inclined to believe them unfortunately.

No -- what they needed to do was just GTFO out of there, being as they clearly had no business being in those areas in first place. Paycheck, or "boss's orders" be damned.

Why does the concept of "ancestral property" somehow suddenly make violence acceptable to you. If the bank or government forecloses on my mother's house, I can shoot whoever comes to take ownership?

If the bank or government forecloses on my mother's house, I can shoot whoever comes to take ownership?

That's clearly not a relevant analogy.

Why does the concept of "ancestral property" somehow suddenly make violence acceptable to you.

Look, it was the person above me who was saying, basically, that it was the miners' violence against the tribespeople that was "acceptable" (paraphrasing, but that's what they basically said). So perhaps you should take up this line of discussion with them, instead.

All I'm saying is - if you knowingly invade territory known to be inhabited by an "uncontacted" community -- that is to say: by definition, a fully sovereign community, and not bound by any treaties with your own government -- and you don't expect the same kind of response (i.e. violent) any self-respecting community would make when not just their land, but their very survival comes under direct attack -- then at the very least, you're pretty damn naive.

And on top of that, it becomes really, really hard to see why you might deserve any sympathy.

What if they did expect a response, and then simply answered violence with violence?

Typically the person considered to be at fault is the initiator of violence.

In deciding to encroach upon those tribal properties (and hence, implicitly threatening the long-term physical survival of the people currently living there), clearly it's the miners who initiated violence, in this case.

Trespassing is an "implicit threat" that justifies initiation of violence to you?

That's fine if they want to attack anyone they perceive as being intruders. But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well. Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.

Trespassing is an "implicit threat" that justifies initiation of violence to you?

You're dodging the central issue: that it was the miners' act of trespass that, in itself, constituted the "initiation of violence" in this case.

But once they do, retaliation is fair game as well.

Sorry, but there's a very clear moral gradient at play here. It seems like you're trying to suggest there's at least some rough equivalence between the actions of the two parties. But if so, then I just don't buy that argument, at all.

Should we not defend against military invasions? There is no neutral arbiter in these cases.

Their self-defense claim is one thing, but it's a whole other thing to brag about it, claim to have a trophy and to have desecrated the bodies.

Could be a rationalization to cope with the trauma/horror of having killed someone, similar to "inappropriate" wartime or gallows humor; depersonalizing your victim is one way to avoid the full guilt of what you did and is a common psychological coping mechanism (that's not saying it's good...)

I admire your dedication to the principle of charity

I was a Psych major. Apparently the essence of what it taught me was "empathy for others" and "intolerance for bullshit" :) I am now seemingly surrounded by the un-empathetic (and the uncritical-thinking...)

Probably the one piece of information that would make one more empathetic is reading up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_bias#Fundamental_a...

> I am now seemingly surrounded by the un-empathetic (and the uncritical-thinking...)

Then you cite fundamental attribution error...

Perhaps what's really happening is other are recognizing that the statement "it was kill or be killed" is not enough to determine what exactly happened, and does not necessarily mean the miners were attacked.

Even if the miners were attacked and had to kill in self-defense the other claims would still be crimes. If they were a "psychological coping mechanism", that would not absolve guilt, but only be relevant for determining punishment.

you've never been (or perhaps don't know the culture) in Brazil. Had you been you might recognize this for what it was most likely was - murder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com