The only ideological move is your continued refusal to address the factual claims - instead writing a long-winded comment to distract from it.
Two wordy paragraphs. Not a single word about the fate of native Americans. Speaks for itself, huh.
You still haven't addressed the topic you introduced, you are still derailing by attempting personal attacks.
The record speaks for itself.
This is your original comment. "Predicated" means "to establish". So, your claim is the United States was founded "to ethnically cleanse the continent of native americans and large-scale ecocide". Can you find some primary sources, from George Washington perhaps, where he says "we are founding this country to kill the natives". Please be specific. Is English not your first language?
Again, this is such a common thing. You are the one that introduced this absurd claim, not me. I have not derailed anything, and there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American. I don't have to put up with this bullshit from people like you anymore.
I believe your disagreement might be based on an imprecise understanding of the word then.
> If an idea or argument is predicated on something, it depends on the existence or truth of this thing
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/be-predi...
Predicated means something is a precondition for something existing, not something was created to do something.
Funnily enough though, there actually are letters from Washington declaring said intent (think the May 31, 1779 letter to Sullivan), but that wasn't even the claim I made.
> Is English not your first language?
It's my fourth, actually. But I'd like to think I do pretty well in it and understand its nuances :-)
Anyways, I will note, that you are still distracting from the claim. You are still doing anything but addressing the substance of what happened to the Native Americans. You still refuse to discuss the track record you yourself introduced.
> there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American. I don't have to put up with this bullshit from people like you anymore.
May I suggest refamiliarizing yourself with the rules, particularly the bit about ideology trampling curiosity?
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
Anyways, so many replies deep and still all distraction, anything but actually engaging with the substance - the very thing you claimed to be against! - on the topic you brought up.
It's devolved from - and I quote - "I don't think it's possible to coherently debate these policy moves when the starting point for the opposition is "I am choosing to be insane about my view of history and the position of the respective countries party to the dispute"" to claiming "there is nothing you could possibly say to convince me that I'm wrong. Because, as implied, I am an American"
What a turn, huh? What could possibly explain this dramatic shift in position? Why are you still avoiding the fate of the Native Americans, so many comments in? Why are you debasing your entire position just to run from this line of argument? Why are you, to use your own terms, creating an ideological black hole to redirect the debate?
There's a Slovenian philosopher named Slavoj Zizek, who's famous for his analysis of ideology. Let me leave you with a few quotes of his I think you'll find enlightening:
"Ideology is not a lie which misrepresents the truth; it is a lie which enables you to endure the truth."
"Everyday reality is an escape from the traumatic encounter with the Real."
"To step out of ideology, it hurts. It's a painful experience. You must force yourself to do it".
Aren't they interesting? It's been a joy exploring them together.
Note how you're still doing it, by clinging on to an already-invalidated definition of purpose instead of precondition and still refusing to actually face the track record you introduced.
It's been lovely, but I think this exploration of ideology has run its course, there's not really more to see from here.
We've already gone from claiming to want debate all the way down to expressing pure nationalist xenophobia and expressly stating to be closed to any argument.
We now even had confession that that was the consistent position all along, revealing the call for rational debate was never the true position - it had been an ideological device all along.
We've already witnessed so many levels of fetishistic disavowal. There's nothing new left to look at, we've fully looped around to just restating the original thesis.
Thank you again for sharing!