Comment by vrganj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vrganj | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Predicated" means "to establish".

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?

Amazing. I do not owe a foreigner a debate or explanation on how their contrived and ridiculous claim about the origin of my country is wrong. You start off by violating the very same rule that you now claim that I am violating, and then get upset that I respond in kind. 10/10, no notes.

First of all, may I again gently point at the rules? You may find this one relevant:

> 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.

Except I haven't devolved from anything. It's entirely consistent, and the whole chain confirms that it isn't possible to coherently debate this with people whose starting position is insane, like yours. At it is insane to assert that "trivially every other country has a better rack record" than the US does, and it is insane to claim that the US was founded with the express intention of killing off the indigenous inhabitants of North America. These are insane positions to hold, and yet ... here you are.

Appreciate you continuing to explore.

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!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com