> 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.