• adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    by voting to become a state - especially to such an overwhelming majority - you can hardly argue a dispositive attitude towards the US being there or towards joining the union. so, not only have you moved the goalposts, you’re arguing a straw man and your own emotions.

    I’m sticking with provable facts.

    • Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory. Not for independence. It’d be like offering a scrap of bread to a starving man in exchange for the man legitimizing your ability to keep him malnourished.

      The ole adage of "the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited " comes to mind.

      Since you can’t be assed to read your own damn wiki article I assume you’re just in bad faith.

      • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Once again they were given a choice between becoming a state or remaining a territory

        Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.

        That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.

        • Kaputnik [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year ago

          Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?

          • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement

            sure. why not? people can object to or protest anything.

            the fee expression of speech in a democratic forum, however, certainly argues against any of this being “fascist”, though. thanks of pointing this out!

            • Kaputnik [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              So then your point about

              Hawaiians could have protested, revolted, or one of many other options. But they didn’t.

              Is false

              So to quote you

              That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure.

              • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Is false

                only if you intentionally take them out of context and twist the meaning. because they didn’t do that before the vote. as you said:

                Like the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement which began actively protesting and gained support in the 1960s, pretty soon after the referendum?

                so, despite your obviously bad-faith and disingenuous argument, I’m not as stupid as you think I am. nice try.

                That’s the thing about facts— your opinions don’t magically make them untrue, regardless of how many folksy sayings or logical fallacies you conjure. NOR how much you try to twist my words.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          What if 90% of Hawaiians had revolted (and lost) while 90%+ of the other 10% of Hawaiians voted in the referendum?

        • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state. While being a state is nominally better than being outright occupied subjects, prior to colonization they were better off, and you suggest decolonization and not being colonized aren’t options.

          • adroit balloon@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You’re the one reducing possibilities. Your dichotomy is between staying a territory and becoming a state

            I never made this argument, but several others here did. in fact, I, several times, pointed out that there were other possibilities.

            clearly you’re confused.