Jump to content
jmeza111401

best k aff for next year

Recommended Posts

so im not the best k debater but im really interested in these high theory arguments.i am thinking of running a k aff next year but im not sure were i should start ? i know i dont have the time to read/ understand everything but if yall can give me some recomendations on where i should start that be great 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Identity K AFFs (going to probably be the most popular)

     a.Settler Colonialism

     b.Anti-Blackness

     c.Model Minority

     d.Mestiza Consciousness (Borderlands by Anzaldua)

Baudrillard K AFF (can't go wrong with this)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mestiza Consciousness is a theory in which latino/a live in a borderland between world where one (usually at home) you are forced to speak Spanish while at school, you are forced to speak English. Anzaldua (the author of Borderlands, would highly recommend if you were to get into the literature) is pretty specific on how at schools they force latino/a to speak English and to abandon their tongue. The idea is that you are in the middle, where you are forced to do both.

There is usually poetry, as code switching is a form of affirming the latino/a identity.

Heres a card

Our exploration through subjective pluralism produces divergent thinking that allows us as xican@s to affirm our own identity

Anzaldúa, Scholar of Chicana cultural theory, feminist theory, and queer theory, 1987[Gloria E., Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, p. 79, J.J.]

These numerous possibilities leave la mestiza floundering in uncharted seas. In perceiving conflicting information and points of view, she is subjected to a swamping of her psychological borders. She has discovered that she can't hold concepts or ideas in rigid boundaries. The borders and walls that are supposed to keep the undesirable ideas out are entrenched habits and patterns of behavior; these habits and patterns are the enemy within. Rigidity means death. Only by remaining flexible is she able to stretch the psyche horizontally and vertically. La mestiza constantly has to shift out of habitual formations; from convergent thinking, analytical reasoning that tends to use rationality to move toward a single goal (a Western mode), to divergent thinking, characterized by movement away from set patterns and goals and toward a more whole perspective, one that includes rather than excludes. The new mestiza copes by developing a tolerance for contradictions, a tolerance for ambiguity. She learns to be an Indian in Mexican culture, to be Mexican from an Anglo point of view.

Edited by DeliciousQ
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy k aff to do regarding immigration would be open borders/unconditional hospitality a la Levinas. Not that hard to understand and would be easily adaptable to read a plan text if judging dictates it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy k aff to do regarding immigration would be open borders/unconditional hospitality a la Levinas. Not that hard to understand and would be easily adaptable to read a plan text if judging dictates it.

 

Honestly with open borders affs, I think you should always read a plan text, it's a topical aff at heart. Otherwise you just lose to the TVA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, try doing independent research on the topic and how different literature bases interact with it. For example there's plenty of deleuzean literature on the topic, but I'm not interested much in that because I'm more interested in the treatment and conditions of queer migrants. One of my friends however, they love that Deleuze stuff anyway they can get it. 

 

The best k aff on the topic doesn't exist, but the "best" k aff on the topic for you will be the one that has a literature base you find engaging, good solvency advocates, and answers to cap and FW/T-USFG. 

 

Find something you'd be comfortable going for at least 1/3 of your rounds, if you aren't satisfied, or that doesn't sound engaging, then it's not the right aff for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bruh would a k aff based on the female immigrants be strategic..bc i really wanna run one. what would the best FW answer be for somethin like this?

would work, been working on one myself and answering framework wouldn't be that bad

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but how do i answer FW in the context of female migrants. do i say they cant access the usfg? do i say they can't access the round?

It depends on your specific aff

Edited by jmeza111401

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m calling it now, queer migration aff

 

EDIT: Gonna be pretty big because the UMICH file that came out has basically all the materials you need, you would just need to redo the tags, maybe find some better evidence a solvency mechanism you have yourself an aff

Edited by TheTrashDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okayyyy so queer migration AFF: how do we answer FW

First understand that fw say you need the usfg all you need is a reason why your advocacy should be and can't be done as a plan throught usfg for example if my advocacy is to affirm the queer immigrant identity then at fw would be something like the usfg cant affirm my identity immigration policy do x,y and z to queer immigrants and thats bad cus x,y,z affirming the queer immigrant identity is important cus x,y,z and just answer the standard and you'll be fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queerness actually has some amazing answers to framework

 

There's the argument that framework basically is an effort to destroy any semblance of queerness by attempting to standardize everything - basically any binary framework like "ur either t or ur not" is pretty weak to this arg. It also allows you to use the aff flow to outweigh framework, which is a key thing every k team should attempt to do - really strong disads to T are really, really strategic in a k round.

 

I dont think I quite agree with plans being really a necessity/more strategic in open borders. I was playing around with some native stuff, i.e reject the resolution and this debate because the colonizers shouldn't get to choose who comes to the US or not. This should be a native decision, because they have the right to decide who inhabits their land. altho this might function better as a neg argument (or both, even), it's certainly an example of a strategic aff that isn't necessarily topical, but has no real TVAs.

 

The thing with the intersection of queerness and TVAs is TVAs are always looking for a way to fit queerness into some comfortable, defineable box. The neg feels displeasure, and attempts to remove their discomfort by defining the aff in the context of the resolution. If you are queer, you should take advantage of this almost always - call them out, say there is no possible world where queerness and a totally binary framework can exist.

 

In short, do what you are interested in, and what u are familiar with. I really like queerness on this topic, but I don't think the best way to access a kritikal queerness argument is necessarily through letting queer ppl into the US. Anyway, i'm down if u want to have a dm convo on the subject, but I think Virumstein is our friendly neighborhood expert queerness debater.

 

Good luck!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love a good necro.

On 8/30/2018 at 7:43 PM, OutKTheK said:

there is no possible world where queerness and a totally binary framework can exist

Not to say this is a bad argument per say in debate rounds, but on face it's theoretically dubious. I can't think of any critic who actually says that queerness is incompatible with any binary ever. I think you need to explicitly connect the content of the binary with anti-queerness, like with Edelman or something that says the thing that is being limited (political discourse, civil society, etc.) is anti-queer. Alternatively, attack the standards and not the interp. I think skills are almost always a good link to any K - the queer art of failure comes to mind (tho I'm not sure I want to endorse reading Halberstam given the Ronell shit going on).

On 8/30/2018 at 7:43 PM, OutKTheK said:

they have the right to decide who inhabits their land. 

This strikes me as pretty simplistic. It certainly may be effective against a policy aff which already operates on the level of sovereignty and borders and such, I get the argument, and I get that there is maybe even a majority of native theorists and activists who take this kind of approach. That said, the rhetoric employed has a certain Westphalian ring to it that doesn't sit well with me. "Right to decide." "Their land." This strikes me as a classical liberal conversion of land into property and its control under conservative/humanist economic agency. Unrelated point, I think if anyone chooses to run this versus soft-left affs the Baudrillard 94 charity cannibalism card would be a fantastic case turn and link. The whole bottom of that card is about colonialism and the top turns any soft left aff.

Also I love the "there's no TVA because the premise isn't topical" arg. Tho I feel like if someone found a card saying some natives support basically any topical immigration policy, they could basically do a "consult natives" TVA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm

 

I think you misinterpreted my idea about queerness and a totally binary framework. There are binaries pretty much everywhere, but my argument is specifically about when people attempt to define the world as a binary. Framework largely attempts to do this by declaring what their idea of topical as right and what their idea of not topical as wrong. In this context they attempt to define a space (the space that the debate is held in) in the context of their framework. Queerness is a beautiful answer to this, specifically because queerness is categorized by its uncategorizability (if that's even a word).

 

It is simple from first glance, but really isn't that simple. Basically, it specifically avoids "consult natives", by basically saying that the Natives should decide if the plan passes. Looking for specific answers to this that talk about whether the natives like it or not is almost pointless, specifically because the counterplan is targetting the debate itself - it's saying the debate should never have even happened, and basically the entire idea of passing the plan through the USFG is a reinforcement of colonial systems. It's a very, very sneaky counterplan, in short, and is much more complex than it seems. That's its greatest strength.

 

As for your point about liberalism, I think that it isn't necessarily true. Before colonial acquisition, natives had specific places that were THEIR land, whether it is property or not. They built cities, villages, etc, and if you told them it wasn't their land, they would have probably waved you off and/or killed you. For example, the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, and many, many more.

 

Spaces are defined by those that inhabit them. Whether it's "property" or not.

Edited by OutKTheK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

my argument is specifically about when people attempt to define the world as a binary. Framework largely attempts to do this by declaring what their idea of topical as right and what their idea of not topical as wrong. 

Yeah I'm not disagreeing that queerness is antagonistic to many binaries. My point is just that you can't say "framework is a binary, that's anti-queer." You have to prove why that binary is anti-queer. Like the binary between dogs and not dogs is probably not anti-queer, nor does it attempt to define the world as a binary. I think there are plenty of reasons that T/not T could be anti-queer, like the reasons I listed, but I would caution against just taking it for granted.

59 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

Natives should decide if the plan passes

Obviously there would be a more specific debate about this, but I don't see why this isn't probably captured if you can find ev that natives have decided they want a specific immigration policy. Whether or not the USFG is intrinsically bad or not is a separate question, and one that I'm still not sure makes sense if natives themselves want a specific policy. Good evidence probably solves both of these issues. The TVA just says the plan should pass because natives want it and that this trumps other issues for whatever reasons the aff says.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

natives had specific places that were THEIR land

I have no idea how this isn't liberal property. The notion of bounded land which is a possession is a fairly European idea, and even if it's not I don't see why it's not bad for the same reasons (primitive accumulation, sovereign violence, etc.)

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

they would have probably waved you off and/or killed you

This seems pretty problematic. I have no doubt that some like the Aztecs or Inca with what were essentially states and laws would adopt such a strategy, but I can't see how this isn't just painting all natives as savages or something. And using this as a justification is teleological and not at all different from any sovereign nation historically - its our land bc we back it up with violence.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

Spaces are defined by those that inhabit them.

I'm also hesitant to say that this applies to the entire continent. Versus policy affs this is probably not an issue, given they presume the USFG can control given territorial boundaries, but theoretically I don't think this is totally legitimate. I mean, fuck the gov and all, but no one should control a continent. Establishing a new native gov or territorial control strikes me as similarly if not as bad. See D&G on deterritorialization/reterritorialization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2018 at 10:11 PM, seanarchy said:

Yeah I'm not disagreeing that queerness is antagonistic to many binaries. My point is just that you can't say "framework is a binary, that's anti-queer." You have to prove why that binary is anti-queer. Like the binary between dogs and not dogs is probably not anti-queer, nor does it attempt to define the world as a binary. I think there are plenty of reasons that T/not T could be anti-queer, like the reasons I listed, but I would caution against just taking it for granted.

Obviously there would be a more specific debate about this, but I don't see why this isn't probably captured if you can find ev that natives have decided they want a specific immigration policy. Whether or not the USFG is intrinsically bad or not is a separate question, and one that I'm still not sure makes sense if natives themselves want a specific policy. Good evidence probably solves both of these issues. The TVA just says the plan should pass because natives want it and that this trumps other issues for whatever reasons the aff says.

I have no idea how this isn't liberal property. The notion of bounded land which is a possession is a fairly European idea, and even if it's not I don't see why it's not bad for the same reasons (primitive accumulation, sovereign violence, etc.)

This seems pretty problematic. I have no doubt that some like the Aztecs or Inca with what were essentially states and laws would adopt such a strategy, but I can't see how this isn't just painting all natives as savages or something. And using this as a justification is teleological and not at all different from any sovereign nation historically - its our land bc we back it up with violence.

I'm also hesitant to say that this applies to the entire continent. Versus policy affs this is probably not an issue, given they presume the USFG can control given territorial boundaries, but theoretically I don't think this is totally legitimate. I mean, fuck the gov and all, but no one should control a continent. Establishing a new native gov or territorial control strikes me as similarly if not as bad. See D&G on deterritorialization/reterritorialization.

1. I don't think you understand. A kritikal debate is a clash of epistemologies; a clash of viewpoints. When kritikal debaters attempt to win through a k aff, it is often because they believe the World is contextualized by a certain relationship. Baudrillard debaters, black binary (including Afropess) debaters, setcol and postcol debaters, etc. When debaters run framework, they attempt to tell the other team the correct way of procedure - this act of violently enforcing the choice of submission or be rendered unlegible, untopical is inherently anti-queer, specifically because it doesn't allow for discourse outside of the boundaries that they create. Attempting to define queerness as merely the same as gayness is probably far too limited - that doesn't mean gay people aren't queer, but queerness itself is a bit more complicated to my understanding. It can't be defined or ordered like most things can be, so attempting to define it and confine it to a specific definition is, without a doubt, antiqueer.

 

2. This is meaningless. At the end of the day, it's irrelevant if they have evidence saying "natives like the plan". The damage has been done. It's similar to saying "well, sorry about colonialism lol, im glad we can put it all behind us". There is an epistemological impact to even the attempt to use the USFG as an actor. Saying "it's ok, the natives want it" is a colonizer's mindset - this is exactly the type of thing a christian missionary would say to justify forcing christianity and a view of western superiority on Natives. At the end of the day, the damage has been done.

 

3. You are misusing the phrase "liberal property" - this means that there is no connection from a person to the environment other than to use it to gain material wealth, and buy/sell it. A large number of Native tribes had a spiritual, not entirely economical, relationship with their land. Also, there were many Native cities/nations that certainly were sovereign nations. Take the Aztecs. Both secular and religious aspects of society were controlled by an emperor. They did, in fact, back their land up with violence. They also farmed on it, and used it for religious purposes. The difference between that and liberalism is liberalism attempts to establish control over foreign nations under the guise of assistance - they want to perform acts of ideological imperialism - out with the old, and in with the Western. They don't attack and destroy societies for various religious and cultural purposes like the Aztecs certainly did, they assert their culture over others and force them to assimilate.

 

EDIT: https://mises.org/wire/did-indians-understand-concept-private-property - really good article, and will help you better understand this. The language it uses isn't the best, but it's solid enough.

 

4. You are reading way too into the counterplan. This is not necessarily your fault. With liberalism comes the idea of making ideas more "comfortable" to you by making them more familiar. I said nothing about a "Native government", merely that the Natives should choose who should and should not be in the US territory. There is no comfy, strict, and easy way of deciding how Natives should choose or what the system for choosing should be, as this isn't something that we have any right to talk about, either. Also "no one should control a continent" makes the incorrect assumption that Natives are a single body, instead of an assortment of culturally diverse bodies with far different ideas and cultures. It wouldn't be one body that has control over the US (also not the entirety of NA, but this is mostly irrelevant), it would be a number of incredibly diverse and different bodies, as different as Westerners would be from Chinese or Indonesian people.

 

Terribly sorry for the late response, I'm not as active as I used to be, and school has started. Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

1. I don't think you understand. A kritikal debate is a clash of epistemologies; a clash of viewpoints. When kritikal debaters attempt to win through a k aff, it is often because they believe the World is contextualized by a certain relationship.

Lol I know what a K aff is. This is btw a very narrow view of a K aff. Things like "burn it down" or "give back the land" are not just epistemological standpoints

25 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

When debaters run framework, they attempt to tell the other team the correct way of procedure - this act of violently enforcing the choice of submission or be rendered unlegible, untopical is inherently anti-queer, specifically because it doesn't allow for discourse outside of the boundaries that they create.

"Defining correct procedures" is obvi not always anti-queer. There is basically no-one who says this, just like there is almost no-one who says norms are always bad. These are just straw-persons of postmodernism mirrored back. The correct way of procedure for removing a bullet or administering a vaccine is fairly objective unless we're taking the "harm good" route, which I doubt. Defining that procedure, by the way, doesn't have to touch on queerness at all. The whole "stop defining queerness" debate is irrelevant unless you can prove why defining the words "legal immigration," "reduce," or "restrictions" is defining queerness. You have to prove why the procedure in question is problematic and relevant, which I've suggested reasons for. There is very little chance you will get away with the "all binaries = bad" claim against a competent team. 

36 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

this is exactly the type of thing a christian missionary would say to justify forcing christianity and a view of western superiority on Natives

The phrase "natives want it" isn't western lmao. The reason the missionaries were bad was because the natives didn't want it, weren't fully informed about what they were requesting, or were misinformed and the outcome was bad, not because they said the natives wanted it. I still fail to see why a plan that says something like "the USFG should engage in binding consultation with native tribes on the question of legal immigration and implement the results of that consultation as decided by native tribes" wouldn't solve the args about natives deciding who inhabits the land. I have no idea why any of this would be a disad to implementing decisions made by natives if they want it. The topic not being able to go far enough isn't a disad, it's a solvency deficit, which is why perms exist.

45 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

You are misusing the phrase "liberal property" 

I'm not sure you've ever read Marx, or for that matter any author who speaks about primitive accumulation or enclosure. Private property is the foreclosure of unowned resources or land from public use or availability. I suppose this can exist without liberalism, as it does in purely sovereign systems (king appropriates the land from the peasants), but that doesn't mean it's not bad for the same reasons.

52 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

nations that certainly were sovereign nations. Take the Aztecs. Both secular and religious aspects of society were controlled by an emperor.

This is literally the thing I'm arguing against. A sovereign nation being native does not make sovereign violence any less palatable. Nation-states are bad, western or not.

54 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

The difference between that and liberalism is liberalism attempts to establish control over foreign nations under the guise of assistance

You're referencing a very narrow component of liberalism and the literature on intervention. There's a lot more to liberal violence, like what I've described.

57 minutes ago, OutKTheK said:

they want to perform acts of ideological imperialism - out with the old, and in with the Western.

Any good Marxist will point out that there's more to imperialist ideology than western chauvinism. It's a part of it, and some of it is purely cultural, but that part is fueled by economic interests. European colonies in the Americas were formed as a result of mercantilism - the idea wealth is zero sum, it has to be captured for the nation.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

They don't attack and destroy societies for various religious and cultural purposes like the Aztecs certainly did, 

Why is this any better?

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

they assert their culture over others and force them to assimilate.

The Aztecs did this lol. I'm not trying to draw an equivalence between the sheer scale of violence practiced in the name of western imperialism and Aztec imperialism, but they were both imperialisms that subjugated other cultures and massacred their enemies. One was just more successful.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

With liberalism comes the idea of making ideas more "comfortable" to you by making them more familiar

Literally no idea what you're referring to from what I said.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

I said nothing about a "Native government", merely that the Natives should choose who should and should not be in the US territory.

I didn't say it would have to be a government, but for purposes of territorial control, it's no different. Why should there be any sort of unified control over where people get to live on such a large scale? Especially in cases like climate or war refugees, or victims of abuse or trafficking. If natives say no, should such people be expelled back to their former homes? I have no problem with individual tribes maintaining the land they live on and work, but they physically don't occupy the entire continent. There're no way for such a decision to be made that doesn't require a certain degree of unity. Also this makes no sense in light of your comment that 

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

"no one should control a continent" makes the incorrect assumption that Natives are a single body

Saying the natives should control who are in the US makes the exact same assumption, except it legitimizes that imagined control. Which is bad. That's just another nation-state. Fragment the US's  control, don't form a new system. The problem with the US is not just that it has a genocidal history, but that it presently ghettoizes and confines natives to specific geographical coordinates. Flipping the script and expelling everyone that isn't a native is bad, it still practices confinement and exclusion.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

It wouldn't be one body that has control over the US (also not the entirety of NA, but this is mostly irrelevant)

So the revolution stops at the border? How radical.

1 hour ago, OutKTheK said:

it would be a number of incredibly diverse and different bodies

Yes and they should control their own land that they live on, not the whole continental US or NA, which they do not. Nation-states appropriating land is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Lol I know what a K aff is. This is btw a very narrow view of a K aff. Things like "burn it down" or "give back the land" are not just epistemological standpoints

1. That's why I used the word "often"...

2. Using slogans to characterize entire lit bases is probably not a good idea

 

As for the next part, it's pretty shitty and certainly a bad representation of what I said (maybe you should look at it more critically first), but I guess I'll LxL it

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

"Defining correct procedures" is obvi not always anti-queer. There is basically no-one who says this, just like there is almost no-one who says norms are always bad.

1. It is far more than "defining correct procedures"...it is literally the attempt to assert that one way of doing things is correct, and the other is wrong. Framework is the idea that there is no space in the debate space except for that which cannot be contextualized through a single, "correct" lens.

2. Just because no one says this, does not mean it isn't true. That would be a logical fallacy. Also, it's just plain false.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

These are just straw-persons of postmodernism mirrored back. 

Hablas inglés

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

The correct way of procedure for removing a bullet or administering a vaccine is fairly objective unless we're taking the "harm good" route, which I doubt.

This is ridiculous. This is trying to equate the debate space to a binary "correct" and "incorrect" where everything except for the framework itself is false.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Defining that procedure, by the way, doesn't have to touch on queerness at all. The whole "stop defining queerness" debate is irrelevant unless you can prove why defining the words "legal immigration," "reduce," or "restrictions" is defining queerness.

Framework is not merely just the definition of a few key terms. Rather, this isn't the biggest violation that T does - after it defines these words, it posits that the debate space would be BETTER if these words were used in the plan text, and that EVERY other example should be voted down if they do not meet these definitions. It is absolute.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

You have to prove why the procedure in question is problematic and relevant, which I've suggested reasons for. There is very little chance you will get away with the "all binaries = bad" claim against a competent team. 

The fact that you think I was talking about binaries = bad should clue you into the fact that you need to read more critically.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

The phrase "natives want it" isn't western lmao. The reason the missionaries were bad was because the natives didn't want it, weren't fully informed about what they were requesting, or were misinformed and the outcome was bad, not because they said the natives wanted it.

This is fair, I'll concede this.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

 I still fail to see why a plan that says something like "the USFG should engage in binding consultation with native tribes on the question of legal immigration and implement the results of that consultation as decided by native tribes"

1. Nobody is gonna prepare an entire plan to avoid a single counterplan argument

2. This is not topical. I don't want to have a T debate, but this is most certainly not topical.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

wouldn't solve the args about natives deciding who inhabits the land. I have no idea why any of this would be a disad to implementing decisions made by natives if they want it. The topic not being able to go far enough isn't a disad, it's a solvency deficit, which is why perms exist.

1. Taking one Native person's opinion and trying to make it count for the opinions of ALL of the diverse different Native tribes is probably bullshit. You arent gonna cite a british guy saying "europeans would love to leave the EU" and apply it to Germans.

2. It's a disadvantage because the entire speech is basically them trying to "speak" for the entirety of the Native population. This usually doesn't end up well, ask the USFG.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

I'm not sure you've ever read Marx, or for that matter any author who speaks about primitive accumulation or enclosure. Private property is the foreclosure of unowned resources or land from public use or availability. I suppose this can exist without liberalism, as it does in purely sovereign systems (king appropriates the land from the peasants), but that doesn't mean it's not bad for the same reasons.

Whether it is bad or not literally does not matter at all, and is altogether irrelevant to this debate.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

This is literally the thing I'm arguing against. A sovereign nation being native does not make sovereign violence any less palatable. Nation-states are bad, western or not.

Good thing we arent trying to solve for sovereign violence, just giving Native people a bigger say in who enters and leaves the land that was occupied and/or owned by them.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

You're referencing a very narrow component of liberalism and the literature on intervention. There's a lot more to liberal violence, like what I've described.

yay, more bullshit that doesnt matter in the context of the cp

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Any good Marxist will point out that there's more to imperialist ideology than western chauvinism.

1. You lost me at Marxist

2. "Good" and "Marxist" are oxymoronic

3. If a good Marxist is some old ass white man trying to say that that Natives shouldn't at least have more control over the system of their oppressors because of his ivory tower political theory, then I'm not sure i want to meet a good Marxist.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

It's a part of it, and some of it is purely cultural, but that part is fueled by economic interests. European colonies in the Americas were formed as a result of mercantilism - the idea wealth is zero sum, it has to be captured for the nation.

More shit that is irrelevant. At worst, we are replacing a system with an equally as oppressive system, just giving Natives the right to choose the people on the land.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Why is this any better?

It doesn't have to be

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

The Aztecs did this lol. I'm not trying to draw an equivalence between the sheer scale of violence practiced in the name of western imperialism and Aztec imperialism, but they were both imperialisms that subjugated other cultures and massacred their enemies. One was just more successful.

This is bullshit for a number of reasons. You obviously know little about the Aztecs, as they ruled more like the Romans, in that after they conquered societies they left their cultures alone and mostly intact.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Literally no idea what you're referring to from what I said.

Maybe you should spend more time looking at it.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

I didn't say it would have to be a government, but for purposes of territorial control, it's no different.

kk

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Why should there be any sort of unified control over where people get to live on such a large scale?

Idk, ask the Government. Once again, we dont have the burden of solving for all of the World's problems.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Especially in cases like climate or war refugees, or victims of abuse or trafficking. If natives say no, should such people be expelled back to their former homes?

As if the Government wasn't doing things like this all the time. We don't have the burden of solving for all of the World's problems.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

 I have no problem with individual tribes maintaining the land they live on and work, but they physically don't occupy the entire continent.

Tell that to the map of reservations. There are reservations in every part of the US, even if they dont physically inhabit EVERY possible space.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

There're no way for such a decision to be made that doesn't require a certain degree of unity.

1. Yes, because the Republicans and Democrats are very united.

2. You're going into the assumptions again. How do we know that they aren't completely united in their viewpoints? We have no idea. We also have no right to speak for them, and tell other people how they think.

3. Why is this a bad thing?

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

 Also this makes no sense in light of your comment that Saying the natives should control who are in the US makes the exact same assumption, except it legitimizes that imagined control. Which is bad.

It doesn't, not at all. Just because they are extremely diverse doesn't mean they aren't all Natives. They all have a say, no matter how culturally diverse they are.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

That's just another nation-state. Fragment the US's control, don't form a new system. The problem with the US is not just that it has a genocidal history, but that it presently ghettoizes and confines natives to specific geographical coordinates. Flipping the script and expelling everyone that isn't a native is bad, it still practices confinement and exclusion.

Aww boohoo, we don't realize a communist Utopia with our counterplan.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

So the revolution stops at the border? How radical.

Of course, comrade.

Also, please don't frame this with shitty marxist terms.

5 hours ago, seanarchy said:

Yes and they should control their own land that they live on, not the whole continental US or NA, which they do not. Nation-states appropriating land is bad.

Not any worse than it currently is.

 

In short, you basically just wanted to give a pointless lecture of how our counterplan isn't turning the US into a communist Utopia. Almost all of this is just carried over from the US, and just about none of it is unique to the counterplan. You can't win that we worsen any of these conditions significantly from the current state of America.

 

This is NOT a cap K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...