Crazy Lee Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 http://www.inforum.com/4158594-column-what-dakota-access-pipeline-protesters-arent-telling-you#.WCnmM8QbPmE.facebook So, this article is basically saying that the pipeline company and army corps tried to have town hall meetings several times with the local tribes to field complaints about the pipeline, ages ago when it was still in the planning stages. But no one showed up. The company even offered to move the water inlet for the tribal areas. But no one bothered to protest it back then. I don't know how true this is, but I have heard similar stories from other locations as well, so there may be some serious weight to it. So if this is true, why did the natives ignore the company in the past? Was there just not a good enough effort on outreach by the oil company? Or was it that the natives felt they had nothing to say to the company and were snubbing them on purpose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArielMT Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 The article doesn't cite sources specific enough to research, it doesn't link to any sources, and I'm not able to find anything elsewhere on the Internet backing up any of its claims. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalletFace Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 It is honestly just legal crap and business tactics that the author of the piece is using to paint those he dislikes in a negative light. The original article on InsideSources links to one document that the author picks from the first few pages of to make a point. The Tribe - one representative from the Tribe, actually - was meeting with representatives from Dakota Access when they needed to be meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers. Because the Corps was able to present evidence that they had emailed the representative a number of times, the Corps was able to proceed without earnestly endeavoring to involve the Tribe. All the Court found was that "the Corps has likely complied with the NHPA and that the Tribe has not shown it will suffer injury that would be prevented by any injunction the Court could issue." Take from that what you will, and read the one external document he notes, if you like. The other link on the original leads to another article on InsideSources, which leads to another. I didn't follow from there. I would offer more, but the rest of what I found wasn't that useful. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pignog Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 I don't know about American aboriginal legal/land issues, but aboriginal people in Canada signed a variety of treaties which may or may not be the most binding contracts. These treaties set out reserves where aboriginal bands are set up, but also much wider areas known as their traditional lands (ie. these represent the lands their people have historically lived in for thousands of years). As part of the treaty, settler society is not supposed to, well, settle in these areas, but they are allowed to send send survey and exploration teams "from time to time" to scope out all those raw resources industrial civ craves. Of course, exploration and actually building pipeline/mines/logging camps are different things, and the burden of consultation with local residents before beginning construction is on the company (ie. literally a "duty to consult"). It's a nice formal legal term that makes it sound like we're treating communities and their lands with respect, but what this means in practice is still up in the air. Like Rhíulchabán mentioned, some companies have thrown meetings and not bothered to advertise. Others call up a band office and give a quick spiel about what they're doing. Keep in mind these communities are small, some only a few hundred people, and don't have the same access a city would to professional services (like researchers, lawyers, consultants, etc.) that could inform their community's leadership in decision-making. Have these companies carried out their "duty to consult"? If the traditional lands belong to those aboriginal people and they decide not to show up to a company meeting (whether out of protest or because the company couldn't bother to inform the residents), why should this be taken as consent to begin building on their land? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 30 minutes ago, applehead said: I wonder why that's the case... That's the newest and biggest tactic of the social engineers: spamming social media with fake news stories. In a time where most adults seek their news on Facebook for some damn reason, all it takes is just repeating your outrageous lie over and over to make people believe any damn thing: the friendly gestures of the angelic petro-companies were rejected by the ungrateful, uppity redskins, Hillary is more corrupt than Trump, the UN is a front for the Reptilian world government... I can see several memes in the snope article. For example the accusation that anybody who is protesting against something you don't like is being paid by an ineffable nefarious elite. In my opinion, I think it would be suitable for mineral and natural resource companies to take a very relaxed approach and to back off when people begin protesting their presence, even if the protestors' claims turn out to be incorrect (Protests about shale fracking in England are often motivated by exaggerated or incorrect claims, for example), because the alternative is shitty for everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 Just now, applehead said: It's a sad fact a large contingent of society thinks only in memes. As long as Western nations treat education as a tool to grow industrial serfs instead of informed citizens with the necessary critical thinking skills to discern truth and bullshit, this won't change. I don't know whether this is just a problem with western education, or whether it results from an innate cognitive bias? We're far more likely to believe things if they rhyme for example. That's just how broke'd our brains are; it's a miracle any of us manage to get by in life. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArielMT Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 7 hours ago, applehead said: I wonder why that's the case... That's the newest and biggest tactic of the social engineers: spamming social media with fake news stories. In a time where most adults seek their news on Facebook for some damn reason, all it takes is just repeating your outrageous lie over and over to make people believe any damn thing: the friendly gestures of the angelic petro-companies were rejected by the ungrateful, uppity redskins, Hillary is more corrupt than Trump, the UN is a front for the Reptilian world government... NPR recently tracked down and interviewed a fake-news producer: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs Probably the best thing summing it up: Quote When did you notice that fake news does best with Trump supporters? Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. This is a right-wing issue. Sarah Palin's famous blasting of the lamestream media is kind of record and testament to the rise of these kinds of people. The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. This isn't something that started with Trump. This is something that's been in the works for a while. His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters. When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat. We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted November 30, 2016 Share Posted November 30, 2016 4 hours ago, ArielMT said: NPR recently tracked down and interviewed a fake-news producer: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs Probably the best thing summing it up: To add to this, I think that people who view themselves as more left leaning definitely need to be vigilant about fake news stories trying to appeal to them as well, because if they get the impression that they can 'sit on their laurels', they may be left susceptible to future deceptions. There are conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific positions which often appeal to some people on the political left, such as anti-nuclear power, genetic modification, animal testing, new-age medicine and so on. I would also caution that even reputable news websites pick up fake articles, or circulate interpretations of articles which are so badly represented that they are essentially fake; the BBC for example represented the work of a seismologist I know as 'the art of predicting earthquakes', when he had taken great effort to explain to their journalist that his job wasn't earthquake prediction. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troj Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 What's awful is that being clickbaity seems to be the hot trend in headlines these days, such that even mainstream news sources are climbing onto the bandwagon. I'll often find an otherwise-decent or otherwise-worth-discussing article and then have to apologize for its headline when I post it, which is aggravating. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 That article's the 10th time I've seen quoted across many social media platforms. clickbait's a real ependemic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troj Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 The above article led to an interesting discussion on my page, but I also prefaced my post with an invitation to please educate me about what I might not know about DAPL and the issues surrounding it. I also posted the Snopes article criticizing that article's lack of citations directly underneath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.