arctanthrope

ok I see. my understanding of imperialism is that it encompasses both of those, meaning broadly, expansion of influence, especially (but not necessarily) by claiming areas of land, in order to gain control of resources currently held by others. but I agree, there are two types within that, and the distinction between them is whether the people currently occupying the land (or in particular their labor) are part of the resources that the empire is trying to claim

so, just walking through your own argument as I understand it: situations that are similar to the treatment of indigenous North Americans by the US can be considered imperialism, if it’s done by one nation to another nation. but the actual treatment of indigenous peoples by the US doesn’t meet that condition. the result of that syllogism must be: between the US and the indigenous peoples, one of them is not a nation. I assume you’re not saying that the US is not a nation. so the conclusion must be that the indigenous North American peoples were not a nation, or multiple nations; that there was no political or societal organization in the Americas before Europeans came. is that what you mean, or have I misunderstood?

and my question is why do you think that’s not a form of imperialism

the “neighboring nation” I was referring to were the indigenous people. North America was not a blank slate before Europeans arrived. “manifest destiny” was imperialism

so you’re saying going to war against a neighboring nation to expand your territory is not what an empire does?

there’s the ortolan bunting, a small bird similar to a finch or sparrow, which in France is caught wild, fattened, drowned and marinated in brandy, plucked, roasted, and eaten whole, liver (and bones, and everything except the beak) included

live SpongeBob reaction

this isn’t new, “making smaller marks on a rock” has been mankind’s method for expanding data storage for thousands of years

edit - hmm, needs workshopping I guess. maybe something like: “over thousands of years, humans have refined data storage from its most primitive beginnings as marks on rocks, to its most advanced novelty, different marks on different rocks”

exactly, the real Luddites weren’t opposed to technology, they were opposed to wealthy factory owners using technology in a way that eliminated or cheapened their labor to extract more profit. what Sanders and most others are citing as threats posed by “ai” are actually perfectly in line with the Luddites, but they’re not allowed to say so because the actual history of the Luddites has been smeared and propagandized to make them look like unreasonable morons who are scared of things they can’t comprehend

you are allowed to stumble on the first line. and it may come off poorly. and if it does the other person is perfectly valid for not wanting to engage further. therefore if you want the other person to continue to engage, you should try not to come off poorly. this isn’t some newfangled social phenomenon, it’s how basic human interaction has worked for millennia