cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/40147434

image comparing two cars. a person calls the first car brilliant captioned [no-one is illegal on stolen land]

in the second picture he points to the other car and says “but I like this this” captioned [no-one is illegal]

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.netEnglish
    3·
    1 day ago

    “There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example,” said Oats.

    “And what do they think? Against it, are they?” said Granny Weatherwax.

    “It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”

    “Nope.”

    “Pardon?”

    “There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”

    “It’s a lot more complicated than that—”

    “No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”

    “Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes—”

    “But they starts with thinking about people as things…”

    Sir Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulem

  • androgynouscloudmoon@slrpnk.netEnglish
    9·
    2 days ago

    This is true, but to float a counterpoint: the “on stolen land” is a direct counter to white-supremacist ideas that settler-colonies such as the US are and have always been “white countries”, and those are the usual type of people calling immigrants “illegals”.

    • cloudskater@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      7·
      2 days ago

      Private property is, yeah.

      Not trying to be a pedantic dick, its just annoying when I see people go “leftists want to take your toothbrush” when they don’t understand the idea of private property being theft.

      • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        You aren’t wrong, and I don’t think you’re being overly pedantic, but you also didn’t explicitly mention the distinction that most leftists draw between private property (i.e. property that is owned by someone who does not use it, but makes other people pay to do so) and personal property (property that is owned and used by the same person, like the aforementioned toothbrush). Most people who object to the original statement don’t know the difference and use the terms as if they were synonymous.

  • Sibbo@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    212·
    2 days ago

    Colonialists then: nobody is illegal

    Colonialists now: cross that border and I’ll shoot you!

  • jonathan7luke@lemmy.zipEnglish
    134·
    2 days ago

    no one is illegal

    I get where you’re coming from, but that philosophy didn’t work too well for indigenous people, hence the longer saying…

    • kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      221·
      2 days ago

      That’s a Great Replacement talking point. People aren’t illegal, acts are. Showing up isn’t a problem, genocide and theft are.

    • Ziglin (it/they)English
      9·
      2 days ago

      I don’t remember it being “nobody is illegal unless invading, even if labeled ‘colonising’”.

      (Europeans mostly haven’t stolen the land they are currently on but are still discriminating against immigrants, thereby making the stolen land saying unfit. I’m sure it has problems outside Europe too though.)

    • belluck@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      34·
      2 days ago

      Not comparable. „No one is illegal on stolen land“ implies that the measures taken in the US could be justified if it wasn’t a colony. „No one is illegal“ is a widespread pro-immigrant motto in Europe.
      „Black lives matter“ didn’t include anything to make the movement region-specific.

      • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.mlEnglish
        31·
        2 days ago

        I don’t agree, the context of where it’s said is important. Europe isn’t a colony and so that’s fine, but “no one is illegal” in the USA implies that colonizers are fine.