Show transcript
[Start of transcript]
Screenshot of a tumblr post
nyancrimew posts:
remember .io games? that was 8 years ago
therealkepler replies:
nowadays the only people that use the .io domain are technology sites
nyancrimew replies:
ok so .io is a "fun" lesson in colonialism and technology, like all two letter top level domains (yes all of them) it's a country domain belonging to a country, io being the british indian oceans territory, an archipelago in the indian ocean. .io domains became so trendy because they're easily marketable to tech people (io can stand for input/output), it looks kinda cool and at the time domains with .io were highly available with not many websites being created on the islands.
however .io is not like other small islands with highly wanted tlds such as .ai or .to, where the islands make millions off of domain sales and can rely on them as a big pillar of their economy. all profits from .io sales go to the UK, and despite a fight to get control over their tld the islands get nothing, not only did the native population get displaced in land deals and colonialism but their colonizer also heavily profits off of the territories sudden (indirect) trendyness with tech startups.
don't buy .io domains, don't support the british empire.
[End of transcript]
Hence why I mention some of the artifacts are indeed stolen.
Then why did you call that take braindead? They didn't say that all of Britain's exhibits are for stolen artifacts, just how their biggest exhibits are the stolen ones.
I would argue the wording of
Implies that at least a large amount of the artifacts are stolen.
That would be because a large amount of artifacts were stolen. The comment is referring to all of the artifacts within that large category of theirs. Do you think that all those countries that Britain pillaged and colonized just gave them those artifacts as a token of friendship?
No it doesn't. It's just saying that: of the artifacts they have stolen, all of them are on display. It implies nothing about the number of artifacts.
It's ok to be wrong sometimes. What is important is that you don't double down in the face of evidence that contradicts you.
And what evidence is that?
That's inherent to the idea of theft. We judge thieves based on their thefts.
It's irrelevant if they also happen to have a bunch of stuff they didn't steal.
A few stolen artifacts corrupt the legitimacy of the entire exhibit.