You're literally shilling for White Nationalists in your posts.
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
You're literally shilling for White Nationalists in your posts.
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
You're confusing means with ends. You can negotiate with people who use violence to achieve political ends. You can't negotiate meaningfully with people for whom the violence is an end in itself. The IRA had a goal that could be achieved without violence (and still might, under the GFA, come about quite legally). White supremacists have no such goal.
You're literally shilling for White Nationalists in your posts.
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
The GFA was designed - deliberately - to neuter the armed struggle and get all parties to agree that Irish unification was a political goal that could only be achieved by peaceful means.
Now, because you're equating Irish unification with the creation of a White Nationalist state, you can absolutely and unequivocally get in the bin.
So the only option you’re willing to contemplate is total suppression of the white supremacists. Fine. Enjoy your war.
It would be your war too. I just don't know which side you'd be on.
The same one as you, against the fascists and racists. Honest.
That doesn’t mean I want to fight it though. I’d much rather try to find a way we can all just live together. Or at least live. Something like the Good Friday Agreement did for politics in Northern Ireland.
You're literally shilling for White Nationalists in your posts.
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
You're confusing means with ends. You can negotiate with people who use violence to achieve political ends. You can't negotiate meaningfully with people for whom the violence is an end in itself. The IRA had a goal that could be achieved without violence (and still might, under the GFA, come about quite legally). White supremacists have no such goal.
I don't know if that's true. Their end is not violence but a white cishet theocracy in which blacks, gays, and so on are either second class citizens, enslaved, or ejected.
You're literally shilling for White Nationalists in your posts.
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
You're confusing means with ends. You can negotiate with people who use violence to achieve political ends. You can't negotiate meaningfully with people for whom the violence is an end in itself. The IRA had a goal that could be achieved without violence (and still might, under the GFA, come about quite legally). White supremacists have no such goal.
I don't know if that's true. Their end is not violence but a white cishet theocracy in which blacks, gays, and so on are either second class citizens, enslaved, or ejected.
You're literally shilling for White Nationalists in your posts.
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
You're confusing means with ends. You can negotiate with people who use violence to achieve political ends. You can't negotiate meaningfully with people for whom the violence is an end in itself. The IRA had a goal that could be achieved without violence (and still might, under the GFA, come about quite legally). White supremacists have no such goal.
Their goal is a whites-only, ConEvo Christian society/country. It would be possible to give them that by moving populations around without killing anyone. Let them have a few of the flyover states to themselves - they can even have a nice bigly wall around them to keep everyone else out.
You're literally shilling for White Nationalists in your posts.
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
You're confusing means with ends. You can negotiate with people who use violence to achieve political ends. You can't negotiate meaningfully with people for whom the violence is an end in itself. The IRA had a goal that could be achieved without violence (and still might, under the GFA, come about quite legally). White supremacists have no such goal.
I don't know if that's true. Their end is not violence but a white cishet theocracy in which blacks, gays, and so on are either second class citizens, enslaved, or ejected.
You're literally shilling for White Nationalists in your posts.
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
You're confusing means with ends. You can negotiate with people who use violence to achieve political ends. You can't negotiate meaningfully with people for whom the violence is an end in itself. The IRA had a goal that could be achieved without violence (and still might, under the GFA, come about quite legally). White supremacists have no such goal.
Their goal is a whites-only, ConEvo Christian society/country. It would be possible to give them that by moving populations around without killing anyone. Let them have a few of the flyover states to themselves - they can even have a nice bigly wall around them to keep everyone else out.
Thanks for that. I don't want them.
And what will you do about their children, who have hearts and don't want to live in the society Mom/Dad is trying to create?
I'd been thinking of posting this, and LC's last post convinced me. (That's *good*, LC, in case you're wondering.)
Several years ago, there was a PBS series called "America By The Numbers". It was hosted by Maria Hinajosa, who also hosts the radio show "Latino USA". She's really good at both.
It's been years since I saw it (though I watched a minute just now to make sure I had the right ep). The main thing I remember is about a group of white families from California (?) who were feeling overwhelmed by diversity, particularly people who didn't speak English. (E.g. clerks and such.) So they packed up and moved to Idaho. (It's a state next to Oregon and Washington.) Watching the story, I thought "well, if they can't cope, then maybe going to Idaho is better for everyone".
I sympathized a tiny bit with the language issue. I love languages. I've also found that if I'm down, and exhausted, and surrounded by people speaking a language not related to anything I've studied, and if I can't get away (like on public transportation), my brain can get fried--especially if there's more than one unfamiliar language going on at the same time. I keep it to myself.
So...they were shown up in Idaho. They seemed happier. Few people of color there. They did go to a little cafe run by a woman of color. They evidently liked her; and, when her business was robbed or attacked, they helped her out. I figured, "well, at least they helped *her*".
But then there was the small school for their kids. And what was taught there was white supremacy. IIRC, the lesson didn't seem to advocate violence; but it was absolutely something no kid should be exposed to.
And *some* Idahoans are known to be white supremacists. Deep roots there.
I don't remember how it ended. But, given the discussion here about people who can't agree going to live in different places, this might be worth watching.
NOTE: Just in case it's not clear, I do not support their ideas, and never have.
@Marvin the Martian ethnic cleansing, which is effectively what you are advocating as a solution - is considered a crime against humanity.
Historically, planting populations in places to achieve political ends has ended very badly - often causing problems lasting for centuries. For example, sectarian violence on the island of Ireland, the ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia that reflect historically planted populations with different affiliations. (Amongst other dynamics, Christian populations planted on land, to form a bulwark against Muslim population.). Also - you might be familiar with the outcomes of the displacement of large chunks of the Palestinian population to make space for a new state.
1- The US has two sides that are completely unable or unwilling to coexist with the other.
2- One side has literally just stormed the capitol in an attempt to overthrow democracy.
3- This sort of situation seldom ends peacefully.
4- I’d as soon there not be a war.
5- For there not to be a war there needs to be a peaceful solution that both sides can accept.
6- So what might that solution look like?
The answer I’m getting from you all is basically “there is no possible solution that both sides can accept”. Because you won’t accept any solution other than the total eradication of the other side’s beliefs. No compromise, no surrender. And anyone who is in any way reticent about such an extreme stance is also the enemy.
I don’t get how the person trying to find a peaceful solution is the bad guy here.
No, what you are getting is that apartheid is not a solution.
The solution will need to be a long term one.
Serious, sustained in education and communities, especially the poorest, both black and white. Education of police and law enforcement and a much higher bar for entry to such jobs.
Tax the rich and super rich to the hilt to pay for it. Make sure tech companies are quick to ban hate speech.
1- The US has two sides that are completely unable or unwilling to coexist with the other.
2- One side has literally just stormed the capitol in an attempt to overthrow democracy.
3- This sort of situation seldom ends peacefully.
4- I’d as soon there not be a war.
5- For there not to be a war there needs to be a peaceful solution that both sides can accept.
6- So what might that solution look like?
The answer I’m getting from you all is basically “there is no possible solution that both sides can accept”. Because you won’t accept any solution other than the total eradication of the other side’s beliefs. No compromise, no surrender. And anyone who is in any way reticent about such an extreme stance is also the enemy.
I don’t get how the person trying to find a peaceful solution is the bad guy here.
Allowing fascists to take or even share power is not peaceful.
Peace is a function of social justice.
A 'side' of a thousand rioters storming the undefended Capitol must involve the fullest possible legal, condign consequences for all involved. There can be no compromise in the post-Enlightenment world with fascists. Fascists must not, ever, be allowed to take power. 147 Republican representatives - over half - are fascist. There must be non-violent civil disobedience to such power by peace making Christians. If the state, or citizens' group in response to the state turning fascist, needs to take up arms against fascists using arms, that is their civil, civilized, Enlightenment duty, in the absence of martial law to protect social justice against fascism. My Christian peace-making would easily come to an end in a situation as portrayed in Bushwick.
Fascists must not, ever, be allowed to take power.
Even if it’s only over themselves?
It's never only over themselves. Aside from their families, they'll almost immediately decide they deserve more than the land they've got (c.f. Lebensraum).
1- The US has two sides that are completely unable or unwilling to coexist with the other.
2- One side has literally just stormed the capitol in an attempt to overthrow democracy.
3- This sort of situation seldom ends peacefully.
4- I’d as soon there not be a war.
5- For there not to be a war there needs to be a peaceful solution that both sides can accept.
6- So what might that solution look like?
The answer I’m getting from you all is basically “there is no possible solution that both sides can accept”. Because you won’t accept any solution other than the total eradication of the other side’s beliefs. No compromise, no surrender. And anyone who is in any way reticent about such an extreme stance is also the enemy.
I don’t get how the person trying to find a peaceful solution is the bad guy here.
Stated in those terms Marvin, you sound reasonable. But if what's wanted is a peaceful democratic solution to this insanity, how do you get people to be part of something if they want what they want and are quite willing to overthrow democracy by violent uprising? People like that need crushing, not appeasing.
Fascists must not, ever, be allowed to take power.
Even if it’s only over themselves?
If it's just over themselves and not even their families, in their own solitary, private rooms with no internet access, fine, of course. Why do you ask? By the way, was Jo Biden properly elected?
FWIW: I think Marvin is simply saying something like: if a couple is fighting all the time, might be best for them to split up, and each get their own house. Neither is sending the other away, or controlling them. No apartheid, with one treating the other like crap. Just divorce, and live separately.
Is it something like that, Marvin?
Problem is that there really isn't a workable way to do that in the US. All our land, AFAIK, belongs to someone, whether they be an individual, a corporation, a gov't agency, or whatever. In another time, it might have been possible to just walk off in opposite directions, and find new places to live--though there'd have been a good chance that any land they wanted belonged to indigenous tribes, and they shouldn't be disturbed.
FWIW: I think Marvin is simply saying something like: if a couple is fighting all the time, might be best for them to split up, and each get their own house. Neither is sending the other away, or controlling them. No apartheid, with one treating the other like crap. Just divorce, and live separately.
Is it something like that, Marvin?
It’s exactly like that. Let them take, say, Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas for their very own, and help anyone in that territory who doesn’t want to be there any more to move out. And vice versa.
FWIW: I think Marvin is simply saying something like: if a couple is fighting all the time, might be best for them to split up, and each get their own house. Neither is sending the other away, or controlling them. No apartheid, with one treating the other like crap. Just divorce, and live separately.
Is it something like that, Marvin?
It’s exactly like that. Let them take, say, Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas for their very own, and help anyone in that territory who doesn’t want to be there any more to move out. And vice versa.
And what do you do with all the fascists who don't want to move to Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas?
Or the people living there who do not want to move or to live under the Fourth Reich?
And deal when the inevitable civil war comes between those in the non-Fourth Reich states who want to join the FR and those in them who don't?
Cyprus, India, Ireland, Palestine - as Sir Humphrey observed, all partitioned, all resulted in violence.
Yeah Marvin. Really real that. Like your response to your exposure to church heterodoxy which elicited my evaporating sympathy. Let the fascists take over ICBM bases, sure. I just had to delete what I'm, we're thinking. YOOYFM.
1- The US has two sides that are completely unable or unwilling to coexist with the other.
2- One side has literally just stormed the capitol in an attempt to overthrow democracy.
3- This sort of situation seldom ends peacefully.
4- I’d as soon there not be a war.
5- For there not to be a war there needs to be a peaceful solution that both sides can accept.
6- So what might that solution look like?
The answer I’m getting from you all is basically “there is no possible solution that both sides can accept”. Because you won’t accept any solution other than the total eradication of the other side’s beliefs. No compromise, no surrender. And anyone who is in any way reticent about such an extreme stance is also the enemy.
I don’t get how the person trying to find a peaceful solution is the bad guy here.
If you're having a "Hans, are we the baddies?" moment here, then good.
Because you are advocating for the setting up of a white ethnonationalist state, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. There is already a fight going on. It is already not peaceful. You are asking those who oppose fascism to surrender to the fascists, and you call that a 'peaceful solution'.
FWIW: I think Marvin is simply saying something like: if a couple is fighting all the time, might be best for them to split up, and each get their own house. Neither is sending the other away, or controlling them. No apartheid, with one treating the other like crap. Just divorce, and live separately.
Is it something like that, Marvin?
It’s exactly like that. Let them take, say, Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas for their very own, and help anyone in that territory who doesn’t want to be there any more to move out. And vice versa.
You want to evict the Dakota tribe from the Dakotas? Why do we not have a headbanging smilie?
Because you are advocating for the setting up of a white ethnonationalist state, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. There is already a fight going on. It is already not peaceful. You are asking those who oppose fascism to surrender to the fascists, and you call that a 'peaceful solution'.
If I phrased it as “kick all the fascists out to somewhere where they can’t hurt anyone else” then would that be more acceptable to you? Or is any solution that lets them just get on with living their lives the way they want without bothering anyone else to be detested?
But, as I pointed out in my last paragraph, the land here already belongs to people. It's not like there are huge tracts of land that have nothing to do with anybody.
In the case of Native Americans, they've already been pushed and dragged and moved and slaughtered. (Look up "Trail of Tears" for an example.) They've already been through way too much crap. And they have strong ties to land.
And there's everyone else who owns land, too. Theoretically, they could be paid for their land, or they could donate it--or the gov't could force them off it through "eminent domain". You really, really don't want an eminent domain battle in the US. People tend to take the side of the landowner(s), get really cranky, and mutter/shout about the nasty gov't.
I think you don't live in the US? (You don't have to say.) I skimmed some of your old posts, and it looks that way. I think it can be hard for someone from elsewhere to understand that a lot of people *love* wide, open, empty spaces. And, even if those spaces were properly and fairly sold, the open-space lovers would be very unhappy campers, and that would probably spill over onto anyone who moved there.
Plus the wildlife needs a place, too--wild horses, bison, prairie dogs, etc., etc. Mess with them, and you'll have both animal lovers and activists after you. You really, really don't want that.
FWIW: I think of things like this, too. But there are all sorts of obstacles, questions of fairness, etc. On such a large scale, it just wouldn't work, no matter how much the various parties might equally want it to.
There are thousands of paedophiles in UK, I don`t advocate for them having a separate state. Truth and reconcilliation as an approach more broadly in the US might work, but you still need to prosecute for insurrection.
Because you are advocating for the setting up of a white ethnonationalist state, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. There is already a fight going on. It is already not peaceful. You are asking those who oppose fascism to surrender to the fascists, and you call that a 'peaceful solution'.
If I phrased it as “kick all the fascists out to somewhere where they can’t hurt anyone else” then would that be more acceptable to you? Or is any solution that lets them just get on with living their lives the way they want without bothering anyone else to be detested?
As long as it's between consenting adults and doesn't involve sex and cannibalism.
Because people who have sex with childen also have sex with adults, especially if they would like to have sex with children as well. Most children who are raped are raped by their parents.
But, as I pointed out in my last paragraph, the land here already belongs to people. It's not like there are huge tracts of land that have nothing to do with anybody.
Let’s build them a nice big island somewhere out in the ocean then.
Ignore the practicalities for a minute, and answer one simple question - if it were possible for a two-state solution to happen, would it be desirable? Or is it more a case that you think their beliefs are so wrong and evil that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist regardless of whether they’re affecting anyone else or not, and all this carping about the practicalities is just a way of denying the basic premise behind what I’m saying without actually being so crass as to actually come out and say it?
I know this is a bit of aren't-I-naughty 'ironic' fun for Marvin and that's allowed in Hell isn't it chums? He isn't being serious, and one should critique the performance on that basis. Norway, Tor Endresen, San Francisco (Marvin lives under the bridge), nul points.
But, as I pointed out in my last paragraph, the land here already belongs to people. It's not like there are huge tracts of land that have nothing to do with anybody.
Let’s build them a nice big island somewhere out in the ocean then.
Ignore the practicalities for a minute, and answer one simple question - if it were possible for a two-state solution to happen, would it be desirable? Or is it more a case that you think their beliefs are so wrong and evil that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist regardless of whether they’re affecting anyone else or not, and all this carping about the practicalities is just a way of denying the basic premise behind what I’m saying without actually being so crass as to actually come out and say it?
If they could be kept in such a fashion that they're not a threat to anyone else then sure. Thing is, we already have such places; they're called "maximum security prisons".
Because you are advocating for the setting up of a white ethnonationalist state, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. There is already a fight going on. It is already not peaceful. You are asking those who oppose fascism to surrender to the fascists, and you call that a 'peaceful solution'.
If I phrased it as “kick all the fascists out to somewhere where they can’t hurt anyone else” then would that be more acceptable to you? Or is any solution that lets them just get on with living their lives the way they want without bothering anyone else to be detested?
You’d have to call the new land Cloud Cuckoo Land. It’s just a thought exercise. It couldn’t happen and, if it could, it wouldn’t work for all the reasons already stated.
You didn’t reply to my thought about a truth and reconciliation commission.
Because you are advocating for the setting up of a white ethnonationalist state, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. There is already a fight going on. It is already not peaceful. You are asking those who oppose fascism to surrender to the fascists, and you call that a 'peaceful solution'.
If I phrased it as “kick all the fascists out to somewhere where they can’t hurt anyone else” then would that be more acceptable to you? Or is any solution that lets them just get on with living their lives the way they want without bothering anyone else to be detested?
No that solution, solitary confinement, is fine. But Christians are to be like God and be inclusive aren't they? Even of fascists. Knowing that anyone is in Hell demeans us all after all. But like psychopaths, never let them out of your sight and ever assume that they're not trying to manipulate you. The clever, radicalized ones. I'd need to see them do good works serving those they despised the most for a good long while. Otherwise they've just gone underground, biding their time. You can't expect good works of ordinary folk fascists, as long as they shut up and stop rioting, but keep an eye on them. And yes, do invite them to truth and reconciliation sessions with those they despise. Keep your friends close and all that.
You're confusing means with ends. You can negotiate with people who use violence to achieve political ends. You can't negotiate meaningfully with people for whom the violence is an end in itself. The IRA had a goal that could be achieved without violence (and still might, under the GFA, come about quite legally). White supremacists have no such goal.
I don't know if that's true. Their end is not violence but a white cishet theocracy in which blacks, gays, and so on are either second class citizens, enslaved, or ejected.
All three conditions require violence to sustain.
Second-class citizenship can only be maintained by violence or the credible threat of violence. One of the interesting thing about those who claim to oppose all forms of violence is the way state violence seems invisible to them unless it's open warfare.
If I phrased it as “kick all the fascists out to somewhere where they can’t hurt anyone else” then would that be more acceptable to you? Or is any solution that lets them just get on with living their lives the way they want without bothering anyone else to be detested?
Fascists don't do that. Enforcing their will on others (with violence, if necessary) is at the core of fascism. They're pretty open about this, writing books with titles like "My Fight", not "My Peaceful Co-Existence in a Pluralist Society". Not bothering anyone else is antithetical to fascism.
But, as I pointed out in my last paragraph, the land here already belongs to people. It's not like there are huge tracts of land that have nothing to do with anybody.
Let’s build them a nice big island somewhere out in the ocean then.
Ignore the practicalities for a minute, and answer one simple question - if it were possible for a two-state solution to happen, would it be desirable? Or is it more a case that you think their beliefs are so wrong and evil that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist regardless of whether they’re affecting anyone else or not, and all this carping about the practicalities is just a way of denying the basic premise behind what I’m saying without actually being so crass as to actually come out and say it?
You start by de-nazifying: Five categories of people for example: "Major Offenders, Offenders, Lesser Offenders, Followers, and Exonerated Persons". And then you rapidly lose interest because the legal realities and profit motive is more powerful than any sense of justice. You'll also be challenged by it being "unconstitutional" but that's a mere smokescreen. As we saw when it was possible to "torture some folks" in the illogical bush war on terror. And previous to that, deny you're bombing Cambodia, shipping arms to Contras, supporting various dictators etc.
Comments
Was the Good Friday Agreement wrong? I mean, the IRA were murdering terrorists, so according to your arguments hate we should have just pursued them relentlessly through the courts and eventually they’d have stopped. There was no need or moral justification for reaching a compromise with them, right?
You're confusing means with ends. You can negotiate with people who use violence to achieve political ends. You can't negotiate meaningfully with people for whom the violence is an end in itself. The IRA had a goal that could be achieved without violence (and still might, under the GFA, come about quite legally). White supremacists have no such goal.
The GFA was designed - deliberately - to neuter the armed struggle and get all parties to agree that Irish unification was a political goal that could only be achieved by peaceful means.
Now, because you're equating Irish unification with the creation of a White Nationalist state, you can absolutely and unequivocally get in the bin.
Not all political conflicts are the same. Union vs. Republic isn't the same as "lynching is OK" vs. "lynching is wrong".
I don't know if that's true. Their end is not violence but a white cishet theocracy in which blacks, gays, and so on are either second class citizens, enslaved, or ejected.
All three conditions require violence to sustain.
Their goal is a whites-only, ConEvo Christian society/country. It would be possible to give them that by moving populations around without killing anyone. Let them have a few of the flyover states to themselves - they can even have a nice bigly wall around them to keep everyone else out.
You're confusing means with ends.
Oh, calm the fuck down. I’m equating one group of terrorists with another, nothing more.
No, you're equating a legitimate political movement with fascism. Get in the bin.
Thanks for that. I don't want them.
And what will you do about their children, who have hearts and don't want to live in the society Mom/Dad is trying to create?
Several years ago, there was a PBS series called "America By The Numbers". It was hosted by Maria Hinajosa, who also hosts the radio show "Latino USA". She's really good at both.
The series focuses on demographic changes in the US. (That's the "About" tab.)
One episode stuck with me: "Our Private Idaho". (Closed Captioning available.)
It's been years since I saw it (though I watched a minute just now to make sure I had the right ep). The main thing I remember is about a group of white families from California (?) who were feeling overwhelmed by diversity, particularly people who didn't speak English. (E.g. clerks and such.) So they packed up and moved to Idaho. (It's a state next to Oregon and Washington.) Watching the story, I thought "well, if they can't cope, then maybe going to Idaho is better for everyone".
I sympathized a tiny bit with the language issue. I love languages. I've also found that if I'm down, and exhausted, and surrounded by people speaking a language not related to anything I've studied, and if I can't get away (like on public transportation), my brain can get fried--especially if there's more than one unfamiliar language going on at the same time. I keep it to myself.
So...they were shown up in Idaho. They seemed happier. Few people of color there. They did go to a little cafe run by a woman of color. They evidently liked her; and, when her business was robbed or attacked, they helped her out. I figured, "well, at least they helped *her*".
But then there was the small school for their kids. And what was taught there was white supremacy. IIRC, the lesson didn't seem to advocate violence; but it was absolutely something no kid should be exposed to.
And *some* Idahoans are known to be white supremacists. Deep roots there.
I don't remember how it ended. But, given the discussion here about people who can't agree going to live in different places, this might be worth watching.
NOTE: Just in case it's not clear, I do not support their ideas, and never have.
FYI, FWIW, YMMV.
Historically, planting populations in places to achieve political ends has ended very badly - often causing problems lasting for centuries. For example, sectarian violence on the island of Ireland, the ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia that reflect historically planted populations with different affiliations. (Amongst other dynamics, Christian populations planted on land, to form a bulwark against Muslim population.). Also - you might be familiar with the outcomes of the displacement of large chunks of the Palestinian population to make space for a new state.
The results are not peace.
1- The US has two sides that are completely unable or unwilling to coexist with the other.
2- One side has literally just stormed the capitol in an attempt to overthrow democracy.
3- This sort of situation seldom ends peacefully.
4- I’d as soon there not be a war.
5- For there not to be a war there needs to be a peaceful solution that both sides can accept.
6- So what might that solution look like?
The answer I’m getting from you all is basically “there is no possible solution that both sides can accept”. Because you won’t accept any solution other than the total eradication of the other side’s beliefs. No compromise, no surrender. And anyone who is in any way reticent about such an extreme stance is also the enemy.
I don’t get how the person trying to find a peaceful solution is the bad guy here.
The solution will need to be a long term one.
Serious, sustained in education and communities, especially the poorest, both black and white. Education of police and law enforcement and a much higher bar for entry to such jobs.
Tax the rich and super rich to the hilt to pay for it. Make sure tech companies are quick to ban hate speech.
I was thinking that if it’s impossible for the two sides to live together, then maybe they just need to be kept apart.
Allowing fascists to take or even share power is not peaceful.
Peace is a function of social justice.
A 'side' of a thousand rioters storming the undefended Capitol must involve the fullest possible legal, condign consequences for all involved. There can be no compromise in the post-Enlightenment world with fascists. Fascists must not, ever, be allowed to take power. 147 Republican representatives - over half - are fascist. There must be non-violent civil disobedience to such power by peace making Christians. If the state, or citizens' group in response to the state turning fascist, needs to take up arms against fascists using arms, that is their civil, civilized, Enlightenment duty, in the absence of martial law to protect social justice against fascism. My Christian peace-making would easily come to an end in a situation as portrayed in Bushwick.
Maybe a ‘truth and reconciliation’ strategy would help?
This was written in August, before trump brought the white extremists to a crescendo of crazy, hateful ‘hope’.
Politico Magazine, ‘Does America Need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ - https://tinyurl.com/y24unq6l
Even if it’s only over themselves?
It's never only over themselves. Aside from their families, they'll almost immediately decide they deserve more than the land they've got (c.f. Lebensraum).
Stated in those terms Marvin, you sound reasonable. But if what's wanted is a peaceful democratic solution to this insanity, how do you get people to be part of something if they want what they want and are quite willing to overthrow democracy by violent uprising? People like that need crushing, not appeasing.
If it's just over themselves and not even their families, in their own solitary, private rooms with no internet access, fine, of course. Why do you ask? By the way, was Jo Biden properly elected?
Is it something like that, Marvin?
Problem is that there really isn't a workable way to do that in the US. All our land, AFAIK, belongs to someone, whether they be an individual, a corporation, a gov't agency, or whatever. In another time, it might have been possible to just walk off in opposite directions, and find new places to live--though there'd have been a good chance that any land they wanted belonged to indigenous tribes, and they shouldn't be disturbed.
So you want war. A glorious holy war to eradicate the evil and leave only the good.
And so do they.
Well, it looks like you’re going to get it.
It’s exactly like that. Let them take, say, Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas for their very own, and help anyone in that territory who doesn’t want to be there any more to move out. And vice versa.
And what do you do with all the fascists who don't want to move to Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas?
Or the people living there who do not want to move or to live under the Fourth Reich?
And deal when the inevitable civil war comes between those in the non-Fourth Reich states who want to join the FR and those in them who don't?
Cyprus, India, Ireland, Palestine - as Sir Humphrey observed, all partitioned, all resulted in violence.
If you're having a "Hans, are we the baddies?" moment here, then good.
Because you are advocating for the setting up of a white ethnonationalist state, apartheid and ethnic cleansing. There is already a fight going on. It is already not peaceful. You are asking those who oppose fascism to surrender to the fascists, and you call that a 'peaceful solution'.
No. Just no.
You want to evict the Dakota tribe from the Dakotas? Why do we not have a headbanging smilie?
Czech Republic and Slovakia. Quite a few former Soviet countries. Indonesia/East Timor. Yugoslavia. Sometimes splitting up is the right thing to do.
Especially if the only alternative is for one or other of the sides to die.
If I phrased it as “kick all the fascists out to somewhere where they can’t hurt anyone else” then would that be more acceptable to you? Or is any solution that lets them just get on with living their lives the way they want without bothering anyone else to be detested?
But, as I pointed out in my last paragraph, the land here already belongs to people. It's not like there are huge tracts of land that have nothing to do with anybody.
In the case of Native Americans, they've already been pushed and dragged and moved and slaughtered. (Look up "Trail of Tears" for an example.) They've already been through way too much crap. And they have strong ties to land.
And there's everyone else who owns land, too. Theoretically, they could be paid for their land, or they could donate it--or the gov't could force them off it through "eminent domain". You really, really don't want an eminent domain battle in the US. People tend to take the side of the landowner(s), get really cranky, and mutter/shout about the nasty gov't.
I think you don't live in the US? (You don't have to say.) I skimmed some of your old posts, and it looks that way. I think it can be hard for someone from elsewhere to understand that a lot of people *love* wide, open, empty spaces. And, even if those spaces were properly and fairly sold, the open-space lovers would be very unhappy campers, and that would probably spill over onto anyone who moved there.
Plus the wildlife needs a place, too--wild horses, bison, prairie dogs, etc., etc. Mess with them, and you'll have both animal lovers and activists after you. You really, really don't want that.
FWIW: I think of things like this, too. But there are all sorts of obstacles, questions of fairness, etc. On such a large scale, it just wouldn't work, no matter how much the various parties might equally want it to.
As long as it's between consenting adults and doesn't involve sex and cannibalism.
Even one where there are no children?
Let’s build them a nice big island somewhere out in the ocean then.
Ignore the practicalities for a minute, and answer one simple question - if it were possible for a two-state solution to happen, would it be desirable? Or is it more a case that you think their beliefs are so wrong and evil that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist regardless of whether they’re affecting anyone else or not, and all this carping about the practicalities is just a way of denying the basic premise behind what I’m saying without actually being so crass as to actually come out and say it?
If they could be kept in such a fashion that they're not a threat to anyone else then sure. Thing is, we already have such places; they're called "maximum security prisons".
You’d have to call the new land Cloud Cuckoo Land. It’s just a thought exercise. It couldn’t happen and, if it could, it wouldn’t work for all the reasons already stated.
You didn’t reply to my thought about a truth and reconciliation commission.
No that solution, solitary confinement, is fine. But Christians are to be like God and be inclusive aren't they? Even of fascists. Knowing that anyone is in Hell demeans us all after all. But like psychopaths, never let them out of your sight and ever assume that they're not trying to manipulate you. The clever, radicalized ones. I'd need to see them do good works serving those they despised the most for a good long while. Otherwise they've just gone underground, biding their time. You can't expect good works of ordinary folk fascists, as long as they shut up and stop rioting, but keep an eye on them. And yes, do invite them to truth and reconciliation sessions with those they despise. Keep your friends close and all that.
Second-class citizenship can only be maintained by violence or the credible threat of violence. One of the interesting thing about those who claim to oppose all forms of violence is the way state violence seems invisible to them unless it's open warfare.
Fascists don't do that. Enforcing their will on others (with violence, if necessary) is at the core of fascism. They're pretty open about this, writing books with titles like "My Fight", not "My Peaceful Co-Existence in a Pluralist Society". Not bothering anyone else is antithetical to fascism.
You start by de-nazifying: Five categories of people for example: "Major Offenders, Offenders, Lesser Offenders, Followers, and Exonerated Persons". And then you rapidly lose interest because the legal realities and profit motive is more powerful than any sense of justice. You'll also be challenged by it being "unconstitutional" but that's a mere smokescreen. As we saw when it was possible to "torture some folks" in the illogical bush war on terror. And previous to that, deny you're bombing Cambodia, shipping arms to Contras, supporting various dictators etc.