lots of countries manage this better than we do. the first step would just be recognizing that hate speech isn’t protected speech.
beyond all the death and misery pointed out already… it wouldn’t work on a more fundamental level.
is there any country in the world which isn’t dealing with homophobia, racism, colorism, or sexism? where secularism and disparate religious traditions exist in perfect harmony? or, are we preparing to divide the whole world into tiny, non intersectional enclaves and we all have to move to the one that matches us best, and then finally we get world peace?
you don’t attempt to fix division by creating more division. you work to continually expand the space within which everyone is respected as a full, valid human being.
It’s the old “Conservativism can never fail, it can only be failed”. Their policy positions and ideas can be proven wrong in the real world over and over and over, but it is never the idea that is the problem It is merely that it was not implemented in a pure way.
Good point. And The Trail of Tears was just one of several forced removal marches. None of them went well.
And many Natives still haven’t recovered from that forced removal.
Capitulation to Fascists doesn’t typically end Fascist aggression. If you think allowing them to have an ethno-state would some how satisfy them, you might say one is being…“historically naive”.
This bullshit is some white christian neonazi fever dream for a race war. However, as long as it remains less profitable for the .01% a civil war or a ‘peaceful partition’(whateverthefuck that means) is unlikely.
Even in the highly unlikely event that did somehow lead to a situation where the fascists were happy to peacefully remain in their own little ethno-states that would still create a situation where a significant portion of the American populace was forced to live under a full-blown fascist regime. How could anyone who cares about human rights think that is OK?
It reminds me of the people who say “we should have just let the South secede” as if avoiding armed conflict was more important than addressing the issue of chattel slavery.
Stop giving all these people a platform to use; don’t be their audience. Ignore their bullshit, and Vote. Them. Out. If you’re not in their district, support those who are and actively working to replace them with a better choice.
Also, remember that even if 25-30% of the country are ignorant assholes, the other 70-75% don’t have to be, and might even decide to put aside opinions and emotions to help clean up our government and our planet. Yes I’m being an optimist, but I will Never Give Up, Never Surrender.
I did because I hoped the tomatoes would irritate her skin. It’s the little annoyances that make life a misery, and that’s what I wish for her. Mundane, grueling, never ending misery.
William Tecumseh Sherman said much the same thing just prior to the Civil War. In an open letter:
…where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth-right at your doors.
He was right. Turns out it takes more than being right to convince some people.
I doubt that both sides would gracefully agree to portion the US debt, continue to maintain their share of it, and support the Federal Reserve. Boom goes the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency!
Hm. I’ve read that leading up to the Civil War, people in the South were asking “Why do we need the Union?”, but I suspect what they were really asking was “Holy shit! How do we get out of paying these slavery mortgages before they sink our palatial mansions into the swamp?” (I’m guessing because no one talks about slavery capitalism.)
I wonder what the paleolibertarian billionaires funding this crap think that they can gain out of it?
Flipping to the back of This half has never been told, and rapidly skimming, it’s fear of John Brown style slave revolts, and facing the future of a frontier closed to slavery.
Czechoslovakia. Although those were two countries in the first place that were combined and later agreed to separate when they were allowed to make their own decisions. Plus they had already nominally federalised 30 years before, basically running two countries under the common name of one.
(That’s also why I think something like Scottish independence won’t be a huge problem: it’s already its own country)
