Recent Political Violence in America

[LittleRaven]

No we shouldn't. Fuck those statues. If the states keep dragging their heels on tearing down these cheaply made, mass produced monuments to murderers and slavers that were put up not just after the war but during the height of the Civil Rights movement as a backlash*, then the people need to do it.

The states ARE the people, Arkle. North Carolina is not a dictatorship. It's governor and legislature are regularly elected. There is no sign of fraud. The system is working as intended. The sad truth is, many people in these states want those statues to stay. I'm all for changing that, but change must come within the system - when justify breaking the law because you have right on your side, you're enabling an environment where the worst actors win. To paraphrase Bolt, you must give the Devil the benefit of the law, because in the end, the law is your best defense against him.

[Arkle]

There is no sign of fraud.

When did I say there was fraud? When did I say anything that even RHYMED with fraud? Who the heck do you think you replied to?

The system is working as intended. The sad truth is, many people in these states want those statues to stay.

Bad people. Horrible, no good, very bad people. Racist people.

I'm all for changing that, but change must come within the system - when justify breaking the law because you have right on your side, you're enabling an environment where the worst actors win.

There's plenty of history that suggests you're wrong. Google "civil disobedience" sometime.

To paraphrase Bolt, you must give the Devil the benefit of the law, because in the end, the law is your best defense against him.

Sounds good on paper, until you remember how many corrupt and racist people wrote those laws in the first place.

[LittleRaven]

Bad people. Horrible, no good, very bad people. Racist people.

But people. Who vote. Again, there are 330 million of us, and we agree on very little. We have carefully designed a system that does its best to cater to the majority while protecting the minority, and while it's not perfect, it's much better than any likely alternative at the moment. We tear it down at our peril.

There's plenty of history that suggests you're wrong. Google "civil disobedience" sometime.

A important part of civil disobedience is being willing to suffer the consequences for your actions. If you feel so strongly that a statue must come down that you're willing to break the law to do it, then surely you're ready to pay the penalty for tearing it down under the law. Martin Luther went to jail multiple times, and that never stopped him, because he felt his cause was worth it. I would certainly hope that the people of Durham share his level of conviction.

Sounds good on paper, until you remember how many corrupt and racist people wrote those laws in the first place.

Again, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Our system is far from perfect, but it's firmly on the side of good. If you doubt that, just take a look around the world - very few people have it as good as we do.

[Antiboyscout]

We have 330 million people in this country, with an incredibly diverse set of beliefs and priorities. Our democratic processes, as slow and frustrating as they often are, have allowed us to remain relatively united for almost 250 years, and we cannot afford to abandon them now.

I would argue the US system is deeply flawed in such a way to generate these kinds of divides rather than express and expel them.
If a system that emphasized and empowered proportional representation had been assembled from the start, rather than a system that favored and empowered territorial representation we would not have these kinds of issues now.

The US system is deeply in need of amendmending.

Are you somehow implying that the Continental European system somehow inherently prevents ethnic conflict? Did you forget about all the Muslim ghettos all across Europe at the moment, or the violence?
Or, are you somehow suggesting that the US needs to adopt some sort of RACIALLY based proportional system, where the number of seats are distributed to race representatives?
Ether way NO.

Being able to directly contact your local district representative as apposed to some nameless faceless party intern that has no real motivation to pass along your concerns to anyone with actual decision making power.
And a race based representational system.. HELL NO

[Darth Wedgius]

Every time Richard Spenser gets punched in the face he becomes more popular and sympathetic. Every time he opens his mouth people reject him. The answer is and always was to just let them speak. All you have to do is let them say their piece and then move on.

So the right should give Richard Spenser a chance to speak. That's risky, in that it could create a perception that the right is being friendly to him because of sympathy. It still sounds worthwhile to me, though. I've seen holocaust-deniers use laws against holocaust denial as evidence for holocaust denial.

And who knows, maybe it will take away some of the edginess-based attraction that sometimes pulls young people into a movement.

Thanks!

[Darth Wedgius]

I would argue the US system is deeply flawed in such a way to generate these kinds of divides rather than express and expel them.
If a system that emphasized and empowered proportional representation had been assembled from the start, rather than a system that favored and empowered territorial representation we would not have these kinds of issues now.

I can see the reason in this. I absolutely hate it (edit -- just stating my emotional response; my emotional reaction is not really germane except as a statement to weigh my reaction by), in large part because I'd like us to see past each other's races and genders, and political representation by race and/or gender would seem to me to ossify those divisions. But it's pretty uncertain that we will ever be at that point, and I can see the value of having something here for an imperfect present rather than held hostage to a more perfect future.

You would guarantee women 51% of Congress, governorships, and Supreme Court posts, and blacks 12.6%, etc.? Or am I being less subtle, or more concrete, than you had in mind?

[Darth Wedgius]

I doubt this thread will go far down the direction I'd hoped, so I'll give my thoughts. I'm politically to the right (more libertarian than socially conservative), so I'll try to address what the right can do to better diminish our hotheads and I'll say nothing of the left.

I'd like the right to emphasize what I see as its best feature -- support of the individual. The only "race realist" I've ever had any success arguing against is the one I pointed out to how expelling blacks from the U.S. would mean getting rid of some really decent, intelligent black people, many of whom served in our armed services, and keeping white people who drift through life one crime after another. I asked him if that could be justified and he said he'd have to think about it.

Hey, it was in YouTube comments. "I'll have to think about it" is like the freaking Nobel Peace Prize.

I'd also like the right to move toward devolving more powers to the states. Rocketboy suggested a major change to the government. I'd like that to be, if tried, tried first on a state level, and, for it to have more meaning, that the state government's decisions have more weight. The same goes for other experiments. And if the states can try different things, they can make better decisions based on what actually works. And people can vote on the best system -- with their feet if need be.

I'd like to come up with an alternative to universities, which have suffered from serious inflation for some time now. Something involving the Internet for instruction and periodic tests in testing centers -- empty storefronts rented for the week or such. No semester or quarterly schedule needed -- you get certified when you pass. The idea is to get better education to more people, more cheaply. And yes, this could be tried in a few states first. Not all racism comes from ignorance -- some people just have that as a fundamental value in their lives -- but I think that making a degree-equivalent easier to obtain will help people earn more and take away some resentment that can fuel nastiness. And maybe it'll get a bit more information into stubborn heads that not everyone who accomplished something in America was white or Asian, or male.

[TGLS]

I would argue the US system is deeply flawed in such a way to generate these kinds of divides rather than express and expel them.
If a system that emphasized and empowered proportional representation had been assembled from the start, rather than a system that favored and empowered territorial representation we would not have these kinds of issues now.

You would guarantee women 51% of Congress, governorships, and Supreme Court posts, and blacks 12.6%, etc.? Or am I being less subtle, or more concrete, than you had in mind?

I am 85% sure that Rocketboy1313 wasn't talking about making sure that each minority group has equal representation, but that each political party gets representation in Congress closer to their overall vote share. i.e. if the Democrats got 48% of the vote, the Republicans 49%, and the Libertarians 3%, the Libertarians would get 3% the overall power in congress, Republicans 49%, and Democrats 48%, while under the current system it is possible to get a wide Republican majority with the same popular vote totals. However, the main issue is balancing local representation with proportional representation. Some methods involve larger districts with multiple winners, while others add members to the legislature to balance with the popular vote.

[GandALF]

Every time Richard Spenser gets punched in the face he becomes more popular and sympathetic. Every time he opens his mouth people reject him. The answer is and always was to just let them speak. All you have to do is let them say their piece and then move on.

So the right should give Richard Spenser a chance to speak. That's risky, in that it could create a perception that the right is being friendly to him because of sympathy. It still sounds worthwhile to me, though. I've seen holocaust-deniers use laws against holocaust denial as evidence for holocaust denial.

The right doesn't need to give him a chance to speak, the constitution gives him a chance to speak. All they have to do is reject any association with him and not pussyfoot around that rejection like the President. Letting him speak will ultimately undermine him, its basic liberal (in the broader sense) idea:

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error" -J.S. Mill

[Darth Wedgius]

I am 85% sure that Rocketboy1313 wasn't talking about making sure that each minority group has equal representation, but that each political party gets representation in Congress closer to their overall vote share.

That does sound more likely. My bad! And I'd have a lot less objection to this. People probably threw their votes away to try to prevent Evil Candidate Hildonald Trumclton (whichever) from getting elected.