Keeping Things Civil

[Amianthus]

For this article, the "subtext" was made explicit: civil war could happen here.

Indeed, this is the afterword of a novel about a near-future civil war in this country. However, in the novel, the instigating group of the civil war was a progressive movement, where New York City, Vermont, and Washington state seceded from the union, with a number of states considering doing so as well. The reason stated for the secession was the "stolen election of 2000 and subsequent elections." Hardly a right-wing conspiracy.

And yet, seemingly to bring life to the words of the essay, you seek out only the "other side" as a possible reason for civil war.

[domer]

Ami, your immediately preceding two comments don't apply at all to me. (Michael is the only other conversant in this thread with left leanings.) First, I have never entertained a secessionist thought in my life. I simply have no idea whether such a fantasy, expressed or tacit, motivates enough lefties to be worthy of comment. Further, I fully endorse, though it is most elusive, "an ever-adapting civilization-wide consensus reality [or reliable process of achieving it and amending it]." As to seeing madness, I perceive -- and distance myself from -- the Left's craziness perhaps only a tad less than I do the Right's. Not that there is anything wrong with radicals when the times call for radicalism, but I am a centrist or moderate. Any quibble you have with that last statement is a product of "internet distortion" and not a true reflection of either my thinking or my nature.

[Amianthus]

First, I have never entertained a secessionist thought in my life. I simply have no idea whether such a fantasy, expressed or tacit, motivates enough lefties to be worthy of comment.

"The examples are -- or should be -- obvious. That we are generally oblivious to the excesses of our own side merely demonstrates how close we already are to a paroxysm of self-destruction."

I have seen you write in the previous incarnations of this club a claim along the lines of "anything is ok, as long it gets the right people into office." Regardless of your own leaning in the thoughts of secessionism, you would support those who do have those leanings as long as they are on your side of the aisle.

"How can we accomplish that? It begins by scorning the voices of extremism from the camp we are aligned with. Democrats and Republicans must renounce the screamers and haters from their own side instead of continuing to embrace them and denouncing only the screamers from the opposing camp. We must moderate ourselves instead of insisting on moderating the other guy while keeping our own fanaticism alive."

When I see you denouncing ideas of extremism from your own side, I'll know you have gotten the message.

[modestyblase]

Because we haven't had a civil war in the past fourteen decades, people think we can't have one now.

 
I thought something post-Civil War made it nearly impossible for states to declare war against one another-that they cannot with any efficacy wage war on another state as they lack any substantial means to prosecute it?

Of course, that is the states themselves. Individuals are a different thing, entirely.

[domer]

Ami, now you're making personal attacks on me from an outright lie concocted from whole cloth and spread insidiously by that paragon of rectitude and intelligence, Don (I forget his last name). That disgusts me. (You pass that bullshit off as fact while my comments immediately preceding about Don constitute an opinion.) Further, in twisting the discussion as you have, insisting on the author's template not only as mold for discussion, but as a valid one at that, I become convinced that there is no further utility in discussing matters with you. I had held out hopes that we might form a valuable dyad on the board, and may someday return to that view, but in the meantime I'm bowing out by reason of disgust.

[sirs]

It begins by scorning the voices of extremism from the camp we are aligned with. Democrats and Republicans must renounce the screamers and haters from their own side instead of continuing to embrace them and denouncing only the screamers from the opposing camp. We must moderate ourselves instead of insisting on moderating the other guy while keeping our own fanaticism alive."

When I see you denouncing ideas of extremism from your own side, I'll know you have gotten the message.

BINGO !!

[Amianthus]

Ami, now you're making personal attacks on me from an outright lie concocted from whole cloth and spread insidiously by that paragon of rectitude and intelligence, Don (I forget his last name). That disgusts me. (You pass that bullshit off as fact while my comments immediately preceding about Don constitute an opinion.)

Actually, I don't base my comments on what Don said; I remember the comments you made myself. You're not the only to have made those claims, indeed it is confirmed as recently as the election of Jefferson.

Further, in twisting the discussion as you have, insisting on the author's template not only as mold for discussion, but as a valid one at that, I become convinced that there is no further utility in discussing matters with you. I had held out hopes that we might form a valuable dyad on the board, and may someday return to that view, but in the meantime I'm bowing out by reason of disgust.

No problem. I understand. It's perfectly reasonable for you to frame discussions that you begin, rejecting anything that does not fit your mold, yet you forbid anyone else from doing the same.

It's a part of your arrogance. And just goes to show how firmly fitted your blinders are.

[Plane]

An extremely good article , bravo!


So should the discussion be on the subject of respect for people who have the right to be wrong?

The prevention of violence and strife?

Or ..... How to conduct violence and strife properly?

[BT]

Of course, that is the states themselves. Individuals are a different thing, entirely.

I do believe that is what the article warns about. Not secession but an armed struggle for an ideology.

Picture the warring camps as urban areas against the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas.

[Plane]

Of course, that is the states themselves. Individuals are a different thing, entirely.

I do believe that is what the article warns about. Not secession but an armed struggle for an ideology.

Picture the warring camps as urban areas against the suburbs, exurbs and rural areas.

We could pass out brassards, wear colors ?

[Michael Tee]

Ami:  << . . .  because nobody is willing to accept the simple idea that someone can disagree with their group and still be a decent human being worthy of respect.">>

That's just plain ludicrous.  The single most contested public issue of these times is the war in Iraq.  There is nothing decent or worthy of respect in the richest nation on earth defying international law to invade a small Third World country of 23 million people and killing or otherwise causing the deaths of 600,000.  That is just plain horrendous.  Every single excuse for this criminal atrocity has self-destructed in plain view.  Nobody can support shit like that in good conscience.  To suggest that the war's supporters be spoken to with full respect for their supposed "decency" is absurd.  It's almost like asking decent Germans to moderate their criticism of Nazis, and to show that the Nazis too are "decent human beings worthy of respect."  It's moral relativism reducta ad absurdum.  The atrocity, the lies and the deceit cry out to be denounced, and denounced in the strongest possible terms.  The article quoted by Ami was a pitiful attempt to deflect well-earned criticism.

[Plane]

Ami:  << . . .  because nobody is willing to accept the simple idea that someone can disagree with their group and still be a decent human being worthy of respect.">>

That's just plain ludicrous.  The single most contested public issue of these times is the war in Iraq.  There is nothing decent or worthy of respect in the richest nation on earth defying international law to invade a small Third World country of 23 million people and killing or otherwise causing the deaths of 600,000.  That is just plain horrendous.  Every single excuse for this criminal atrocity has self-destructed in plain view.  Nobody can support shit like that in good conscience.  To suggest that the war's supporters be spoken to with full respect for their supposed "decency" is absurd.  It's almost like asking decent Germans to moderate their criticism of Nazis, and to show that the Nazis too are "decent human beings worthy of respect."  It's moral relativism reducta ad absurdum.  The atrocity, the lies and the deceit cry out to be denounced, and denounced in the strongest possible terms.  The article quoted by Ami was a pitiful attempt to deflect well-earned criticism.

I don't know MT , but aren't you in favor of placeing the most eager killers in charge over there?

Doesn't mean I have to think you are inherantly evil or that the world would be better without you .

Why don't you say that there were 623,482 victims , rounding the figure off leaves the impression that one is guessing.

[Amianthus]

That's just plain ludicrous.  The single most contested public issue of these times is the war in Iraq.  There is nothing decent or worthy of respect in the richest nation on earth defying international law to invade a small Third World country of 23 million people and killing or otherwise causing the deaths of 600,000.  That is just plain horrendous.  Every single excuse for this criminal atrocity has self-destructed in plain view.  Nobody can support shit like that in good conscience.  To suggest that the war's supporters be spoken to with full respect for their supposed "decency" is absurd.  It's almost like asking decent Germans to moderate their criticism of Nazis, and to show that the Nazis too are "decent human beings worthy of respect."  It's moral relativism reducta ad absurdum.  The atrocity, the lies and the deceit cry out to be denounced, and denounced in the strongest possible terms.  The article quoted by Ami was a pitiful attempt to deflect well-earned criticism.

"In short, we are creating for ourselves a new dark age -- the darkness of blinders we voluntarily wear, and which, if we do not take them off and see each other as human beings with legitimate, virtuous concerns, will lead us to tragedies whose cost we will bear for generations.

"Or, maybe, we can just calm down and stop thinking that our own ideas are so precious that we must never give an inch to accommodate the heartfelt beliefs of others."

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't know MT , but aren't you in favor of placeing the most eager killers in charge over there?>>

The most eager killer is George W. Bush, who has the blood of 600,000 Iraqis on his hands and didn't even bother to keep a civilian body count.  And I am definitely NOT in favour of putting him or his puppets in charge over there.  I am in favour of him being put on trial for his life as a war criminal.

<<Doesn't mean I have to think you are inherantly evil or that the world would be better without you .>>

Crazy world if the OPPONENTS of those who start wars are inherently evil and would benefit the world by leaving it.

<<Why don't you say that there were 623,482 victims , rounding the figure off leaves the impression that one is guessing. >>

Why don't you say that you just don't know that there would be a much bigger bloodbath in Iraq if the U.S. ceased its criminal occupation immediately, and stop guessing yourself?  600,000 is a rounded figure like any estimate such as the U.S. national debt, the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, the cost of the war or the price of next year's oil.  It's commonly accepted by most people who aren't followers of the administration's line that this is the true cost in blood of Bush's war.  More proof, if any were needed, of the extent of his criminality.

[_JS]

There won't be a Civil War in the United States because that would involve getting people up off of their asses and actually caring enough about something to take some sort of action.

We destroyed the Trades Unions in this nation, so there is no organisational outlet for industrial action of the working class on any large scale.

The right-wing extremists like Hannity, Coulter, Liddy, Savage, Ollie, O'Reilly and their ilk have no desire for anyone to actually do anything other than purchase their books and sit on their rears and watch their television programs (or listen to their radio shows).

I don't think there are many leftists counseling revolution. Perhaps a Maoist in some basement of his parents home in between classes at the adult education center and XBox360 games.

Let's face it, Americans are (to borrow a phrase from Pink Floyd) comfortably numb. We're more interested in whether LCD televisions are a better deal than plasma TV's for the money. We like to remember the music that was popular when we were kids and how baseball has changed so much since those days.

I've watched documentaries on some of the "militia groups" and frankly I'm not worried. Most of them struggled with their P-38's to open their cans (LOL) then their belly crawls left a lot to be desired. I think by the time they made it to your house they'd surrender for a box of twinkies. Add to that the right-wings journalists who pretend they know a lot about weapons (John Derbyshire) and hunting, then when they punch out articles it becomes obvious that they do not.

Move to the left's elite and I doubt you'd find much difference. I just don't see any great war between red versus blue or urban versus suburban and rural being fought. It lacks any basis in historical reality. The hateful rhetoric exists because the two parties are so close in beliefs and America in general is a lean-right nation.