This is going to be an extremely long post, one of my 3-5 page essays, but hopefully it will cut to the heart of what I see as the disagreement and how I perceive the entire argument, because I think a lot of people are totally missing my point, which is probably the result of me not articulating my ideas well enough. I'm going to underline the sentences I think are most important to help them stand out from the wall of text.
I think, fundamentally, everyone in this thread wants the same thing: as much peace and liberty as possible at the cost of as little violence as possible. If there was anyone I was to question that specific formulation with regards to, it would be Cato, who appears to be a Social Marxist. Social Marxism is to Marxism as Social Marxism is to Marxism as Social Darwinism is to Darwinian evolution; that is to say, it is a misappropriation of the labels and structures of Marxism to encompass a domain to which they do not apply. That's why when Social Marxists march, they leave graffiti such as "Liberals get the bullet too":
Although liberals may align with many of the concepts of Marxism as originally spelled out and consistently vote in favor of what would traditionally be seen as "socialist" options, such as a more even distribution of wealth, more socialization of public services such as the health service or increased public transportation, etc., they are not Social Marxists. The goals of Social Marxism do not reflect their opinions and beliefs.
Social Marxism, instead of attempting to equalize the distribution of wealth via socializing the means of production, intends to equalize the distribution of power via the means of destroying "cis white hetero capitalist patriarchy", or some variation of that group. Social Marxism is inherently a radical ideology that will only lead to radicalization and by extension, violence. That's why the immediate demand is violence and the only tactic on offer is violence and intimidation.
I think that what I want, and what most people want, is as much peace and liberty as possible at the cost of as little violence as possible, and what we are arguing about is what qualifies as violence and what violence is justified. To that end, we do not see ourselves as issuing a call to violence.
- Liberty, in this definition, does not encompass solely what was is able to do with one's body, whether that is sexuality or drugs, working or relaxing, etc,. It encompasses economic freedom (ie do I have the ability to earn a living, and to live on the money I can earn), social freedom (for example, rights to marry or associate freely), and freedom from legislation unduly imposing on one's personal choices. I believe both Democrats and Republicans, as well as most people of most political parties, would agree with some variation of this definition and could explain their political ideology in accordance with it.
- Peace, in this definition; is to be free from assault, undo or unreasonable fear, and to live in as much safety as is possible in an imperfect world. I would find it intolerable to live in a situation where any subgroup is unduly (ie without it being as the direct result of their personal actions) restrained, whether socially, economically, or in terms of movement.and access to institutions. I would find it similarly intolerable to live in a situation where any subgroup was ignored by law enforcement or was not held to the same legal and ethical standards as the rest of the population as a result of anything other than their own capabilities (eg, I would not hold someone with downs syndrome and the mental capacity of a 5 year old to the standard of not whipping his dick out in public, but that's the result of his capabilities, not of his condition, and I would hold someone with downs syndrome and the mental capacity of a 15 year old to that standard).
- The definition of violence, in this formulation, is one of the things that we're having a difference of agreement on.
I don't believe it is an act of violence to deny someone entrance to a country other than the one they hold full and primary citizenship in. What I mean by "full citizenship" is not being a holder of a temporary rite of entry, such as a green card or visa, but of full citizenship comparable to native citizens of the country. What I mean by "primary citizenship" is if, in a situation where a person has full citizenship of more than one country, and one country goes to war or is at imminent risk of going to war with the other, or their internationally recognized government dissolves or is as imminent risk of dissolving, would be the country that the person with the dual citizenship would choose to retain the citizenship of in preference to the other. So if a person (let's call him Ahmed) had dual Iranian and Canadian citizenship and Canada went to war with Iran or Iran's government was toppled by ISIS and Ahmed wished to stay in Canada, I would expect him to give up his Iranian citizenship to maintain his status as a citizen of Canada; if he refused to do so, given no other mitigating circumstances, I would have no problem with Canada sending him to Iran and having him give up his Canadian citizenship.
I don't see how that could be formulated to be an act of violence. If you disagree, please explain your reasoning. The exception would be people for whom returning them to their nation of origin would be tantamount to extraditing them to a nation in which they had a death sentence or would otherwise be harmed, ie refugees. I believe, based on the evidence I have seen, that the majority of those who have entered Europe from the Middle East and North Africa during recent months are not in that situation and are not refugees. Ergo, returning them to their nations of origin would not be an act of violence. I believe this is also true for the majority of people who have crossed the American border from Latin America illegally.
I think there should be a path to citizenship for those who were brought to America as children and have integrated into our society, such as the DREAM Act or something similar. I don't believe that children born in America to non-native Americans should be denied American citizenship, because that's unconstitutional, and I don't have a problem with lowering the age at which children can apply for their parents to remain in the US legally from 18 to something like 10 or 13, something that would give the child enough time to receive the American public school education to which they are entitled as citizens while being financially supported by their parents. However, I also don't see the problem with deporting people who came here to have so-called anchor babies to a country where they can raise the child safely, as long as they are citizens of that country and can reasonably be expected to be able to bring their child there. To frame the situation another way, if a woman who was 7 months pregnant were to come here from England, and while she was here she unexpectedly developed complications and had to have labor induced, I would not feel it necessary to remove the child from her custody so that it could be raised in America as an American citizen while she was returned to Great Britain. She could get an American passport and British residency visa for the child, bring the child back to Britain, raise it there, and decide over there whether she wanted to get British citizenship for the child or let the child retain its American citizenship.
I think that the primary reason why the liberal parties have lost so many elections of late (besides the corruption; but let's be honest, that exists to about equal extents on both sides of the aisle) is that they are appealing to middle class sensibilities, as they have for decades, without noticing that the middle class has shrunk to a size where it is no longer the primary voting bloc, allowing right-wing parties to appeal to poor, working class people, which they have successfully done. The long-term solution is greater wealth equity. The short term solution is distancing themselves from the far left Social Marxists, who are mostly middle class teenagers LARPing as revolutionaries, and spending more time listening to their constituents as opposed to spending time hanging out with their 1% friends and supporters, especially those in the mainstream media.
The mainstream media is owned by the "haves", staffed and marketed to the "have a little, want more", and entirely out of touch with and critical of the "have nots." It should be owned by the "have a little, want more", staffed by the "have nots", and marketed to and critical of the "haves".
I don't believe the current surge in right-wing support is due to institutional racism or a desire to return to the policies of the past on the part of the electorate at large. I don't believe that "the white man", "the patriarchy", "heteronormativity" or any variation of that theme is the problem, and I don't believe that the electorate at large is being increasingly galvanized by the idea of white power--I believe they are being increasingly galvanized by poverty, and are going to the only people acknowledging their poverty and offering them hope. I believe that adequately explains why Trump won and why he won a larger percent of the votes from African Americans than any other Republican candidate in decades. I don't believe that the country is getting more unsafe as the result of minorities being inherently violent, and I don't think many people believe that. I do believe an increasing number of people see whites, men, and police as inherently violent and are attempting to curtail the freedom of certain groups as a result, and I consider that a problem.
I believe the most important thing I or anyone else can do is try to approach questions with rationality and civility, to try to be as charitable towards those with whom one disagrees as possible, to keep one's reactions to other people's actions proportional to the situation, and to not allow emotions to overwhelm one's sense of perspective.I hope this has helped clear up my perspective on what I see as the greater issues involved here.
Topic: Donald Trump wants to ban Muslims from America