Cheers.
History tells us that the Narodnik[1] plan failed. The real change in minds came when the rural masses migrated to cities with dense habitation and the calculus of labor doing industrial jobs proved fertile for new ideas.
The only problem we have today is that large-scale rural->urban migration leaves huge swaths of the heartland emptied out which severely exacerbates our present problem because of the way senators are apportioned.
Sounds very authoritarian and not democratic at all. What makes you think they won't try to do the same thing? I certainly don't want any government to have the power to re-educate adults and limit who can vote because they're voting wrong. That's Orwellian.
It's what we already have, just extended a little. We already limit voting to citizens, and we have mandatory education for age groups and as a prerequisite to do certain professions.
> I certainly don't want any government to have the power to re-educate adults and limit who can vote because they're voting wrong. That's Orwellian.
Look at the situation we are in now, though. We have an extremely ignorant, outright science denying, not insignificant subset of the population, who due to our system of government can elect in people who share their beliefs, who then go on to be in real positions of power.
What do you do when you have a slight majority of Trumps or MTGs as your representatives? More than likely, freedoms will erode and wars would likely increase.
So, how can you avoid that, or worse problems caused by an ignorant voting block? If you want to keep this form of government (which I would argue we should not), I'm not sure what other solutions there are other than to have some sort of test for voting. Maybe moving the definition of what constitutes a citizen like in Starship Troopers could work.
The real reason you have a Second Amendment is to stop those pesky slaves from rising up and trying to obtain their freedom. [0]
Here's the funny bit. If you were even half the patriot you consider yourself to be, you'd more than agree with the issues I outlined above.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-...
Try and remove citizenship from an extremely well-armed populous and see what happens.
(Bring on the "you need F-16s, man!" Guess to which side the overwhelming majority of the military and private arms ownership leans? Hint: it's not yours.)
It's not a question of what I believe, the fats and argument are outlined in the link previously provided.
And if the last few years in US politics has shown us anything, it's that some people choose to reject reality for one of their own making.
> Try and remove citizenship from an extremely well-armed populous and see what happens.
The only insurrection attempt in recent history came from the right, and the only presidential candidate who threatened to be a dictator also came from the right.
Gun nuts are also on the right and allegedly compare very much about rising up against an authoritarian government. Except if such a government would agree with them, I guess. What traitorous hypocrites.
Those people with guns won't ever do anything because they are all preparing for an imaginary Red Dawn type situation. If legislation sneaks up on them, if it's a 'threat' they can't shoot, they will be helpless to fight it.
That side has also shown how incredibly gullible they are, so the simplest information warfare will likely pacify them. Russia has certainly demonstrated how easy a group they are to control.
> Guess to which side the overwhelming majority of the military and private arms ownership leans? Hint: it's not yours.)
Ooooh scary! lol.
Anyway, I'm done with this convo. I'd rather not enable this kind of fantasizing any further. Cheers.
> Maybe moving the definition of what constitutes a citizen like in Starship Troopers could work
> Those people with guns won't ever do anything
Only one way to find out.
Goodness.
What do you do in a situation where half the population won't take a vaccine during a pandemic because they think Bill Gates is going to track you with microchips?
Honestly, what's the solution here other than to wait and hope the voting population normalizes and self-corrects?
Or did they listen to and trust someone who told them that? And if so why did they listen to and trust that person?
How about the people who have the right, and science backed answers learn how to hear out and build trust with the population, so the population actually wants to listen and trust what they say?
The population doesn't have to be smart, those who have the right answers just need to be caring and compassionate and build trust with the population.
I'm sorry, but democrats seem to have no interest in even attempting to hear the right out and to work towards building any sort of trust with them.
Who cares? The issue is their gullibility and lac of education and ability to think critically.
> How about the people who have the right, and science backed answers learn how to hear out and build trust with the population, so the population actually wants to listen and trust what they say?
We're past that point. The tribalism is so entrenched that most of those people are never going to give the other side a chance.
You'd have to devote time to sit with each person individually and put in the time to try and educate and better them, and it's impossible since we don't have time or people to do that.
> The population doesn't have to be smart,
They kind of do. Or you end up with people that think Alex Jones is a credible source.
> I'm sorry, but democrats seem to have no interest in even attempting to hear the right out and to work towards building any sort of trust with them.
It's hard to hear out and build trust with a group of willfully ignorant superstitious ultra patriots who all too often behave in ways that could be described as bigoted.
Pretty much. The left wants people they can debate and negotiate with. Not a bunch of McConnell-style babies that absolutely refuse to negotiate on anything.
lol, why are you going out of your way to reply to this? It's not in my comment, and it wasn't in the comment when you logged in to reply. Did you copy and paste it from your rss feed or whatever specifically to be able to reply to it? That's really weird. Anyway.
> They have felt alone, disenfranchised, and cut off by the coastal elite (both sides!) for decades.
The problem is they have no education and have no idea how to think critically. In society we have made it such a bad thing to be 'stupid', combine that with studies showing being wrong can be similar to being physically hurt [0], well, now we have a population that has no education, is religious and rejects science, doesn't want to be called stupid or be wrong, so they rally around 'alternative facts' and a charlatan who they see as one of them.
The only solution here is mandatory re-education and/or limiting who can vote, or hopefully waiting for the oldest and most stubborn conservatives to die out so alphas and gen-z can vote with a little more heart and brain.
> So no, I'm not going to be done with 'both sides'. The Left thinks that if they just prosecute Trump and get him convicted these people will just go away and we can go back to business as usual,
Trump's an especially bad candidate to be leader, the left just wants the Romney style republicans back. You know, not the science denying nazi wackos obsessed with guns and controlling women's bodies.
The left isn't the problem here, and never has been.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/28/why-bei...