No.12020
File: 1682555310371.png (410.19 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google
This is maybe a dumb thought process, but anyway.
I see a growing concern about contact between LGBT people and minors. (Wikipedia calls this the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory).
So let's say, LGBT people said, "fine, we'll stay away from kids." All LGBT identity parents give up their kids. All LGBT people whose job involve minors (teachers, daycare, etc.) quit. Maybe even, any space where an LGBT person might work or live becomes designated "adults only" by law. Obviously children themselves are prevented from having LGBT identities.
Is everyone happy, then? Do adult LGBT people cease to be hated? Do they get to be secure in their human rights going forward?
Or does it become: "Now we're concerned with impressionable young adults, adults with disabilities, and the elderly." Or maybe it would be better for society if all LGBT people were in prison or [euphemism for dead].
No.12022
>>12020None of that's the issue.
The issue is rather specifically the pushing of sexualization on kids.
LGBT+-whatever have been around before all the drama here, and it wasn't much a concern for folk. Because it wasn't pushed on kids so much, or at least not so publicly and openly.
None of your solutions would actually solve the issue people have, consequently. Kicking LGBT people out doesn't change the books put in school libraries.
No.12023
>>12021Seems a rather poor common enemy for a political group, unless the political group also plans to expel LGBT from their own ranks.
>>12022That sounds fairly uncontroversial. Now when you say, "it" wasn't pushed on kids, you mean sexualization, I assume, not exposure to LGBT people or the values that might be associated with acceptance of LGBT people.
No.12024
>>12022> The issue is rather specifically the pushing of sexualization on kids.This is something I don't get.
When people equal LGBT stuff to grooming, I would from far think that it's about kids coming in touch with LGBT acceptance and that an open attitude might condition the kids to be more open to being LGBT themselves.
It can imply that it normalizes certain 'deviancies' or people can ask whether it's a lifestyle pushed on kids.
But there seems to still be a lot of people who consider LGBT stuff as sexual assault, as if having LGBT people/ books around kids is about grooming them in a pedophile over sexual way. Why this insistence. Just cause it's weird that someone cross dresses or swaps gender, doesn't mean they're asking kids to fondle their genitalia.
And I don't understand the issue about school books here. Are LGBT supportive books so much worse when it comes to sexual content than cis-hetero normative books?
What are some books that are very sexual that are currently being pushed on young children in schools?
No.12025
>>12023>Now when you say, "it" wasn't pushed on kids, you mean sexualization, I assume, not exposure to LGBT people or the values that might be associated with acceptance of LGBT people.Bit of both, in some ways, but mainly that yeah.
It's rather dependant on how you do it of course, but either way, there was little care when it was just something people did in their own lives, beholden to their own personal inclinations.
Still, it's clear the main ire of folk has come up as a direct consequence of the sexualization, more than anything. While I think there'd be those upset at "LGBT values" being pushed, and not necessarily wrongly so, they I'd wager would be a minor voice as folk don't tend to care much about such minor items, by large. Leaves only those more active, politically, and those more zeaouls, for whatever ideology they follow.
No.12026
>>12024I agree, but the thing is, like I had said, that's not what the argument is made.
I don't think the core of this stems from people simply equating LGBT stuff to grooming, as I don't think the core of LGBT stuff is sexualizing minors.
Certainly it's something I've found largely held to be abhorrent by those within whatever could loosely be called a 'community' therein.
Frankly, I find it rather worrying that some seem to wish to conflate sexual content pushed on minors as "LGBT stuff", insisting it be defended no matter what because of some supposed fear of 'bigotry'.
It seems a dangerous conflation, even ignoring the issues morally of using a group who's long had difficulty being accepted as a shield for something reprehensible.
No.12027
>>12026I approach it from the opposite end.
I have yet to be convinced that minors are being groomed by sexual stuff in schools these days, LGBT or no.
If I go for lists of banned books, I see books with strong social themes or progressive topics, but I haven't yet found a book where I can say "Oh yeah, it's horrible they let kids read that".
No.12029
>>12026The basic standard I would apply is to ask whether the book would clearly stand out if converted to a cis-het book. As most are not experts in developmental psychology, the inappropriate nature of the book would have to be obvious, and the objection would have to be more than the LGBT topic. Of course people can feel books are too sexual generally, but that's a different debate
I suppose the next step to explore whether the problem is LGBT people or grooming is perhaps to consider a particular book. I'm on break at work, but can see if I can find an example while at home.
No.12030
>>12029Discussion of masturbation in a children's book is...well, masturbation is sex and sex requires consent, and children can't consent so it's self-rape, and you don't have to show that positively, right?
Anyway, I gather that's a reoccurring issue with some of the books on the lists Google is giving me, and I can't say I disagree with that being problematic.
No.12031
>>12027I guess it depends on what we regard as "progressive topics".
Personally I don't think children ought be indoctrinated into any ideology, to begin with, but I will say for certain there is a deeply questionable nature to a book describing in detail a rape to minors.
I don't think, as a more general rule, such things ought be in school libraries.
I'm not sure what lists you've gone through, but for myself, it's items much like this, that go into quite graphic detail on such things. This seems to be at least in my own experience, what most are upset with. I can't speak to yours, and what you've read, but this is the type of thing which is why I say what I do.
No.12032
>>12029I think that's a fairly reasonable standard.
I tend to apply the same for racism, as an example.
It marks a good point between hypocrisy, and principle.
Personally I don't think the problem is LGBT people, but rather, those who use it as a label to hide behind, and those who blindly defend it because of that label, regardless of the reasoning for the critique.
No.12033
>>12028Public libraries and school libraries are very different.
I certainly wouldn't fuss about, say, "How to make chlorine gas" being available in a general library.
But putting that in a school seems horrifically irresponsible.
While it is a voluntary basis, we do not allow children to simply volunteer for a wide number of things, and rightly so.
While I always say children are far smarter than we think, they're still children. They do dumb things, without thinking of consequences, as often enough they simply aren't aware of the ramifications.
No.12036
>>12032I'm willing to agree Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe might not be appropriate in a school library based on the excerpts I saw on the internet. Probably others, I would agree with as well -- or at least, I wouldn't be offended if others expressed concern.
I do believe discussion of any biological process that happens to children [periods, puberty, etc] are not inherently sexual (because if they were, childhood would be unacceptable). And discussions that protect children from grooming can be appropriate. But I see there are some areas where I might agree with 'the right' and some books not being appropriate for children.
If pulling a handful of questionable books makes nearly everyone happy, we should do that, probably. Especially when it feels LGBT people are fighting for basic existence sometimes.
I think, though, the general nature of the posts on Facebook [my unscientific sense of the views of my fellow Americans and others], and the excerpts from right wing news media make me question whether it's just the books or school curriculum. But...perhaps.
No.12037
>>12035Do they? I've not really heard such a thing.
I've got no issue with it, so long as it's safely done.
It's generally unwise to teach kids on how to, say, make meth. But that doesn't mean we can't do some small, simpler, safer things in the exploration of the basic concepts.
No.12038
>>12033You can make chlorine gas by carelessly mixing cleaning chemicals and such accidents are common. Knowing how to make it is part of knowing how to *not* make it.
I'd expect it to be a part of routine education for all children.
No.12040
>>12039While I like to play ignorance, I did study Child Psychology at University for two years. (But you'd probably get the same level of knowledge from Youtube videos). Child Psychology wasn't a good match for me -- material science simply makes more sense to my mind. Plus children create loud noises that cause me distress -- I mean, more distress than the noises cause most people. And I have trouble in social situations.
But child psychology, unless it's some kind of pseudoscience, can only make predictions. We covered spanking a lot. The short term result tends to be compliance. Then there are various long term results. Science can't say, 'should you spank children?', but you can ask -- what are the effects?
I'm not totally comfortable entertaining the idea the age of consent might be lowered especially as I'm trying to establish my safety related to people's desire to protect children, but the age of consent is a social, legal, and ethical convention and some of these things can break down logically.
I'd say an argument for change would have to answer, what are the expected effects and are these effects that contribute to harm reduction. But to be clear, it's not something I am arguing for personally.
No.12043
From my own personal ethical point of view, harming children or perhaps even killing them due to their perceived inferiority via LGBT status is not just morally wrong but explicitly evil.
So, I think that if a girl wants to kiss another girl, wear pants, refuse to put on makeup, listen to heavy metal music, refuse to attend church services, or the like, in contrast to majority American values I think that girl should be supported and loved instead of punished with a black eye or whatever else.
I also think that a young boy should be able to refuse to attend church, to wear a dress, to put on makeup, to kiss another boy, and more without a black eye from a parent as well.
America is America, and most parents view having a child turn out to be gay, disabled, an atheist, transgender, and so on as a failure on their part because they raised malformed, mutant children at a lower level than normal, well-developed children as Christian parents crave. I know this. We all know this.
At the same time, though, I view that moral standard as evil. Let children be children. They should be as they are.
No.12044
>>12043I'd agree, but I'm not really sure what that has to do at all with the thread.
I'm sure most everyone here, and certainly in the country at large, will agree cruelty towards children, regardless of the reasoning, is a bad thing, after all.
No.12045
>>12043I don't think anyone I see is advocating attacking LGBT children. [Some] [p]eople feel parents should have the right to enforce gender identity, gender performance, or religious identity on children, yes. I don't think it's ethical for a child to have a sexual identity, but some feel it is, and parents may force an identity on a child.
I guess it's relevant to the OP, in that keeping LGBT+ people from children reduces the chance a child might fail to conform to the wishes of a parent who doesn't care for the LGBT+ agenda.
This is a very controversial issue. OP is advocating for the safety and human rights of adults, but if adults and children can both be safe, that is even better yet.
No.12046
>>12044>>12045To be honest, I think that the government should force parents against their will to respect the inherent identities and natures of their children as well as teach those children to express loving compassion to fellow children against parents' wills.
A majority of American parents hate the idea of loving and accepting LGBT children as well as children of other minority types (such as Jewish kids, mixed race kids, transgender kids, and such). And I oppose this. I think that these parents should be forcibly coerced into compassionate treatment.
I don't care that this is against the principles of individual liberty and parental rights. I think that children's human freedoms should come first over what adults want to do to them. You can't give your son a black eye as a reward for being too skinny, too short, too slow, or whatever else. That's just not right to me.
I understand that most Americans view their child coming out as being disabled, as an atheist, as transgender, as gay, or whatever else as an act of evil that spiritually renders that child 'dead to me'. I understand that is the basis of what the OP is discussing. The basis of the current political debate.
I don't really care. A parent who would rather have a dead straight son than a live gay son or a dead 'worthwile' daughter to a live 'cripple' daughter is a terrible excuse for a human being to me. I believe all that even if the country as a whole doesn't.
I would go so far as to say that I think ethically children should run away and be alone or around pure strangers versus being raised by parents who utterly hate them due to their identities. I personally consider things that are viewed as normal American parenting, such as threatening physical striking if your offspring wants to be called gender prounouns that you oppose or to refuse to attend your church, to be child abuse. To me, this sort of negativity is at an equal moral level to adult on child sexual harassment. In both cases, adults deny children their dignity and worth.
There's not really a way out of this 'culture war'. One side will win. Or another side will. Either children should be taught to be 'normal' and eliminated if they fall short of an expected level of supposed quality, or children should be taught to love and accept themselves as well as others no matter what. Normality or diversity. Either/or.
Were I on the other political side, being right-wing, I can certainly see how I'd want to make sure that my own children stay away from 'failed' children that barely even seem recognizable to me. And I'd do my best to make sure that my children are of as supreme and enhanced a status as possible. To make sure that they uphold my legacy and don't embrace a life of an inferior level to mine. It'd be tough.
It's a matter of ethics. Incompatible morality. I suppose.
No.12047
>>12046I very much doubt parents in America "hate" the idea of loving and accepting children of various races, nor do I really see what that has to do at all with a sexual identity...
Nonetheless, nobody here, nor for that matter anywhere else save perhaps the middle east, believes a child should be given a black eye for being whatever.
I've no idea where you got that notion. Of course it's not right to you. It's not right to most anyone.
>coming out as being disabledA disability is something you have, not something you come out as.
Another very strange one, I'm afraid I do not understand at all.
I certainly don't think there's anyone who'd blame a child for being born with a disability. Especially the parents.
I really do not understand where you're coming from for just about any of this.
No.12048
File: 1683410647730.png (663.9 KB, 667x652, 667:652, Screenshot from 2023-05-04….png) ImgOps Google
>>12028This photo indicates the concern. (Don't worry, I checked with Facebook and it's not hate speech or anything.)
The person is dressed in drag and reading a book to children. I don't think the book itself is problematic.
Grooming children is a serous matter and many are concerned.
No.12049
>>12046>I think ethically children should run away and be alone or around pure strangers versus being raised by parentsI think...those strangers deserve to be safe, too.
"Think of the not-children!"
No.12050
>>12048How do you consider this grooming?
It's not like she's gonna suddenly stop reading and ask kids to line up and fondle her genitalia.
No.12051
File: 1683502942720.png (1.92 MB, 1440x2959, 1440:2959, Screenshot_20230506-064001.png) ImgOps Google
>>12050To be clear, these are not my opinions, but they are opinions that I am perceiving are becoming more frequent. The idea is that LGBT+Drag are adult and sexual subjects and it is the responsibility of parents to isolate children from the LGBT+ agenda. It's not hate speech even, just regular opinions (I've been over-reacting, I think. Or it used to be hate-speech and now it's mainstream.). I think about this problem at times, that is why I made this thread.
No.12077
File: 1684676294638.png (270.92 KB, 1280x721, 1280:721, full.png) ImgOps Google
>>12069A lot of books have made people upset. It seems racism and prurience are the most common reasons. Followed by LGBT+ content or communist content. Then there are things like bomb-making, and stuff that's been offensive to some of those with Christian or Muslim religious identities. And finally, errors.
I think, though, if removing some books from libraries makes people happy, that's OK. Or at least, it's better than having rights taken away from humans.
No.12082
>>12081And I suppose it goes back to, rights are inalienable; they can not be taken away.
States do not owe you anything so state action has nothing to do with rights. States will ban whatever they prefer and subjects will obey.
No.12083
File: 1685036842506.jpg (573.11 KB, 1386x1458, 77:81, Screenshot_20210319-163939….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12082>States will ban whatever they prefer and subjects will obey.History has a massive number of counter examples to this.
No.12084
File: 1685036992745.jpg (291.96 KB, 1157x942, 1157:942, Screenshot_20210412-192626….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12081>they are just made less accessible at public or school librariesThat's still infringement of free speech.
No.12085
>>12083Some of those honored by historians were not absolutely obedient to the state. I believe this may be an error, as everyone of note is faithful to state authority now.
>>12084We may think of rights, like the right to speech, as existing after our duty to obey the state is satisfied. Otherwise we may be tempted to think of state force and rights as potentially in conflict. Some of the founding father actually considered this possible, but we now know it is not.
No.12086
File: 1685129900392.jpg (418.61 KB, 1388x1552, 347:388, Screenshot_20210419-161239….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12085>Some of those honored by historians were not absolutely obedient to the state. I believe this may be an error, as everyone of note is faithful to state authority now.That's a "no true Scotsman" argument if I've ever seen one.
>Otherwise we may be tempted to think of state force and rights as potentially in conflict. Logically speaking they
absolutely can be in conflict. And has been a
long history of that.
>Some of the founding father actually considered this possible, but we now know it is not.That's 100% incorrect. NO state has the power to change what inalienable rights there are, it's not possible. In fact if the state power doesn't exist without the consent of the governed, and I mean this quite literally, it's physically impossible. If the majority choose not to obey an authority, that authority becomes powerless.
No.12087
>>12086>If the majority choose not to obey an authority, that authority becomes powerless.Or perhaps a great deal of peacekeeping activity occurs to encourage obedience to the state.
>NO state has the power to change what inalienable rights there are, it's not possibleOh, I agree with that. Humans are free by their nature, for example. Some were considered chattel and non-persons formally, but when their obedience to the state and masters was complete, they might have enjoyed their inalienable freedom in the remainder of their time and energy.
Anyway, I perceive the axiom to be "don't resist the state." And if I must apply this rule to one state, I will apply it to all states through all of history, to be fair.
No.12088
>>12087I feel like it's easy to apply the argument both ways.
But back when there was a pandemic in full swing and hospitals were filling up, people were often breaking Covid restriction and go out to protest mask mandates, vaccines and Covid restrictions.
But the same people cheer when their government takes action against abortion or transgender or LGBT people in general. Suddenly it's completely fine that the government restricts freedom. People being denied medical intervention for idealistic purposes would be totally fine, but getting a pocket change fine for not wearing a piece of paper for 5 minutes to stop spreading a dangerous disease is way over the line.
No.12089
>>12088I used to say the government was always justice. Now I say it is amoral, not to be cheered or protested, just a fact of life. The import thing is not to resist, I think. And especially to not be an anarchist.
It does seem true that people sometimes tie their self-interest into their attitude of the state. Of course, people really should obey the state without such consideration. But for some wearing a mask was an inconvenience greater than the state arresting or potentially arresting people for having an abortion or wearing clothing not associated with their formal gender. Opinions on abortion, masks, and transgender people vary considerably.
No.12090
>>12084Schools are state institutions, and state actors have no expectation of these rights while acting on behalf of the state.
It's something the people pay for, after all. It's why pushing politics while in uniform is a major issue, and gets you rather swiftly punished.
In either case, though, a school is an institution, not a person, and so does not get the same expectation of rights besides.
No.12091
>>12089Important for survival, or important for morality? Because these are not necessarily the same, nor universally valued.
A notable quote in the American historic context is "give me freedom or give me death", after all.
No.12093
>>12091>Important for survival, or important for morality?Morality, I guess. Unless you submit the add-on rationalization state actions always maximize safety.
>A notable quote in the American historic context is "give me freedom or give me death", after all.I do believe Thomas Paine actually meant to potentially oppose the state. What an inappropriate and terroristic notion. I think we can all agree you should never do that.
No.12096
>>12093Then you and I have a fundamentally different view of morality.
>Unless you submit the add-on rationalization state actions always maximize safety. They rarely do, in practice. So no, though I'd not care either way myself.
> I think we can all agree you should never do that.Certainly not so.
I would say there is many cases in which people should do so.
No.12099
>>12096Do you support state power, though? Do you believe it is appropriate that states use force to cause obedience -- that said obedience is sufficiently important that those who disobey must be neutralized (and probably subject to some level of violence). Seems like this obedience is pretty valuable.
I mean, disband the police, open the prisons, and there'd be chaos and harm. I feel like the Joker even suggesting such a thing.
Unless you are an anarchist, can we be that fundamentally different in our view? And I wouldn't accuse you of being an anarchist.
No.12100
>>12099All authority is derived from violence.
In any case; The state's obligation is to facilitate justice.
Dissidents and critics are not something that ought be the state's concern. Only whether its actions are just, in the pursuit of justice on behalf of its citizens.
That is the purpose of police and prisons.
Not mere control.
No.12282
I do wonder about the thought experiment. Lets suppose for the sake of argument that a "fully anti-woke" America does indeed come about, and all children are forbidden from being non-Christian, non-straight, non-cisgender, and disabled. All disabled children and Muslim children alongside other inferior underage individuals such as atheist children and bisexual children are either exiled or otherwise properly disposed of. Christian children are no longer oppressed by having to share spaces with non-Christian children, straight children are no longer oppressed by having to share spaces with non-straight children, and so on. American parents just "win" outright in the "culture war" against those offspring that disappointed and broke the hearts of their parents through their atheism, their disability status, their homosexuality, or whatever else.
Would the homogeneity create a better society in terms of poverty, crime, political division, and so on? Would there really be no longer a "culture war"? Would Americans in general be fundamentally much happier because there's more togetherness and cultural connection?
If you're a parent who's the correct type of Christian and the like, would you experience a dramatically better life and become a much more successful parent if your child wasn't "contaminated", "corrupted", "perverted", or such by forces that you view as evil who've integrated your child's environments against your will? From a utilitarian perspective, how can we measure such increased happiness? How much does it matter?
You can argue that "the good of the many is better than the good of the few or the one", and so inferior human beings shouldn't be burdening the superior human beings, maybe. I don't agree with that belief. What's the merits of it? Or are there no serious merits?
No.12285
File: 1690719674841.jpg (235.11 KB, 1170x1024, 585:512, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>12282>Would the homogeneity create a better society in terms of poverty, crime, political division, and so on?I guess we shouldn't assume that the anti-woke crowd is just being contrarian and would simply find new reasons to be upset. The proportion of people considered criminals is the business of the state and I don't know about economics, but political division should go down, yes.
>Would Americans in general be fundamentally much happier because there's more togetherness and cultural connection?We ought to respect some individuals would, yes.
>If you're a parent who's the correct type of Christian and the like, would you experience a dramatically better life and become a much more successful parent if your child wasn't "contaminated"If we take the desire to prevent what some religion people see as negative influences or grooming as...honest...from an individual perspective, I think individually some would be much happier. Some make choices to isolate children from, say, LGBT people, and preferences and choices might be the best indication of how people find happiness.
>inferior human beings shouldn't be burdening the superior human beingsPerhaps what behaviors are supposed innocent and what behaviors are suspect depends in part on who performs the behaviors and their superiority or inferiority in some system of judgement.
Maybe if there's any benefit it's just in awareness and harm reduction. Being aware that LGBT+/Muslims/disabled/etc. may create controversy or distress in some spaces and should avoid needlessly causing trouble.
No.12287
>>12285I suppose we can ask ourselves in the inherent philosophical organization of the United States as a secular republic based on the objective rule of law with everything applying equally to all individuals ethically without regard to tribal affiliations, at least in theory, is inherently impossible.
Human beings are tribal. A Christian white man will never, ever care for those who aren't male, aren't white, and aren't Christian the same way that they would one of their own. That's simple nature. And the same is true for other subgroups.
Thus, the only solution might be separation and segregation. Stop trying to force Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others to live together. Stop trying to force black people, white people, hispanic people, and others to live together. Break them all up into subgroups. Abolish the United States. Make the remains into ethnic and religiously exclusive minor states akin to how other large areas in Asia, Africa, and so on are split up via separate tribal lines.
If those who proudly and loudly call themselves "anti-woke" want to live in a perfectly cleansed and forcefully homogeneous place with mental and/or physical diversity in any way all banned, let them. Stop trying to make them change their core belief systems from the outside. It just can't work.
I don't know, really.
No.12306
>>12287In practice the number of spaces balloon as you consider more parameters on which people may want to segregate. Race, gender, sexuality, religion, perhaps economic class, political sensibility. The possibilities in each must be multiplied to find all permutations.
I perceive in practice you end up with a prestige set of factors to make up one [master] insular community, then everyone else exiled to the outside.
No.12351
>>12306While it's somewhat of a psychological death spiral with no end, if the only way to keep people who are the correct type of white people and the correct type of Christian happy is to either kill all other groups or otherwise have them be separated off from all other groups, then that's what it takes for there to be overall peace.
If they are the master race superior to all others, through their own eyes, then let them set their own rules upon their own selected populace that cannot be compromised or even softened. And let the inferior peoples have their own existence under free, open societies with self-expression.
No.12362
>>12359>>12358There's an asymmetry in that non-Christians don't feel any particular harm coexisting with Christians, but Christians feel that to be around non-Christians is to contaminate their lives and make themselves worse off. The same is true for the corruption that straight people see by living with those who aren't straight, the despair of not being disabled around the disabled, and so on. The negativity goes one way only. For the most part with few exceptions. People who are superior, normal, natural, and of a correct design view those who're inferior, unnatural, abnormal, defective, and so on due to their bisexuality, Judaism, disability status, homosexuality, transgender status, or whatnot as holding them back. The reverse doesn't happen.
Given this, perhaps the superior peoples are forced against their will to intermix themselves with defective human beings with conditions such as individual liberty and personal freedom under a limited government being imposed against the wills of the majority. The demand is made that the entire country would be turned into a big sheet of glass if that was what it took to keep the majority from exterminating small government on the behalf of populist dictatorship. This is what we have now, broadly speaking. I believe that the operative plan isn't really working.
I really don't know if the solution is to just double-down and bring out a kind of libertarian hammer, which is obviously a contradiction in terms in the first place, to beat the bigoted majority into submission and make them allow equal rights for the subhuman groups in terms of mandatory peaceful coexistence. Maybe that's right. Maybe not.
I think that the option of allowing the majority to create a perfect society of higher-evolved human beings without having to be contaminated by the lessers should be more seriously considered. "A national divorce". It doesn't necessarily have to involve a war. There can just be a peaceful division of territory between integrated lands and homogeneous land. Stop forcing white people to live with non-whites. Stop forcing Christians to live with non-Christians. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know, really, for sure.
No.12364
>>12362>The reverse doesn't happen.Eh, not so sure about that. The privileged group can make their preferences better known so you'll see more of it one way than the other, but I think all these groups are pretty diverse. Some people hate Christians, too.
>to beat the bigoted majority into submission and make them allow equal rights for the subhuman groups in terms of mandatory peaceful coexistenceThat's part of the theory behind the construction of a republic. Although I try not to be judgemental about the performance of state power.
>Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know, really, for sure.I am generally in favor of peace, but I don't know how you would enforce peace in this situation. And of course, only some white people and or Christians have discriminatory preferences.
No.12367
>>12364I don't think that any political path exists for the U.S. right now that either a)guarantees peace altogether or b)makes peace overwhelmingly likely, like to a degree of well over seventy percent or so chances to expect success.
In order to prevent civil war, I basically only see two options that could be coherently applied (although I totally concede that more might exist):
First, a constitutional Republic with the objective rule of law under a classical liberalism based system of limited state power is maintained. People who're the correct type of Christian and the correct type of white person that currently act in opposition to all of the heretical, dissident subgroups as well as all of the various minorities? They're forced through naked state power to stop. Everyone has freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Workers rights in terms of labor union organization. Everything. Taxes, spending, debt, deficits, and the like cannot balloon out of control. Political violence is shut down. The government de facto declares war on white Christians by demanding that other communities get to have the same freedoms or else. That's that.
Second, there is partition. The correct type of Christians and the correct type of white people get to create their own theocratic ethnostate under absolute rule in which perfect social order and complete virtue without sin or other abominations existing at all. Only people who deserve freedom in those areas get to have it. Inferior peoples either don't exist there at all or else live in a way befitting their subhuman status. Outside of this chosen land under God's rule, something that's close to identical to the previously described state is maintained. Some immense military and police power removed from both nations keeps the peace by being of a far, far stronger status than both governments.
That's what I see. To be frank, the majority of Americans say that they can't take it anymore, with all of the rapid cultural evolution offending them to where it all seems like madness. They want more than to just go back to the pre-WWII America but to try for achieving some kind of sinless utopia. I believe them.
I don't want a civil war. It could lead to something like genocide. Complete anarchy. Maybe even both of those outcomes together, somehow. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
No.12369
>>12367I see. My thinking is that if Christians had been more homogeneous, America would have had a better chance of being founded as a Christian nation.
>correct type of Christians>theocratic ethnostate I'm not sure I can argue Christians as a whole have a better sense of which is the correct type of Christian than they did in the founding generation.
>The government de facto declares war on white ChristiansThat's probably the outcome. I have to reword it as a war on "white Christian nationalism," but to the degree America has moved in a progressive direction, fast or slow, it will be considered a war by some. There will be backsliding, and we seem to be in a time for that now, but white Christian nationalism is probably not sustainable. Although maybe I fall too much into thinking the moral arc of justice is an inevitably, on the scale of decades anyway.
No.12370
>>12369I'm not going to pretend that terms such as "the correct type of Christian" and "the correct type of white person" have any objective meaning as they're emotional constructs with absolutely no relationship to facts, reason, logic, and reality.
Why are American Christian pacifists viewed by most American Christians as evil, for one? Didn't the actual Jesus of Nazareth talk about "turning the other cheek" and how "blessed are the peacekeepers"? So, how can those believers who hold to that moral tradition from millennia ago be viewed in the broader Christian community as dangerously terrible heretics to be wiped out for the good of the whole? As well, why can't Christians who feel neither antisemitism nor homophobia be accepted? Their argument similarly states that any sort of militant coercion on behalf of a savior who proclaimed the inherent dignity of peace and all human lives is contradictory. Yet that is, according to most Christians in the U.S., an evil sect. That's that. I suppose.
What is "the correct type of white person"? Is a man who's 25% genetically African and 75% genetically Irish "white"? What if those numbers were reversed? What if they were some other 'X' and 'Y' values? And what of other mixtures covering other ethnicities and nationalities? What scientific value is there in any of this? None. Oh, well.
I can't pretend that "correct Christian" and "correct white person" have any validity as inherent intellectual concepts, but according to the American people these things are paramount. And, thus, this is largely how we organize our society. And our politics. Such is life.
No.12371
>>12370Right, they are not objective or scientific terms, but to matter politically, people in power must agree on an operationalization.
I guess your perception is that most Christians are trying to limit peaceful and inclusive interpretations of Christianity, generally moving towards a more....right wing Christianity, I guess.
