How Can We Prevent Societal Rifts From Expanding into Violence

Of course there should be cosequences for journalists who overstep the matk.Some journalists hide behind free speech and use their job to pursue their own political agenda.For example,the way Kanye West was attacked,insulted, racially abused by so called journalists and liberal pundits is totally unacceptable.There shoudl be consequences.In any other organisation employees would be suspended if not fired for using racially abusive language.But I guess CNN aporoves of racially abusing people as long as it fits their political agenda.ISame rules should apply to Fox or any other major media outlet in the USA.They must be more responsible.The media usually causes wars and civil wars.

 

I was just trying to provide a cogent rebuttal to your idea that everybody having guns would be like the wild west.

 

One sure way to stop political violence is to not tolerate it. Portland's mayor is a good example. Recently there have been clashes in the street between Antifa and a group called Patriot Prayer. In a very recent public appearance he said that if the police hold back, he gets criticized, and if they intervene he gets criticized.

Hey, Portland mayor, stop worrying about criticism!!!

Just tell the police department to uphold law and order against everyone and anyone, back them up, and stop being so fearful of criticism!!

Look ... If Antifa or Patriot Prayer or Proud Boys or the damn Martians are going to hold a protest, cover it with a police department whose leadership will not tolerate law-breaking, regardless of who is doing it. Make arrests. Prosecute. Jail. Fines.

When our Founders wrote the Bill of Rights, they didn't mean we could destroy property, commit assault, arson, and terrorize law-abiding peaceful people. Our police can stop all of it without ever touching the rights of peaceful people to assemble, speak, and demonstrate.

So, in answer to the question, I would say "Enforce the law, evenly and consistently, but aggressively".

Seth

 

Criminals (instigators) prey upon the weak.

If everyone is strong they will have infinitely less potential victims.

 

Yes I read the list there are penalties for far less than inciting violence, unless of course you choose to believe that inciting violence is disagreeing with your politics. Caliing for you followers to get in the face of other people's politicians is incitement to violence, stating that affirmative action is one of the chief reasons for what current racial animus there is, is not.

 

You make these long OP posts with over analysis.

 

How the hell are we supposed to prosecute murderers without calling them murderers?

It doesn't. What causes societal rifts is the belief in lies, and the determination of such believers to evangelize.

That's because you're blissfully oblivious to the root of the problem you pretend to seek a solution for, as evidenced in general by your conduct in this thread, and in particular by your dodging this question:

 

Please note I don't want even bad ideas thrown out because someone doesn't like them. Calls for violence are one thing calling for the repeal of free speech even for noxious twits shouldn't be tolerated

 

"How Can We Prevent Societal Rifts From Expanding into Violence?"

Societal rifts?? You're kidding me - Your societal rifts are multiculturalism and identity politics gone amoc as the United States faces a balkanized populace who have been agitated into a growing number of violent acts.

1. Get rid of multiculturalism and identity politics and let the melting work as it once did.
2. Get rid of all of the labels - we're all Americans.
3. Excepting Native Americans and slaves, everyone came here voluntarily - for a better life. If you don't like it, move to Canada or the EU.
4. BLM shooting cops, Antifa attacking people who don't look or act like them ands all of the rest should be arrested and vigorously prosecuted for and crimes they may have committed.
5. Make sedition a prosecutable offense -Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority.
6. Special interest groups are also adding to the division as they often go into biased negative tirades. get rid of PACS and such.
7. Minimize federal government and federal powers - the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is also doing their best to create violent divisions amongst the people.

 

How about a mutually agreed upon peaceful end of the federal government?

Just tear the constitution up, tell everybody to go back to their home states, and then hope that we can still maintain peace after divorce. Getting rid of the military will be dangerous, but having it has obviously been even more dangerous.

Sorry, but the republic experiment has run its course. It was never going to last forever, anyway. Two people so vastly different in principles cannot peacefully live with each other. A peaceful divorce is better than the alternative, and there are no other options. X or Y

 

And just how in hell do you figure a prosecution can be initiated without an accusation?

Doesn't matter, because applying the label may be necessary for other reasons.

You're in no position to render such a judgment.

OTOH, they can also expose emotionalism posing as reason.

You think I need your help?

Really??

I've already given you more of an answer than ought to be necessary; and were my IQ to increase by ten thousand fold, and I were nevertheless foolish enough to spend the next ten pages trying to educate you, we'd both end up dumber than we started.

I'll tell you this much: had the Founders not followed that formula to the degree they did, were you nevertheless alive and free to spout your drivel today, you'd be doing it in German, Japanese, Russian or Chinese.

 

First of course the country is already falling apart at the seams given the political divisions, the polarization of news sources, the growing wealth inequality, and of course the absolute current impossability of political compromise.

Compared to the currently reality a fruit loop or two engaging in political violence is a trivial threat to Democracy.

 

Thats just it. I dont think people want the violence to stop. Not en mass anyways. At this point, the only thing I see on the horizon is a civil war. I think thats whats really wanted at this point. "We" dont want to make peace with our counterparts. We want to either enforce our vision on them, or get rid of them. Neither side wants any compromise.

 

But based on that, you need a government permit to protest the government. A bit of a conflict of interest there.