How Can We Prevent Societal Rifts From Expanding into Violence

These permits can only be denied when there is a conflict of time/place and the state's capacity to protect all involved.

 

Am I the only one who sees parallels with the Anthrax attacks?

 

If they aren’t infringing on other’s rights ignore them.

If they violate a law throw the book at them.

It seems a little strange to let socialists take over education, create the people doing these violent acts, and then get angry at Russia. If you don’t want people to be susceptible to Russian propaganda don’t feed it to them for 18-25 years of their life.

 

Do you know if they were active bombs? Sending them all in identical packaging in such an easily traceable way seems more a statement than an attack.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a false flag but unlike some of the other RW's on here I would put it down to over zealous LW students. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was a crazed RW'er. 50/50 for me.

Which ever side ends up being responsible it's a couple of nuts and everyone and his dog is trying to politicise it, it matters little if it was some crazies LW or RW fringes are full of idiots. These people don't represent the majority of Americans of either affiliation.

RW will blame Maxine, LW blame Trump the truth is we should blame ourselves.

The more time I've spent here (PF) the one thing I've been convinced to be true, people only see what they want to see.

 

Great point!

 

Any suggestion of curbing free speech in ways similar to Europe is a non starter for me.

Can’t have one group using horrible patterns, only to blame the entire problem on speech with the idea of making certain words illegal.

 

The wealthy that control the country will just move overseas when the country finally fails totally. They have already sequestered themselves in guarded compounds or in communities basically inaccessable to most Americans.

 

You always have needed that permit though. They can't deny you the permit without a very good reason and you can dispute that but you have to get the permit. You're closing a public street and/or doing something else that gets in the way of people just going about their lives, that's the whole point of any sort of political exercise. You have a right to get a permit to do that and then do that but you have to get the permit first, that's just a matter of public convenience and even safety

What if two groups want to demonstrate in the same area at the same time? That's one of the main reasons for wanting permits. It's logistics not oppression

 

The answer is simple: be more CIVILIZED in our rhetoric.

 

Some of these ideas are simple common sense, some are violent and insane. Frex, how do people who DON"T fight back encourage MORE violence? Are you against non-violent protest then?

If you want politicians to stop doing anything the only really and completely reliably legal and Constitutional way of doing that is not to vote for those who do the things you don't like

Anid in keeping with that I would like to add to the list that we completely and clearly define what voter suppression consists of and then make it a criminal and civil offense. If you take away people's right to vote you are rather clearly encouraging violence, as what other alternative is there?

 

If this is truly the work of some crazed mail bomber, it's the work of an extremely incompetent bomber. Not only were they poorly manufactured, but the ones sent to Obama and Clinton would have never gotten there as the secret service guards ex-presidents and inspect all mail sent to them.

As for the violence, this has been happening since Trump became a viable candidate. Many people have been calling for civility the entire time, but the democrats have gone all out calling for less civility. Sorry, but it might be a bit too late.

We will see what we will see, but as you can see, nobody is saying "I guess we made a mistake and need to back off". Fingers are far too busy pointing at the other side, and this is only getting people even angrier.

 

If the men who ratified and signed the constitution had been capable of seeing into the future for just today, they would have ripped the thing into shreds just as soon as they got back. The anti-federalists predicted many of the things we bicker about endlessly on here, which is why we have a bill of rights which have been ignored by half the country.

In other words, the great experiment has failed.

 

If I may take the liberty of fleshing out the analogy some, it's more like playing Russian Roulette with all the chambers loaded; and if several snaps of the trigger yielded unremarkable results, the shooter might start to wonder whether there was any powder in the shells.

Like

Because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Mainly because, as a believer in civility über alles, you can be expected to see them, through your myopic eyes, as support for your position.

Anyway, they're not necessary for anyone who understands the psychology of those who defend ideas in which they are egotistically invested, and whose motivations can very often be exposed by a little timely cage-rattling.

That's all I've been doing the whole damn time.

 

Some good ideas.

 

Thanks. Of course given that one of our political parties seems to feed on divisiveness and given that these types of changes would require cooperation between both parties until a third party gains power they will only remain as wishful thinking.