How Can We Prevent Societal Rifts From Expanding into Violence

Unfortunately due to recent events it seems necessary for us to discuss this topic once again.
That is to say, there have been a string of incidents involving violence or threats of violence lately,
and tensions within the country (U.S.) seem to be at yet another boiling point. So again I ask...
How can we the American people act to prevent such violence from occurring?
How can we stop it if it does break out into something bigger, and how
can we at least mitigate the violence short of prevention?

Man indicted for alleged death threat against Adam Schiff

Collins is getting death threats after impeachment acquittal

-Meta

 

And as if threats weren't bad enough, some seem to be taking things further than that.
This is a serious issue we really need to get a handle on before things get too out of control.

Florida man arrested after van driven through GOP voter registration tent

-Meta

 

Not everyone who has a different world view than you wants you dead.
How can we compromise with those who are willing, to ensure that lives are not senselessly lost here?
I'm sure there are a handful of wackos here and there, but I'm also fairly certain that the overwhelming
majority of people do not want to see things devolve into violence. Compromise between them is a must,
and there's no reason it wouldn't be possible. Question is, what exactly would such a compromise look like?

-Meta

 

Sure, I can add that to the list.... actually, its already covered in there under the following:
-Fight Back in Self-defense if you are Attacked [1][2][3]
-More Guns, Everyone should have their own gun

But I personally believe that while self-defense is a no-brainer here, its not so much a prevention of violence as it is an after-the-fact reaction to it. Is there nothing that can be done to make such actions unnecessary?

And as for the guns, I fear having more of those may inadvertently act to make things more chaotic, not necessarily safer. In the hands of someone responsible who knows what they're doing and can act rationally while under pressure, they can save lives as many instances have shown. But how to prevent the bad guys from getting them, especially if we were to somehow increase their prevalence?

And what would happen in a scenario such as that van case I posted? Would guns have helped there? Or a protest scenario where there was a large crowd? Would they help there? Perhaps they would indeed be of some assistance, but I think just spreading more guns all of the place is insufficient and can backfire, turning a bad situation into a worse one if we aren't careful. So something more is needed I think. At least those are my initial thoughts on the matter...

-Meta

 

Hmm, sounds interesting, but could you be a bit more specific?
You say we should educate the people on how federal government works...
what parts in particular though, and how will this act to prevent/reduce violence?

-Meta

 

If you think about it as if it cannot be done, then it will be difficult.
The best way to find compromise imo is to seek it out.
It isn't one of those things that always comes to you.

We came up with a compromise for that right here a politicalforum actually.
PF Abortion Reform Compromise?

Spoiler

What do you think of the following Abortion Compromise proposal?
(Note, the most integral parts of the proposal, as voted on by PF members, have been underlined)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cutoff-point for legal abortions should be placed at 24 weeks gestational age (viability) with all costs associated with the abortion being paid for by the person getting it (and not the government), but with exceptions made for abortions beyond that cutoff point if the life or health of the mother is threatened, if the pregnancy was a product of rape or incest, or if certain fetal abnormalities are discovered. Efforts should also be made to improve the availability of contraceptives and taxpayer funds should be used to keep any preterm infants alive. Beyond this, any other abortion-related questions should be handled on a state-by-state basis as opposed to by the federal government, e.g. such as whether or not there should also be an exception made based on a parent's ability to afford and care for the child if born or whether or not there should be a loan program to help fund people wanting to get abortions, ideas which there seems to be a small bit of support for.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've asked a lot of people if they would be accepting of a proposal like that, and plenty of folks from both 'the right' and 'the left' agreed that they would be accepting of such a proposal. I get the sense that part of the reason for why it seems like compromise isn't possible on things like this is because a lot of folks get it into their heads that certain issues like this one are somehow a binary choice between one of two extreme diametrically opposed positions, when in truth the issue actually boasts a full continuum of positions, and when considered as such, people actually found themselves a lot closer to one another on that continuum ideologically speaking ever before needing to compromise at all.

This particular compromise proposal was generated based on a Ranked vote which took everyone's positions on that spectrum into consideration in order to find a point in between them all, meaning its no wonder why the resulting proposal has such broad support/acceptance. Its like I said, compromise is often there to be found, but one does need to put in some leg work to seek it out.

Just like with the abortion issue, we have found compromise on the immigration issue as well using the same methods.
PF Comprehensive Immigration Reform Compromise?

Spoiler

What do you think of the following Immigration Compromise proposal?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tier 1: These are the top options as voted on by us. The options for which there is pretty broad support for. Any comprehensive immigration compromise plan would pretty much have to include these...

• More towers, cameras, ground sensors, radiation detectors, drones, other aircraft, ships, and radars on the borders
• New Ports of Entry along the borders
• Expanded inspection lanes at high volume southern border ports of entry
• Deport any undocumented adults or unaccompanied children who sneak or who have snuk into the country
• Deport children/parents who sneak in together but require they be kept together at every stage in the deportation process
• Deport and ban from reentry Visa Holders who overstay their visas if the overage is over a year
• Crack down on employers of undocumented immigrants with stiffer penalties and more aggressive enforcement
• Establish a Conditional Path to Citizenship for current Dreamers (DACA recipients)
• Increase # of Border Agents to min of 38,405
• Improve Coordination between CBP and Local Law Enforcement
• Add roughly 350 new Miles of border Fencing for a total of 700 Miles

Tier 2: These options have less support than the previous ones, but still a lot more support for than against based on the votes, and many of which necessary to include if we want the compromise proposal to be fully comprehensive...

• Increase H1B Visas for Temporary Seasonal Workers
• Make H1B Visa program a first come first serve waiting list instead of a lottery
• New immigration judges and attorneys
• New Court Training and Technology
• Change to 7 years of Service instead of 12 for Military Green Card
• Reduced Green Card requirements if Involved in Combat Situation while serving in Military
• Discontinue Allowing Parents and or Siblings to count as Family for Green Cards
• Streamline Visa Application and Petitioning Process
• Reinstate the Family Case Management Program
• Increase Limits for Educational, Advanced Degrees, and or Exceptional Talent Based Visas
• Require All Employers to Utilize an e-Verify System
• Grant Conditional Temporary Residency Status to Asylum Seekers/Refugees
• Income tax increase to pay for reforms

Tier 3: These options have relatively little support, but yet aren't contradicted by any of the higher ranked options. They aren't necessary to make a proposal comprehensive, but imo would be good to add. So I would say they should be thought of as optional options, good if they are included, but no big deal if they're not...

• Provide Financial, Volunteer, and or Other Aid to Mexico and South/Central American Countries to Help them Improve their Countries
• End Permanent Visa Lottery Program
• Make any new policies widely known in Mexico and South/Central America
• Establish a Fast Track to Citizenship for Legal Immigrants
• Coordinate w/Mexico to specify how many asylum seekers/refugees each country will take in
• Pull Federal Funding from Sanctuary Cities and or apply fines until they dissolve their sanctuary status

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I feel like another reason for why compromise is difficult sometimes is because people tend to make incorrect assumptions for the positions of others and then use those incorrect assumptions as excuses not to engage with them and or as an excuse to engage them but in a way that is either unproductive or completely uncivil. Some folks also fall into the trap of thinking of others as hive minds...

For instance, you mentioned just now that "The left wants unfettered immigration". But I can tell you from my own interactions on this forum... there are some who want to give DACA recipients a conditional path to citizenship and some who want a certain level of rules-based VISAs provided, but I do not believe I've talked to anyone who wants "unfettered immigration". Both those who identify as 'liberal' and those who identify as 'conservative' seem to want a lot of the same sorts of things on this issue,... reasonable border security, enforcement of deportation laws, crack downs on employers who break the rules, and a legal immigration system that actually works. As a matter of fact it was actually surprising to me just how much agreement there was between different posters on this issue during the discussions.

Well, while I'm not sure of exactly how many people are pushing a full ban on guns, I'm also not exactly sure of what the compromise is on this one yet either, but like the schedule at the bottom of the following thread OP suggests, I do plan to seek it, eventually.
Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread

Just as with abortion and immigration I suspect that there is a comrpomise to be found there in the Gun Violence v Gun Rights debate as well. This thread though is about societal violence more broadly and what we can do to prevent the rifts between us from getting that far. Perhaps gun rights ought to be a part of that discussion, I'm not sure. There may be disagreement on how that should be handled, but surely there are no sides when it comes to violence in general... am I wrong? Is it not the case that, again, with the exception of a few wackos or instigators here and there, that the vast overwhelming majority of American citizens do not want things to devolve into violence?? If I'm right about that, then compromise between them, at least on that subject (how to prevent general society-wide violence based on differences) should be more than a possibility.

-Meta

 

Are you advocating/making excuses for modern violence here?
...because that's what its starting to sound like...

 

So between what TheImmortal was saying earlier and what you're saying here,
our options are to either let things progress into a violent revolution internally,
or to take things external and start a full blown war with Russia?...Really?
Are those truly our only options??? Surely there are things we can do
short of that... short of more violence... short of expanding violence,
making it bigger, better, and more deadly. Without a doubt,
such choices should not be the first things we go to.

But maybe I'm just reading your post wrong (I hope that is the case).
If so, then perhaps you can be more specific? What actions in particular are you suggesting?
If you add some details I can add them to the list, though my sense is that what you're suggesting
probably fits better in this other thread:
How Should We Respond to Foreign Attempts at Sowing Discord and Violence.

-Meta

 

We probably want to stick with ideas we think might have at least a chance at working, or of at least having a positive impact, even if its a small one (as even little benefits can stack up into significant gains when you get enough of them).
That said, what exactly do you mean by "mass religious conversions"???

And what exactly leads you to believe that suspending the 2nd would be helpful assuming that doing something like that were even possible?
And if its mentally ill folk and common criminals who are the ones committing murders, is there anything more we could be doing in relation to them in order to save lives?

...this is probably starting to gear more towards the whole Gun Violence v Gun Rights debate, a topic which I was hoping to save for another day... but it seems to have relevance here too... I'll just have to try to remember any good ideas that get posted on that subject for latter...

-Meta

 

Those do sound pretty sensible, at least at first blush.
But... at the same time they are also kinda vague, especially steps 2-4.
Is there a specific set of laws you're thinking of in particular here?
Something you think should be repealed, or some specific
actions/behaviors you feel need to stop, or perhaps
a law you think should be passed or action started?

I know you mention here that "controlling people's behavior" should be ended,
but what exactly is meant by that? At the moment, I can assume you mean that laws
such as the ones that tell you how big a soft-drink you can buy should be gotten rid of,
as well as any laws that place restrictions on smoking, abortion, weapons, sex, marital status,
religion etc. That all seems pretty straight forwards. But are you also suggesting that things like
the minimum wage should be ended? What about safety standards, environmental regulations,
prohibitions on drinking and driving, laws against indentured servitude, laws relating to theft,
embezzlement, fraud, immigration, and the big one... taxes? I can't tell at the moment
what your prognosis would be on any of those. So when it comes to what kinds of laws
should be allowed and what kinds shouldn't be... is there not some more clearly delineated
distinction that could be made between the two in your opinion??
.
-Meta