How Can We Prevent Societal Rifts From Expanding into Violence

And by change the constitution, you mean specifically repealing/revising the 2nd amendment?
But again, what makes you think getting rid of the 2nd or trying to eliminate all guns will actually have a beneficial outcome when it comes to politically motivated violence?

A few of my thoughts on the matter can be viewed in the latter half of this post:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?goto/post&id=1069795189

I also agree with several of the suggestions that have been made in this thread so far by other posters, including the following:
-Get Politicians and other leaders to tone down their rhetoric in general [1][2]
-Stem violence by addressing inequality, healthcare, low wages, homelessness, and automation induced job loss
-Hold our emotions in check and remember that we are all Americans and that propaganda is meant to divide and not unite


Though still hoping that together we can think up even more ideas than those.

I'm not trying to suggest that your ideas are unrealistic or that they have no chance of working.
Just pointing out that if you think they're unrealistic, then you might want to try and come up with something else. That's all.

Same here!

I can certainly add this to the list as well.
Actually, its sort of already covered in a few of the items,
though it probably wouldn't hurt to call out more directly that one of the things we want is leaders who lead by example.

-Get Politicians and other leaders to tone down their rhetoric in general [1][2]
-Elect New Class of Leaders Concerned with Problem Solving Rather than Politics
-Elect Ambitious Leaders who Empower and Inspire Others to Achieve a Vision
-Elect Leaders who Share Credit in Success and Take Responsibility for Mistakes
-Elect Leaders who Unite Rather than Divide
-Elect Leaders who project quiet strength, rising above slights, who listen to and respect other voices
-Elect Leaders like John McCain with Uncompromising Values who can be Respected by both sides and act as Umpire

-Meta

 

I wouldn't call the problem meaningless, but for sure we shouldn't be taking any disproportionate measures, and lobbing missiles into the Kremlin as jay runner suggested is nothing if not disproportionate, especially when there are so many other much less radical ideas which we have yet to try. We should also keep in mind though that this isn't just about foreigners influencing peoples' votes with bots, fake personas, and misinformation on Facebook, rather it is also about them actively trying to get us to kill one another via both online means and through setting up in-person confrontations.
All the same I will add your ideas to the list, thanks.

-Meta

 

So what then,... we just sit back and let it happen... do nothing while things spiral out of control and watch the country fall into violent chaos? In my opinion that is not the appropriate way to deal with things. After-all, the American Civil War ended in 1865 for goodness sake; over 150 years ago. There's been small scuffles here and there and every now and then some lone loon will go on a mass-killing spree, but in all that time since the end of the Civil War there have been no other American Civil Wars as many seem to hope for, and there have been no bloody revolutions as some people expect. And there's no reason for something like that to happen now either. The only way it might happen, is if people sit around not doing anything to address the issues which could lead to it.

One of the first steps to compromising is not thinking of people as hive-minds. Consider others as individuals instead. If you must judge another, judge them based on their own individual beliefs and actions rather than on the beliefs and actions of someone else. Even better still though, you might try seeing things from their side and making an effort to understand where it is they're coming from. Ask questions about why they believe the things they do, but do be sure that in doing so not to apply pre-conceived beliefs to them which they haven't actually stated. Or to put it another way, avoid painting people into rigidly defined groups (or boxes) with an overly broad brush.

Also to be avoided, is thinking of things in binary terms. Sometimes there really are sides, but often times,... most of the time really, issues in reality exist on a continuous spectrum,... but too many people do not account for this and fall into the trap of false-dichotomy.

Lastly, try not to get too distracted by personal matters or sensationalism when discussing an issue, make sure to stay focused on the core of that issue, particularly on finding solutions to it, filling out the spectrum as it were, as opposed to assigning blame or pointing fingers. Consider while doing so your ideal vs everyone else's, what you might concede from that, and what others might concede. Then from there attempt to find consensus within that spectrum. That my friend, is how you find compromise.

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

And on the part about people advocating violence... if they do that on this site, report them.
If they make excuses for violence, then explain to them why not doing anything about it is a bad idea,
the same way I'm explaining that to you. Also be sure to educate them on potential solutions/improvements,
and question them on what their solutions would be... you could even simply just point them to a thread like this one.

OK, what specific laws are you referring to then?
Second, how would we define which are explicitly racist, and which are not?

-Meta

 

Every one of us likely has our own unique set of opinions on how government should be run, what laws we like and which we think should be done away with, but not all of those laws are going to have an impact when it comes to preventing/reducing politically motivated violence, right? For example, we might both agree that minimum wage laws don't make any sense and should be repealed/replaced, but how exactly would doing that prevent/reduce the violence?

Again, if its more of a group or class of laws you feel could have an impact on violence levels, rather than any one law in particular, then..., in order for things not to boil down to: lets just get rid of all the laws that arbitrary person xyz or group abc say they disapprove of,... we should ask ourselves, how can we more clearly describe these laws (the ones that would reduce violence) to distinguish them from other laws that we simply just don't care for?

I believe that getting rid of unconstitutional laws as a class does make sense though, but in that case, is there some change to the process of how laws are determined to be found unconstitutional you think should be implemented? You did mention you wanted year-round constitutionality reviews by the Supreme Court of all laws on the books, as well as for Justices to always take original intent into account. And I can add that to the list, although...

...it would likely be a pretty expensive endeavor, eating up much of the Supreme Court's time that they already don't seem to have as it is, given the number of cases they currently decline to take up. Perhaps it would be possible though, if we added a completely new branch to the Supreme Court in addition to the current Justices. This new branch of court justices could then be dedicated to just that purpose, while the current justices continued adjudicating the things they do now?

-Meta

 

Like I was telling a few of the others, this is about more than just foreigners using bots, fake profiles, and misinformation to try to influence the way we vote,... it is also about them actively trying to get us to kill each-other en masse via both online means and through setting up in-person confrontations. But I can still add your idea to the list, thanks.

-Meta

 

What do you mean? Are you referring to finger-pointing/whataboutism?
If so, then I agree... playing that blame-game isn't particularly useful.
But then the question is, if that wont stop the violence, what will?

-Meta

 

Good point, and agreed!

 

How do you know foreign instigators didn't encourage or put him up to that the same way Russia got Ivan Savvidis to do their agitation dirty work in Macedonian? Savvidis also had a history of violent offenses btw. Though I guess maybe that doesn't really matter that much. We need to do something to prevent that sort of violence from occurring either way, right? And I can certainly agree that it is a good idea not to ignore known domestic terrorist threats. I'll remember to add that to the list. Although... say we do know of some domestic terrorist threat... like you said, we don't want to ignore it, but what then should we do about it assuming that the threat isn't imminent?... Also, how should we even be identifying such threats to begin with?... Perhaps our law enforcement entities have already thought about this, and have it under control... or... one would hope so at least...

-Meta

 

I'm not familiar with David Brock or what he's all about, but I would definitely agree that getting a good idea for where the funding comes from for some of these groups, particularly the ones getting wrapped up in violence, is a good thing... though at the same time I think we'd need to be careful to make sure there was good justification behind it and we didn't end up infringing upon privacy rights for non-violent groups. Or who knows... maybe all groups should simply have all their funding sources be more transparent. I'm not really sure which way would be better. Either way I'll add your suggestion to the list.

-Meta

 

Of course it is. That doesn't mean there isn't more we could be doing to prevent it.

-Meta

 

Of course not... which is why you shouldn't ignore them when they tell you that foreign agitators are out to incite serious deadly trouble in western countries across the globe, including the U.S.

-Meta

 

To me, preventing violence is beneficial. Do you disagree with that? :/

No offense, but hopefully somebody will be able to come up with something better than that.
Not that we shouldn't have faith of course, but relying on that as the sole thing to keep
our society from violently imploding upon itself seems more than a little irresponsible.

-Meta