Two months since the riots and still no national conversation

[Anrakyr]

Is “what needs to be done” inclusive of Molotov cocktails, hurled bleach, blinding laser devices, and arson?

My tool kit includes something much scarier. A camera, a small jug of milk and a mask.

 

[jeannetherese]

We can inform, we can educate, we can persuade, and we can even cajole, but we cannot dictate how others feel and believe.

But we do dictate actions and potential consequences through the law. In the case of inappropriate police actions, I think that addressing due process would be a way to work on this issue.

 

[whatistrue]

But we do dictate actions and potential consequences through the law.

Yes, which is an entirely different thing than dictating feelings and beliefs (or thoughts, if you like).

I am not speaking for or against any “side” of this present issue, nor am I speaking for or against any “side” in US politics. My entire point is that too many people are too entrenched in their political opinions to see that one size never fits all, and there has to be room for honest disagreement without vilification for our system to survive in the long term. And no, 240+ years is not “long term” when it comes to the lifespan of cultures.

 

[pearleaf]

My entire point is that too many people are too entrenched in their political opinions to see that one size never fits all, and there has to be room for honest disagreement without vilification for our system to survive in the long term. And no, 240+ years is not “long term” when it comes to the lifespan of cultures.

First, as a classicist, I have to agree: 240 years is terrifyingly short.

I am not generally a fan of what may be called “bothsidesism”. All too often, it is used to ignore the real issues of one or another side. However, there is much wisdom—and necessity—in not vilifying our political opponents.

I must not be a creative enough thinker—this is why I am not a politician—, however, as, while I can come to a compromise on some issues (so long as my “side” gets something equivalent in return), there are others where I can’t see a compromise.

Where is the compromise between the ban gay marriage crowd and the equal marriage rights crowd, other than what we have now (i.e., if your religious institution does not allow it, it is not forced to do it)?

Where is the compromise, for example, on healthcare between the people who believe it to be a fundamental human right, and should thus be universal, and those who are against universal healthcare?

I think there can be a compromise on many issues, including abortion and police accountability. But I honestly can’t see a compromise for those I mentioned.

I am a pacifist. I abhor the violence of the riots, and the violence of police brutality. I understand the angst of the rioters though. I can’t help but see deep, horrible inequality and serious economic and social hurt. I live on the “bad” side of town and work on the “good” side of town, as some people would call them. The difference is stark.

But, perhaps what we are seeing is part of the process of the formation of a new synthesis. The old thesis and a new antithesis clashing. The result is ultimately a compromise; when both sides tire of violence, then they finally sit down to talk.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Why are the stories of those harmed over the past two months as a result of these riots being ignored? And why are these riots still referred to as protests?

“Stay tuned until November to find out!”

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I would argue laws are not initially intended to change how people feel and believe. We prohibit murder not to convince people it is wrong but because it is wrong and people’s actions must coincide with that fact. Whether or not they agree is frankly irrelevant.

There is not much compromise on binary issues like abortion and defining marriage. Now we can discuss in order that we may persuade hearts and minds, but there’ not much middle ground on certain things. Murder - always wrong. Rape - always wrong. Molestation - always wrong. Abortion - it depends?

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

My tool kit includes something much scarier. A camera, a small jug of milk and a mask.

Before I judge you, is it whole or 2%?

 

[jeannetherese]

But, perhaps what we are seeing is part of the process of the formation of a new synthesis. The old thesis and a new antithesis clashing. The result is ultimately a compromise; when both sides tire of violence, then they finally sit down to talk.

Not necessarily. There could be outcomes other than compromise, with one position achieving dominance.

 

[whatistrue]

Where is the compromise between the ban gay marriage crowd and the equal marriage rights crowd

I actually see that one as simple. Get government out of the marriage business. Create whatever sort of legal civil contractual relationships are deemed necessary, call it something besides marriage, and apply it to everyone in whatever gender configuration the society wishes to allow. If you want a marriage, go to your church; let them tell you whether it is legitimate or not.

and those who are against universal healthcare?

Very few people are actually against everyone having healthcare; where the issue comes from is how is it paid for? Fix that, and the issue is resolved.

I think there can be a compromise on many issues, including abortion and police accountability

and then we have

There is not much compromise on binary issues like abortion and defining marriage.

We don’t all see the same things as being binary, so why is it not possible to discuss them in a civil manner?

The point isn’t necessarily and in all cases whether or not there can be compromise, but rather whether we demonize the opposition. Simply accepting that the other side is not evil incarnate is a good first step.

 

[jeannetherese]

Very few people are actually against everyone having healthcare; where the issue comes from is how is it paid for? Fix that, and the issue is resolved.

Actually, different people have different ways of defining what is considered to be healthcare. Killing preborn infants is considered healthcare in some circles and murder in others.

 

[Cruciferi]

Better not be Soy Milk :milk_glass:

 

[Anrakyr]

Better not be Soy Milk

Does it matter? its not to drink.

 

[whatistrue]

This just supports my point. Trying to turn one discussion into a different one. Bye.

 

[jeannetherese]

Actually, I was pointing out why your argument is problematical.
you suggested that everyone agrees on the need for healthcare for all and that paying for delivery is the problem.
I pointed out that people are arguing about what constitutes healthcare. This does not preclude your argument but points to its limitations-different people will quibble over universal healthcare for many and varying reasons.

 

[pearleaf]

I actually see that one as simple. Get government out of the marriage business. Create whatever sort of legal civil contractual relationships are deemed necessary, call it something besides marriage, and apply it to everyone in whatever gender configuration the society wishes to allow. If you want a marriage, go to your church; let them tell you whether it is legitimate or not.

Perhaps. Providing that such a civil contract has equal rights regardless of the configuration, and that nothing is taken away from what is afforded to a legal marriage now, I could see that as a compromise.

Very few people are actually against everyone having healthcare; where the issue comes from is how is it paid for? Fix that, and the issue is resolved.

The problem is, we know what doesn’t work. I’m not holding onto Medicare-for-All as the only possible solution (in fact, it itself is a compromise from some positions); other countries have other systems that work. But I haven’t really heard anything on the opposed side that would approach the same effectiveness in terms of reaching the goal of giving everyone healthcare. Without them going into medical debt. I am open to alternatives, providing it is universal in scope, regardless of the person’s income.

We don’t all see the same things as being binary, so why is it not possible to discuss them in a civil manner?

Honestly, I think for many people, we get wrapped up in the specific positions of “our side”, and we make them personal. I know I can’t talk to any family members outside my own household because of this. I just have to walk away when they bring anything up.

I have a specific set of desired goals, and I have policy positions that seem, from my perspective, to reach those goals. I am open to other solutions, providing they can be shown to work to achieve that goal. Healthcare is a big one for me, for personal reasons related to loved ones.

The point isn’t necessarily and in all cases whether or not there can be compromise, but rather whether we demonize the opposition. Simply accepting that the other side is not evil incarnate is a good first step.

I would agree with that. Listening is an important first step—the very reason I am on this forum, actually.

 

[pearleaf]

There could be outcomes other than compromise, with one position achieving dominance.

Perhaps that is a possibility as well. Such happened in the Civil War, though the full implications took some time to be made manifest. So long as it is a just position, the dominance of that position should not be feared.

Sadly, the just position will not be agreed upon until after—perhaps long after—the debate is ended. To reuse my Civil War example: there were a few Confederate leaders who viewed their defense of slavery to be moral, as difficult as it is for us to imagine such a position today.

This, I think, should give everyone pause for humility. We, after all, might be the ones shown to be in the wrong.

 

[ZemD]

This is sad, that as a nation we can not unanimously say, destroying property, burning buildings, terrorizing communities, and physically harming others is never justified, no matter what your cause or reason is.

Taking the nonviolent protests out of it, however limited they may be, we should all be able to agree that we do not negotiate with terrorists, let alone justify their acts of terror.

 

[Poet]

The things we now know were happening on Epstein’s Island are not merely a different opinion–they are evil.

Same for abortion.

Same for rioting, terrorizing, destroying property and businesses, and even killing people. We’ve now had about 29 people killed in these riots, including elderly veterans and children. Somebody was burned alive inside one of the buildings the arsonists set on fire in Minneapolis. If this isn’t evil, I don’t know what is.

 

[whatistrue]

The things we now know were happening

Nowhere did I say that we cannot call out bad or even evil actions. What I said was that we cannot call someone evil simply for supporting the other side of a political debate. Got any more straw men to knock down?

 

[PaulinVA]

The national conversation seems to be about the protests themselves, not about the topic of system racism and unequal treatment of Black people.