[sly]

Here's an interesting article, “What happened?”, which I think probably correctly nails what Trump and his enablers were trying to do—definitely worth a read. This was a last ditch attempt to overturn the election. In essence they were trying to create chaos to perpetuate a coup, but given who these people are, they did not see how it could all go wrong for them.

BTW, folks, I think the best thing you can do with folks like @MisterJJ is to treat him as you would other trolls, don't feed him with replies. He's always going to be coming right back with his false equivalencies, whataboutism, etc. I know it's tempting to try, believe me I've been sucked into these conversations myself, but if you sit back and watch, you see the circle go around and around. That's because it's not about coming to an understanding, it's about him coming up with a comeback. That's why his remarks are filled with put-downs, straw men, and half truths. So my advice is, don't waste your time.

Talking of unreachable people, here's another article to read, “‘The storm is here’: Ashli Babbitt’s journey from capital ‘guardian’ to invader”. All a bit sad.

Incidentally, @MisterJJ, I'm sure you'll disagree with what I've said, and that's fine, absolutely expected. In your own mind feel free to paint an unflattering picture and put me down in all the usual ways. But there's no need to come up with a comeback for this message. Or at least give it a few days. It'd mean much more to have someone other than you call me out, right?

I hate to jump back in here, but I think your attitude is exactly what is wrong in America today. People are unwilling to have rational conversations with someone who has a different take on things. If you don't like what someone else says you label them a troll or worse. "Don't listen to him, he thinks differently than me!" Gives me a bad feeling all over, like we've lost our way and there is no coming back. Most human societies in the past have devolved into internal strife and warfare with one group driving out or killing those who are not of another. That seems to be where we are headed. From what I can tell, the multicultural, diverse society is a abject failure. Nations are strong when there is a national identity and internal cohesion, but we seem to be shattering into mere tribalism with each tribe going after the other. The ideals of America are great , but they have run into the realities of human nature. We are so screwed.

 

[shrox]

We are doomed.

 

[shrox]

As the OP,

War is coming.
That's very sad.
We are on this waterslide:

 

[MDBolt]

I hate to jump back in here, but I think your attitude is exactly what is wrong in America today. People are unwilling to have rational conversations with someone who has a different take on things. If you don't like what someone else says you label them a troll or worse. "Don't listen to him, he thinks differently than me!" Gives me a bad feeling all over, like we've lost our way and there is no coming back. Most human societies in the past have devolved into internal strife and warfare with one group driving out or killing those who are not of another. That seems to be where we are headed. From what I can tell, the multicultural, diverse society is a abject failure. Nations are strong when there is a national identity and internal cohesion, but we seem to be shattering into mere tribalism with each tribe going after the other. The ideals of America are great , but they have run into the realities of human nature. We are so screwed.

As an objective observer of this thread, it feels like your post has some contradictory messaging. You start off by condemning the perceived failure to respect each others' diverse opinions via discourse, but later on you label diversity as an abject failure.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this "national identity" (aka nationalism) ideology that led to the past two World Wars?

 

[MisterJJ]

I hate to jump back in here, but I think your attitude is exactly what is wrong in America today. People are unwilling to have rational conversations with someone who has a different take on things. If you don't like what someone else says you label them a troll or worse. "Don't listen to him, he thinks differently than me!"

While I can't entirely disagree, I think it's good to point out that the majority of participants on this thread have not gone this route. Let's not make broad assumptions based on statements from a few.

Most human societies in the past have devolved into internal strife and warfare with one group driving out or killing those who are not of another. That seems to be where we are headed. From what I can tell, the multicultural, diverse society is a abject failure. Nations are strong when there is a national identity and internal cohesion, but we seem to be shattering into mere tribalism with each tribe going after the other.

Here I can disagree. I don't think multi-culturalism or diversity has much to do with it, outside of the political pandering to get one group or another to side with them. Yes, the tribalism trend is very worrisome, which is why I rail against the media and politicians who are pushing it. It does sound like a bit of tribalism on your part.

The ideals of America are great , but they have run into the realities of human nature. We are so screwed.

Yes, no, and maybe.
Ideals are great and a lot of the realities of human nature was taken into consideration when establishing the country. E.g. Balance of power. Whether or not we are "screwed" is certainly debatable and to be seen. For me, there's way too many factors involved for me to take a side on what the future holds.

But I intend to do what I reasonably can to move things in a positive direction based on my opinion, while trying to consider others opinions and not simply dismissing them. I invite others to do so as well.

 

[MisterJJ]

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this "national identity" (aka nationalism) ideology that led to the past two World Wars?

I think it was a factor in WWI, as it is a factor in nearly all wars. Why would anyone fight in a war for their country if there was no national identity? It's the tangle of treaties, minor conflicts, and bad assumptions by governments that caused it to become such a wide conflict.

WW2 had a lot of preceding factors, including the treaty that ended WW1, which led up to the obvious nationalism of the Nazi party. While nationalism was used to garner support, it wasn't what directly led to the war.

So, to more directly answer the question, in my opinion, nationalism can be used as a tool by a government to achieve support for their goals. However, I think nationalism can also be a positive binding force within a nation that reduces the internal conflict and tribalism. It is, as they say, a "double-edged sword".

 

[sly]

As an objective observer of this thread, it feels like your post has some contradictory messaging. You start off by condemning the perceived failure to respect each others' diverse opinions via discourse, but later on you label diversity as an abject failure.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this "national identity" (aka nationalism) ideology that led to the past two World Wars?

There is certainly some contradiction, and it arises from the struggle between ideals and nature. As an ideal we should all be talking and considering each other's viewpoints, and striving for a society where group identities are not a factor ... we are all one people and one nation. But that smacks right up against human nature: the natural affinity for those who are most similar to us. That is the force pushing toward tribalism and the fragmentation of society. The reality seems to be that all long-lasting nations have an overriding cohesiveness deriving from the shared similarity of the group. But nations that are too diverse pulls people into separate groups. There follows not the rights of each person but rather group rights, which are defined by whatever benefits a particular group the most. That becomes a force that weakens the cohesion of the whole, leading to inter-tribal conflict. So we have ideals, deep down how most agree things should be, but overriding that we have human nature, pushing us apart. So yes, my post definitely has contradiction which reflects those realities.

 

[GJETSON]

The reality seems to be that all long-lasting nations have an overriding cohesiveness deriving from the shared similarity of the group. But nations that are too diverse pulls people into separate groups.

So a country that had a ruling class of one race, and a slave class of one, two, or three other races would be doomed from the start?

 

[sly]

So a country that had a ruling class of one race, and a slave class of one, two, or three other races would be doomed from the start?

I don't know that "doomed" is the right word, but it is likely destined for deep conflict and strife. It likely depends on the distances between the groups and the relative size of the groups. This needn't be theoretical nor rely on conjecture, I think you can just look at examples around the world and through history.

 

[neutrondrip]

"Zip tie guys" allegedly identified. One of them (not the one dressed in body armor) does claim he found the zip ties on the ground and just picked them up.
What we know about Eric Munchel of Nashville, accused 'zip tie guy' in Capitol riot
2 men allegedly seen in viral photos carrying zip ties during Capitol assault arrested

A taste of some of the things going on at Parler:
Amazon Court Filing Includes Chilling Death Threats Published on Parler

One Representative says she thinks she saw Republican congressmen give 'reconnaissance' tours the day before Capitol raid (could be easily mistaken; hard to prove?, but wouldn't surprise me):
Rep. Mikie Sherrill says Congress members gave 'reconnaissance' tours day before Capitol raid

 

[MisterJJ]

could be easily mistaken; hard to prove, but wouldn't surprise me

I think this shows how people are so willing to believe something as long as it supports their views, kinda like the Trump fanatics. It's an easy trap to fall into and I'm sure I'm guilty of the same. I think everyone needs to be more skeptical, especially of the media and politicians.

 

[neutrondrip]

I think this shows how people are so willing to believe something as long as it supports their views, kinda like the Trump fanatics. It's an easy trap to fall into and I'm sure I'm guilty of the same. I think everyone needs to be more skeptical, especially of the media and politicians.

Let's see how it shakes out.

Dude who broke into Pelosi's office faces up to 11 years in prison

 

[sly]

...

A taste of some of the things going on at Parler:
Amazon Court Filing Includes Chilling Death Threats Published on Parler

...

I can completely understand how sites promoting and organizing violence could be restricted. What I don't understand is why social media has given antifa a pass. Their gatherings are marked by violence and riots explicitly targeting our government, law enforcement and the business community. Courthouses have been attacked, police and their stations directly assaulted with harmful intent, people have been murdered and businesses have been ransacked, burned and destroyed. These are all organized on social media regards to when they shall meet, how they should dress and obscure identifying marks, and the things they should bring. This has been going on for years and social media has completely look the other way.

 

[Bolt2019]

There wouldn't be any anti-fa's if there weren't any fa's shooting at everybody that doesn't look like them. The fa's shot first. It has ever been thus. I side with the anti-fa's. I would prefer everybody be fair and just and reasonable but the fa's seem forever incapable of doing so. Maybe if any blind-eyes were turned it just might be because those parties agree with them and their fight for fair and just and reasonable. But then you can't tell me that all these "social media" parties haven't ignored all the insanity spewed out endlessly by fa-sympathizers/perpetrators all this time either.

Oh dear...I joined in...

 

[sly]

There wouldn't be any anti-fa's if there weren't any fa's shooting at everybody that doesn't look like them. The fa's shot first. It has ever been thus. I side with the anti-fa's. I would prefer everybody be fair and just and reasonable but the fa's seem forever incapable of doing so. Maybe if any blind-eyes were turned it just might be because those parties agree with them and their fight for fair and just and reasonable. But then you can't tell me that all these "social media" parties haven't ignored all the insanity spewed out endlessly by fa-sympathizers/perpetrators all this time either.

Oh dear...I joined in...

What I know is that antifa continues to organize via social media. They continue to riot and attack where there have been no other protestors for months. Antifa is a sickness in our country. They riot, destroy and attack for no apparent reason, and they have no particular goals in mind. They have been consistently viscous toward any they don't agree with, and like cowards they don't own what they do but rather hide behind masks and coverings for the sole purpose of causing mayhem and getting away with it. They deny the rights of others to have peaceful gatherings and they do that violently. I have no respect for your position or what you support. Your group is the epitome of fascist behavior, violently trying to impose your view on others.

 

[MisterJJ]

sly... Bolt2019... easy now. Group hug ✋🤚

I think you both just have different perspectives, thinking that one side is justified and the other is not. IMHO, we should agree that neither side is justified to use violence. Lest you end up with a situation like this: Trek Wisdom

 

[Bolt2019]

Yow. Project much? Funny how those words could be entirely mirrored.
Again with the continuing us vs them, we/they tribalism. As long as nobody's shooting and killing anybody we should all just be able to get along donchathink. But no...those authorized to use lethal force run around willy nilly killing people they don't like, thoroughly unprovoked just because they can and with no repercussions. How about them cops just opening the gates to the insurrectionists. And everybody's primarily one color. If those insurrrectionists had been a different color it would have been a flat out massacre.

 

[MisterJJ]

those authorized to use lethal force run around willy nilly killing people they don't like

Check your blatant sensationalism. It's showing and it's not pretty.

 

[Bolt2019]

Check your blatant sensationalism. It's showing and it's not pretty.

Shall I start the list of needless, unjustifiable killings by them? It's quite long. And has been going on for too long. Again...who shot first? Them.

 

[MisterJJ]

Shall I start the list of needless, unjustifiable killings by them? It's quite long. And has been going on for too long. Again...who shot first? Them.

You're trying to misdirect. That is very different from "those authorized to use lethal force run around willy nilly killing people they don't like". Individuals should be held responsible but to make such a declaration about an entire group is B.S. sensationalism.