Quote:
Originally Posted by nmap
Entire post.
|
nmap--
I think you could develop more options than (a), (b), and (c) if you expanded the forms of political activity beyond the choices of capitulation and annihilation.
As for defining the 'bad guy,' I think that defining the enemy primarily by intent is not the way to go. Earlier, you argued that 'demographics are destiny.' I think that statement is false. History is made by people making choices in their everyday lives. From a historical perspective, most of these choices will be inconsequential. People are simply too busy doing their own thing to worry too much about 'the big picture.'
Some in this thread think that this inattention is a bad thing, that it leads to complacency, that if we don't wake up now, we'll wake up one day living under sharia law. I respectfully disagree. To me, that's just the way of the world.
In my opinion, the greater danger is limiting the options people face so that they feel pressured to make choices and decisions they otherwise might not. Heated rhetoric that radicalizes the discussion is a sure way to put pressure on folks and get them to feel hemmed in.
Everyone has buttons to push. Are there ways we can communicate and not push those buttons unnecessarily?
Make no mistake, I am absolutely sure that at this moment there are Americans who have succumbed to their hate and to their fear and are plotting something horrible. (I work at a facility that the DHS considers an attractive target.) These people need to be found out and stopped.
But while the high speed low drag types hunt down these scoundrels, I think we low speed types should be temperate in our judgments, provisional in our conclusions, and moderate in our rhetoric.
YMMV.