[nmap]

First, an example of someone who apparently thought he could predict (and, perhaps, influence?) the bad guys and failed. LINK

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

No, not really. I chose those for a reason, and I limited the choices for those same reasons. That said, I urge you and others to offer more nuanced choices. I would ask that those offering such alternatives suggest how they differed qualitatively from the three choices I included.

Keep in mind that eliminating group B can be as simple as changing their views to something more tolerant of group A. The old group B would cease to exist. So you see that the choices offered are not necessarily kinetic in nature.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

As for defining the 'bad guy,' I think that defining the enemy primarily by intent is not the way to go.

I am open to better ways. Please, tell me more.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.'

Demographics creates an overall environment that influences those individual decisions, whether in terms of money and finance or population movements. I would contend that it an important (perhaps predominant) factor in human behavior.

Now you bring up those individual decisions, often inconsequential. Agreed. Still worse, individual behavior is hard to predict. Aggregate behavior, on the other hand, seems quite another matter. The advertising industry, in their efforts to promote both deodorants and politicians, seems confident that they can change overall behavior of populations.

The current economic malaise? It was predicted 15 years ago, and that was based on the demographics.

I suppose we'll have an agree to disagree position on this one.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

Predicting what's over the horizon is always perilous, and often amusing when viewed in retrospect. And one can reasonably argue that people muddle through somehow, with the dire consequences never quite occurring.

Is this different? Hard to say. I think it's entangled with other issues (including demographics) that are rather wide-ranging. In the end, this may be another agree-to-disagree issue.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

Could be. On the other hand, choosing to do or say nothing is a decision in its own right. And, too, there is a positive to the pressure you mention - it can manifest itself in the desire to offer alternatives. I sense that dynamic in your own post, which I quote from here. Creative alternatives might be a really good idea; however, I regret to say I'm not seeing many of those. But perhaps I've missed something?

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Everyone has buttons to push. Are there ways we can communicate and not push those buttons unnecessarily?

Well...actually....no.

As ZonieDriver suggests, this is an emotionally loaded topic. We can use the kindest, most civil language...show the utmost in mutual respect...adopt the careful discourse of the disengaged scholar...but the emotion remains.

If you haven't read Hayakawa's book, Language in Thought and Action, I urge you to do so. It is a brilliant text. Per the book, we could modify the choice of buttons to hit - and, if we wanted to guide some particular discussion, we would do so. But that isn't the same as not pushing the buttons. Rather, we choose which buttons to hit - Christian Red, or Islamic Green, for example. (Yes, that's me pushing buttons, and having fun doing it.)

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

So what I hear you saying is that some percentage of the U.S. population have some probability of being bad guys, per the definition in my earlier post. And I see that you are urging some sort of filtration to discern who they are such that their action can be prevented.

I agree. This is all good.

Here's the problem - I don't see how to filter them out. DHS has tried, with notable failures. Perhaps there have been successes - if so, that's great! Perhaps DHS (or others) are good at filtering out bad guys - in which case, we have nothing to worry about.

However...big however...if the filtration I mention is not effective, then we have no way to stop the bad guys. This brings us back to those three options I've mentioned.

So, please tell me what I should conclude, so long as it is suitable to discuss in this public forum.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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.

Now, Sigaba, I ask you - how much fun is that?

Seriously, though, this seems to lead to something like a shrug, followed by diligent searches through cable channels in search of a ball game. In essence, for the lower speed participants in the discussion to scratch themselves and defer the hard thinking to others.

I would contend that this is the very area where we need to have a broad societal dialog. Yes, it will sometimes become emotional. There will, from time to time, be anger and hurt feelings. And yet, societal evolution seems to demand exactly that sort of process.

MOO, YMMV.