identity politics are destroying the democratic party

[apeman]

I see a potential problem with joining the culture war. Which side does my house join?

The one where you turn off the TV and keep living your life

[nmoore63]

The people are way different than the ones going at each other after the printing press was invented.

Nope.

There is no mass literacy and instant communication?

Do you read?
I would say that communications revolution is a big difference. That was my point from the beginning.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Nope.

There is no mass literacy and instant communication?

Do you read?
I would say that communications revolution is a big difference. That was my point from the beginning.

I said the people are different, my point.

[Okeefenokee]

People always think they're different.

[Hwen Hoshino]

People always think they're different.

And sometimes they are.

[Okeefenokee]

People always think they're different.

And sometimes they are.

No.

You're mistaken.

SOME people are different, ALWAYS.

Of course there are always some people who are different. Some is not most, and never has been.

Given that those who are different have, and always will be, only some, it is foolish to think that the few who are different negate the majority who have, and always will be, the same.

[Ph64]

People always think they're different.

And sometimes they are.

No.

You're mistaken.

SOME people are different, ALWAYS.

Of course there are always some people who are different. Some is not most, and never has been.

Given that those who are different have, and always will be, only some, it is foolish to think that the few who are different negate the majority who have, and always will be, the same.

Dan's brought it up several times on HH, I believe one was the end of Ghosts of the Ostfront about Russian rapes/violence that "like it or not this is who we are when the thin veneer of civilization comes off" - the Romans at Cremona, the Serbs/Croats in Yugoslavia not all that long ago... humanity is capable of all kinds of ugly stuff regardless of how educated they are or their communication technology. Especially when they become part of the mob and violence starts - the mob will always have followers even if "some" choose not to be involved. And in some cases they'll try to make you take sides and if you refuse you are also considered "the enemy".

Orson Scott Card's afterword to his book Empire put it well...

http://www.hatrack.com/osc/articles/emp ... word.shtml

Can it lead to war?

Very simply, yes. The moment one group feels itself so aggrieved that it uses either its own weapons or the weapons of the state to "prevent" the other side from bringing about its supposed "evil" designs, then that other side will have no choice but to take up arms against them. Both sides will believe the other to be the instigator.

The vast majority of people will be horrified -- but they will also be mobilized whether they like it or not.

It's the lesson of Yugoslavia and Rwanda. If you were a Tutsi just before the Rwandan holocaust who did not hate Hutus, who married a Hutu, who hired Hutus or taught school to Hutu students, it would not have stopped Hutus from taking machetes to you and your family. You would have had only two choices: to die or to take up arms against Hutus, whether you had previously hated them or not.

But it went further. Knowing they were doing a great evil, the Hutus who conducted the programs also killed any Hutus who were "disloyal" enough to try to oppose taking up arms.

Likewise in Yugoslavia. For political gain, Serbian leaders in the post-Tito government maintained a drumbeat of Serbian manifest-destiny propaganda, which openly demonized Croatian and Muslim people as a threat to good Serbs. When Serbs in Bosnia took up arms to "protect themselves" from being ruled by a Muslim majority -- and were sponsored and backed by the Serbian government -- what choice did a Bosnian Muslim have but to take up arms in self-defense? Thus both sides claimed to be acting in self-defense, and in short order, they were.

And as both Rwanda and Bosnia proved, clear geographical divisions are not required in order to have brutal, bloody civil wars. All that is required is that both sides come to believe that if they do not take up arms, the other side will destroy them.

... Never underestimate what people are capable of, and never presume "this time it's different and that can't happen, we're different now".

[Okeefenokee]

And sometimes they are.

No.

You're mistaken.

SOME people are different, ALWAYS.

Of course there are always some people who are different. Some is not most, and never has been.

Given that those who are different have, and always will be, only some, it is foolish to think that the few who are different negate the majority who have, and always will be, the same.

Dan's brought it up several times on HH, I believe one was the end of Ghosts of the Ostfront about Russian rapes/violence that "like it or not this is who we are when the thin veneer of civilization comes off" - the Romans at Cremona, the Serbs/Croats in Yugoslavia not all that long ago... humanity is capable of all kinds of ugly stuff regardless of how educated they are or their communication technology. Especially when they become part of the mob and violence starts - the mob will always have followers even if "some" choose not to be involved. And in some cases they'll try to make you take sides and if you refuse you are also considered "the enemy".

Orson Scott Card's afterword to his book Empire put it well...

http://www.hatrack.com/osc/articles/emp ... word.shtml

Can it lead to war?

Very simply, yes. The moment one group feels itself so aggrieved that it uses either its own weapons or the weapons of the state to "prevent" the other side from bringing about its supposed "evil" designs, then that other side will have no choice but to take up arms against them. Both sides will believe the other to be the instigator.

The vast majority of people will be horrified -- but they will also be mobilized whether they like it or not.

It's the lesson of Yugoslavia and Rwanda. If you were a Tutsi just before the Rwandan holocaust who did not hate Hutus, who married a Hutu, who hired Hutus or taught school to Hutu students, it would not have stopped Hutus from taking machetes to you and your family. You would have had only two choices: to die or to take up arms against Hutus, whether you had previously hated them or not.

But it went further. Knowing they were doing a great evil, the Hutus who conducted the programs also killed any Hutus who were "disloyal" enough to try to oppose taking up arms.

Likewise in Yugoslavia. For political gain, Serbian leaders in the post-Tito government maintained a drumbeat of Serbian manifest-destiny propaganda, which openly demonized Croatian and Muslim people as a threat to good Serbs. When Serbs in Bosnia took up arms to "protect themselves" from being ruled by a Muslim majority -- and were sponsored and backed by the Serbian government -- what choice did a Bosnian Muslim have but to take up arms in self-defense? Thus both sides claimed to be acting in self-defense, and in short order, they were.

And as both Rwanda and Bosnia proved, clear geographical divisions are not required in order to have brutal, bloody civil wars. All that is required is that both sides come to believe that if they do not take up arms, the other side will destroy them.

... Never underestimate what people are capable of, and never presume "this time it's different and that can't happen, we're different now".

Where the fuck am I supposed to stand in all this blood and carnage? So tell me, who's side do I fight on in this wonderful war?

So I'll say it again,

I see a potential problem with joining the culture war. Which side does my house join?

I reject, full stop, the notion that I must get down in this mud.

[Hwen Hoshino]

People always think they're different.

And sometimes they are.

No.

You're mistaken.

SOME people are different, ALWAYS.

Of course there are always some people who are different. Some is not most, and never has been.

Given that those who are different have, and always will be, only some, it is foolish to think that the few who are different negate the majority who have, and always will be, the same.

People who can read and write + instantly communicate are different period.

[C-Mag]

Great Discussion Team
+1