Poll: Who Supports the Idea of a White Ethno State?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If my rights aren't abridged, and I don't become a second class citizen from ethno-state to ethno-state, in what sense are they even ethno-states anymore?

SIFCLF Alert.
Always assuming the worst about ethno states as if that's the only kind of ethno state that can exist.

Christ almighty, enough with that already.

The whole 'sky is falling' critique doesn't really apply to a completely fictional counterfactual. Work-shopping best and worst case scenarios is part of the discussion.

[Smitty-48]

If my rights aren't abridged, and I don't become a second class citizen from ethno-state to ethno-state, in what sense are they even ethno-states anymore?

SIFCLF Alert.
Always assuming the worst about ethno states as if that's the only kind of ethno state that can exist.

Christ almighty, enough with that already.

The whole 'sky is falling' critique doesn't really apply to a completely fictional counterfactual. Work-shopping best and worst case scenarios is part of the discussion.

Capps is right, all you do is invoke your "rights being abridged!" as an hysterical SIF scenario in the face of multicultural ethno states, when in fact there is a perfectly stable, wealth generating, conflict free state right next door to you, where ethno states have their rights without abridging other peoples rights, because people who don't want to live in that ethno state, are not forced to, I don't have to abridge the rights of the French Catholics in Lafontaine Ontario, there's plenty of Ontario to go around, it's not Luxembourg, plenty of room for everybody to have their ethno states and eat their rights cake too.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Balkanization rarely lends itself to stable, wealth generating, conflict free cooperation.

Canada is much more stable, comparably wealth generating, and far more conflict free, because we allow for ethno states within confederation, so in the North American paradigm, you appear to be wrong headed in your thinking, the lack of decentralized authority in America, is the source of all your conflict, instability, and economic troubles, if you Yankees would just ease up on the stick, and stop trying to force everybody to live in Yankeeland, the Red States would calm right down, that would be the end of the Culture War, and then we'd see who had the better economic model, my bet would be on the Red States for that tbh.

Easing up on the stick is precisely what I am recommending. Not dismantling the whole effin' car.

[Speaker to Animals]

If by "car", you mean the federal government, then we need to total it, dump it in the compactor, and drop it to the bottom of Mount Doom.

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them


Put it down, Frodo!

[Smitty-48]

Balkanization rarely lends itself to stable, wealth generating, conflict free cooperation.

Canada is much more stable, comparably wealth generating, and far more conflict free, because we allow for ethno states within confederation, so in the North American paradigm, you appear to be wrong headed in your thinking, the lack of decentralized authority in America, is the source of all your conflict, instability, and economic troubles, if you Yankees would just ease up on the stick, and stop trying to force everybody to live in Yankeeland, the Red States would calm right down, that would be the end of the Culture War, and then we'd see who had the better economic model, my bet would be on the Red States for that tbh.

Easing up on the stick is precisely what I am recommending. Not dismantling the whole effin' car.

There again, "dismantling the whole effing car!"; Siffcliff-a-roo right there, right thur.

Plenty of room in America, for everybody to drive their own car, everybody does not have to drive the same car in America, you're just lying about being willing to ease up on the stick, you're an undercover bitch hack, as soon as they said "OK, let's ease up on this", you'd say "OMFG, you can't ease up on that!", then if they said "OK, how about this?" and you'd say "Gawd no, that's not easing, that's dismantling!" and so on and so forth, until we ended up right back where we started, prohibition by default, under the rubric of "sensible regulation!".

On second thought, you'd better not come to Canada, SIFCLF, we don't cotton your kind round here.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

SIFCLF Alert.
Always assuming the worst about ethno states as if that's the only kind of ethno state that can exist.

Christ almighty, enough with that already.

The whole 'sky is falling' critique doesn't really apply to a completely fictional counterfactual. Work-shopping best and worst case scenarios is part of the discussion.

Capps is right, all you do is invoke your "rights being abridged!" as an hysterical SIF scenario in the face of multicultural ethno states, when in fact there is a perfectly stable, wealth generating, conflict free state right next door to you, where ethno states have their rights without abridging other peoples rights, because people who don't want to live in that ethno state, are not forced to, I don't have to abridge the rights of the French Catholics in Lafontaine Ontario, there's plenty of Ontario to go around, it's not Luxembourg, plenty of room for everybody to have their ethno states and eat their rights cake too.

The differences between Canada's states, and its relationship to the commonwealth, and American regions, and their potential relationships to each other in the proposed scenario might be a bit greater than you are giving credit.

When I start fretting over the end of civilization about a real thing that is happening in the real world, you can accuse me of being a chicken little. When we are discussing possible scenarios in an alternate timeline version of the United States, and its pros and cons in relationship to the actual United States, then it is a silly critique.

They're called thought experiments. Sometimes they involve proposing worst case scenarios. Maybe Canadians just lack the verve and imagination to come up with them?

[Smitty-48]

Christ almighty, enough with that already.

The whole 'sky is falling' critique doesn't really apply to a completely fictional counterfactual. Work-shopping best and worst case scenarios is part of the discussion.

Capps is right, all you do is invoke your "rights being abridged!" as an hysterical SIF scenario in the face of multicultural ethno states, when in fact there is a perfectly stable, wealth generating, conflict free state right next door to you, where ethno states have their rights without abridging other peoples rights, because people who don't want to live in that ethno state, are not forced to, I don't have to abridge the rights of the French Catholics in Lafontaine Ontario, there's plenty of Ontario to go around, it's not Luxembourg, plenty of room for everybody to have their ethno states and eat their rights cake too.

The differences between Canada's states, and its relationship to the commonwealth, and American regions, and their potential relationships to each other in the proposed scenario might be a bit greater than you are giving credit.

When I start fretting over the end of civilization about a real thing that is happening in the real world, you can accuse me of being a chicken little. When we are discussing possible scenarios in an alternate timeline version of the United States, and its pros and cons in relationship to the actual United States, then it is a silly critique.

They're called thought experiments. Sometimes they involve proposing worst case scenarios. Maybe Canadians just lack the verve and imagination to come up with them?

Nope, we just have more confidence in our Confederation, so much so, that we are willing to put it to a democratic vote, which, can be kind of hair raising, but in the end, better to give the Quebecois the option, and have them vote to stay, then try to stamp their ethno state out under our bootheels, inciting instability and conflict, while destroying wealth.

The difference is, in the mid 19th century, when our two countries came to loggerheads over our respective internal ethno states, you Yankees chose to have a catastrophic war of annihilation over yours, whereas we just had two guys sit down and hash out a deal, which let everybody have their cake and eat it too, and so in our historical memory, we don't get hysterical about talking turkey on these sorts of issues, whereas you shit the bed and go SIFCLF about it at the drop of a hat.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Canada is much more stable, comparably wealth generating, and far more conflict free, because we allow for ethno states within confederation, so in the North American paradigm, you appear to be wrong headed in your thinking, the lack of decentralized authority in America, is the source of all your conflict, instability, and economic troubles, if you Yankees would just ease up on the stick, and stop trying to force everybody to live in Yankeeland, the Red States would calm right down, that would be the end of the Culture War, and then we'd see who had the better economic model, my bet would be on the Red States for that tbh.

Easing up on the stick is precisely what I am recommending. Not dismantling the whole effin' car.

There again, "dismantling the whole effing car!"; Siffcliff-a-roo right there, right thur.

Plenty of room in America, for everybody to drive their own car, everybody does not have to drive the same car in America, you're just lying about being willing to ease up on the stick, you're an undercover bitch hack, as soon as they said "OK, let's ease up on this", you'd say "OMFG, you can't ease up on that!", then if they said "OK, how about this?" and you'd say "Gawd no, that's not easing, that's dismantling!" and so on and so forth, until we ended up right back where we started, prohibition by default, under the rubric of "sensible regulation!".

On second thought, you'd better not come to Canada, SIFCLF, we don't cotton your kind round here.

Nobody has actually talked about any particular policies to ease up on other then throttling back immigration, which I am more than open to.

I am open to letting bakers not bake for homos.

I am open to letting different regions define their permitting situations when it comes to arms.

I am open to letting different regions define gender and even marriage.

Name just about any issue in the culture war, and I am amenable to more regional control. The only exception being when there is an abridgment of constitutional rights. That is hardly a hysterical position.

You accuse me of lying about being willing to ease up on the stick, but none of those discussions have happened here.

[Speaker to Animals]

The existence of the federal government renders it all too easy to frame every one of those issues as "constitutional rights". This only works by killing the beast and going back to confederation.

[Speaker to Animals]

Slavery is what killed us. Going to war to stamp that evil out of existence was totally justifiable. The problem is that we went to war over slavery as the dividing issue underpinning a move back to confederation. Now everybody frames EVERYTHING like it's slavery.

You don't want to participate in a gay wedding? OMFG, that's the confederaxy again! Run to the federal courts so liberal judges can overrule state's rights.

The very existence of the federal government as an imperial seat willing to crush state's rights with violence if needs be is why we have a culture war. We all wage endless war over control of the One Ring.