The problem with that is that a lot of the US would then be forced to make a choice between options. I do think a mutual parting of ways, a split of the US, is more likely than a civil war. Certainly more desirable. That said, it would be a terrible thing to happen and I think most of us are smart enough to recognize that were better together than separate.

I'm an American, a patriot, and I think most living in population centers feel the same way.

Don't make the mistake of listening just to the noisy ones.

"would be a terrible thing to happen and I think most of us are smart enough to recognize that were better together than separate"

sounds like a UK Remainer

The US is a much tighter union than the EU. It's been over 100 years since the last time one of our states was an independent nation. And only 15 of our states can claim to ever have been.

That was meant to be a joke

I was going to say “State Enforced Honosexuality is the best way for social cohesion” but then I thought that was probably too shitposty

There are a lot of noisy people on both left and right talking about it so I choose the respond truthfully when it comes up.

Yes, but what proof do you have that it would be horrible once you gloss over the transition period?

Can you really argue gun friendly states are better off stuck in a union with gun unfriendly states? Where the Federal government is used as a battleground to force each-other's orthodoxy on the dissenters?

Its a lack of understanding,

Caused by people locking themselves up in their room and only living in social bubbles

as well as traveling systems preventing cross-over

city people for example tend to have no idea how life is like in rural areas

And they use airplanes to fly from city to city, so they'll never encounter rural areas

and cuz they're in a social bubble, they think they are the majority cuz the majority of the people they know agree with them

As well as that the people in rural areas don't grasp that cuz of people living so close on each other so massively, theres more systems in place, people don't form tight knit communities, and they have general safety,

As well as more insanity due to more numbers of people

the gun issue wasn't really an issue until the last 20-30 years, when it became a scapegoat for people not understanding, and poor management

as well as shifting cultural climates,

Don't forget that in 1988, California was a red state, and it flipped,

Just like in 1976 Texas was a blue state that flipped

Gun control dates back a long time. A lot of the cities in the "wild west" actually had complete gun bans in the city limits (considering this would include places like Kansas City and most other places of famous gunfights...you can see how well that worked).

The big modern push was the 1938 National Firearms Act which was a response to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. The two other major pieces of legislation were responses to the assassination of JFK and the attempted assassination of Reagan. For the most part, it is true that guns are usually a scapegoat for other issues.

And there is a strong urban rural divide. The cities really don't interact with the rural parts anymore and tend to demonize them. The arrogance and condescension from people like Colbert is, in my opinion, a major driver of polarization at the current moment.

this is why they get called Elitists

the demonize these Rural people because they are like alien

they use these "bad" words they don't know are bad because no one out there uses anything else.

you can use racist words while not intending to be racist

When quoting Blazing Saddles, for example.

You either quote it uncensored, or don't quote it at all.

the elites make of this illusion that words are the important part not the intent or context to keep the lower class fighting among themselves. And those who pretend to be in the elite but are too dumb to really be in it play along like the puppets they are

i think i find more genuinely nice people out in the sticks than i do in cities.

Cat, weren't you the one arguing that a state does not have the right to secede from the union?

I pointed to the precedent of the US Civil War, yes. That said, given an Act of Congress brings a state in, it could be argued that a similar Act could pave a departure.

That has yet to be explored to my knowledge

I felt like everything that I have believed in is challenged

No one is wrong, and No one is right.

What determines the rightful things is a common sense?

Not quite groking you on that last sentence.

Congratulations ihereou, you have just discovered the ideology of relativity

the most destructive line of thinking in our modern age

@ihereou of course no-one is totally right. We all get things to a varying degree of right or wrong, and it is the responsibility of each individual to learn what is right and what is wrong in order to avoid being deceived

I'm right, y'all are wrong
Problem solved

I like the way you think @Beemann

Slave mentalities are for chumps 👌

Slave moralities even