thats extremism, No middle ground, no compromise, just either with us, or the enemy


Also, splitting up like that won't work, you'll just get the exact same issue again, the world WAS split liek that (West - Right) (East - Left/Soviet)

both sides slowly switched to the center, and then flipped to the other side

the fix is actual rational conversation

Have people talk, and actually learn that the majority of the Other side shares so much in common, and then build on that

the silent majority needs to speak out against no compromise, and take action. Politicians, if you can prove you have enough voters on your position to maybe swing elections, are easy enough to manipulate. But you can't be silent.

you will get those issues again

but we do tend to get the same issues again and again

im just offering something less bloody in the middle

'The majority' is silent and passive. They are not a factor in the world of politics.

the majority just wants to be left alone

and if they want to be left alone, they need to speak up now or end up in a world where they are never left alone

the majority are all those things, but i think also the majority agrees with someone. not as a whole, but every person agree with someone. if the majority never agreed with someone you wouldent be able to have wars with so many people involved instigated by these extremist groups who cant stand to live with eachother. they eventually command the middle to kill eachother in order to get to their opponents

boiling frog issue,

They want to be left alone, but its not happening fast enough 😦 so they don't get shocked into action

if you bulkanize a region based on incompatible ideological groups, what you do is give them a completely different situation they have to deal with other than simply fighting with their opponents to get what they want and ultimately never accomplish anything due to the balance of power. you get many more people who agree with eachother in the position to actually do something about their own existance and then you as a person can choose which side you want to live in.

weve lived to long in a state of "we wont try anything until everyone agrees to it"

at some point you need to let people do what they want, extremism comes from people having ideas in a system they have no hope to ever see those ideas ever be applied. the ideologically neutral world we currently live in kind of suppresses any idea from being consittered and leaves ideas to sit festering, growing more and more toxic until they choose to get what they want or die trying

that just sounds like SJW'ism 101,

What i want isn't being done! so i'm being oppressed

im discribing how people are not whether it is a good or bad thing that they are like this. as far as im conserned thats irrelivent, people dont care what you think of them when they think they need to do whatever it takes to get what they want

a, right, my bad then

i thought you were suggesting it as a solution 😛

it is a solution

well, a bad one

you have a better one to deal with people who dont accept compramise and also make up half your population?

yes

implement a constitution based on what everyone agrees on,

And give the rest the freedom to do what they wish provided it doesn't hurt/affect other people

people dont agree on anything

the only way youll get them to agree on anything is by having a different constitution for each side, in which case why not have a different country for each side?

because at that point you might aswell resort to full blown anarchy,

Because amongst those people who don't agree with side A, you'll have disagreement

So side B will want to split to side BA and BB
And those will want to split into BAA and BAB, BBA and BBB, and so forth

besides theres most certainly things people can agree upon

youll have disagreement but you wont have absolute non comprise

this is why states should have more power than the do, and the feds less.

because the big issue with your solution is that Futurama incident, "Lets show others of our peaceful ways, by force"

people don't like it in state A? move to state B.

to say that people who are on one side who dont always agree with eachother will disagree with eachother just as much as they disagree with everyone they see as an opponent is a bit silly

if half the people can find a compromise, then the entire people can to, so you're refuting your own argument from earlier

humans are the wrench in any human made system designed for humans.

thats just wrong jayred

Arch-Fiend - today at 20:47
people dont agree on anything

@I AM ERROR Yes, the 'moral high ground', as in marching to saves the lives of children from guns (but then marching to kill (future) children through mass subsidized abortion. 😉

so all the other things dont matter because i said one thing whithout enough context?

the context follows right after

i think what i think speaks clearly enough for myself that i dont have to explain that statement

it does, i'm just pointing it out