[whoknowsidont]

>If you just want to see the people who voted for this as "the enemy" and "evil" you're basically doing the same tribal "othering" that's lead to these outcomes you don't like.

"If you point out problems, you yourself are actually the problem. I am very rational."

Incredible logic.

[drdaeman]

It is incredible, because a lot of people dismiss it so eagerly.

Let me try to phrase it differently: ostracization rarely yields positive results, and is more likely to lead to opposite of desired course of action through future radicalization.

In other words, saying that bad people are bad is - as paradoxical as it might be - less likely to making anyone better than make bad people even worse.

[whoknowsidont]

>It is incredible, because a lot of people dismiss it so eagerly.

Because it's wishful thinking, and it only serves one purpose and only benefits one group.

You can't say it wasn't tried. Far from it.

It didn't work out. Plain and simple.

[drdaeman]

Sorry, I absolutely appreciate the explanation instead of a snark remark, but I don’t understand.

What was tired or supposed to work out? Not ostracizing is not exactly a solution (grandparent comment haven’t made suggestions as to what to do instead), and alternatives aren’t one possible approach but a giant spectrum of possible reactions. Instead of saying “you’re a bad person” a lot of different things can be done, right?

Or do you possibly mean that we collectively tried everything and nothing ever worked out, so we’re fairly positive this is wishful thinking? Or am I misunderstanding something, or falling to some fallacy here?

[msandford]

Okay so what's the solution then that doesn't involve having to disappear the half of the country that you don't agree with? I'm super open to better solutions. I just rarely hear any other than magical thinking. "All these evil shitbags will get reeducated and agree with me now" if it's not that, what is it?

[tremon]

the solution that doesn't involve having to disappear the half of the country that you don't agree with?

You can't form a country with people who want half the country to disappear. There's only three possible outcomes here:

- civil war

- secession

- remove all people that want other people to disappear

[msandford]

I think you're missing the fourth option which is rediscovering civility, agreeing to disagree, etc.

Are the Republicans doing that right now? Probably not. Are the Democrats doing that right now? Also probably not.

[whoknowsidont]

"Are the people doing the humane and civil things the same as the people actively supporting and promoting evil and hate? I guess so!"

If you're not being disingenuous you're being incredibly infantile.

Take a big, long think.

>agreeing to disagree,

Disagreement about what exactly? Please, spell it out.