Something that hasn't been discussed in the conversation, and which I think is critical, is what changes people imagine might help prevent a substantial minority—that doesn't subscribe to the basic tenants of a civil society—from gaining power.

Voting rights is an obvious one. Criminal justice reform is another (since our "justice" system, both historically and now, primarily exists to keep non-white people subjugated, and values property over people).

Both of those could benefit from more even federal control. Right now states which suppress their marginalized citizens can magnify the power of a small set of voters and use that to hugely influence the federal government.

But federal control can also be a dangerous tool in the hands of the far right. The federal fugitive slave acts allowed the federal government to override the wishes of northern citizens. Trump attempted to wield federal control in that way, but was inept. Someone like DeSantis is far more likely to be successful.

How do you maintain the balance? And in particular, how do you do so in a time when many illegal and even unconstitutional acts are simply being ignored. As an older example, the Constitution prohibits the President and VP from being residents of the same state--but Cheney and Bush were both from Texas. The same thing should have come up again in the recent Georgia elections--but again, the people who could have acted, refused to.

2/3

@MudMan I’d like to believe that. I really did think that, if you could educate people well enough, it could be solved. I’m no longer sure for a couple reasons.

I think the waves are an indication not of changed values, but of times when the social structure was firm enough that people largely kept their mouth shut when they knew they couldn’t get away with it. It’s not that a new generation grew up thinking these things. It’s that once people in power made it clear it was okay to say and do this stuff, and you wouldn’t be punished, they came out of the woodwork. We can see that just in the wide variety of ages at Jan6.

There’s also no question that social media has had a huge impact in making people think they are a larger movement than they really are.

I *do* think that removing exposure to others with those views, providing exposure to multiple viewpoints and multiple cultures, early liberal education, and creating a society where there are safety nets to reduce fear, could all help. But the first three of those sound a lot like propaganda and forced community service and/or migration. We become what we are fighting. I’m already uncomfortable enough that what I’m proposing sounds an awful lot like “we need to force them back into the closet”, and that a conservative would use the exact same wording to describe how to deal with someone like me.

@Kat @nazgul agreed. Education in the liberal arts sense, and empathy and “having a heart” aren’t going to magically move the needle towards retaining democracy.

“Learning” isn’t much without belief and adoption. These folks believe the odds are against them. They’ve learned that from somewhere, and they’re taking action on it.

@Effingham American education has never been good, and lot of what they are trying to remove is new, and had barely starting being available in their strongholds. It doesn’t explain 40 yr old upper middle class protesters at Jan 6. That’s just untethered racism.

I don’t see the educational changes they want as aimed at creating more converts, I see it as a way for them to shove all those non-cis-straight-wypipo back in the closet and make it clear to them that it’s dangerous to speak up.

It’s an educational lynching.

@ScriptorViator @sophisteuein @alexguerrero

Not really the same, but that reminds me of the short Asimov story Franchise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)?wprov=sfti1

@IgorRock Dog yes.

I don't think a week goes by when I don't think back to the days when I was one of those folks on USENET predicting that opening up the internet to the world was going to revolutionize democracy.

At least I got the "revolutionize" part right?

@LeaBug Unfortunately (or not) the Fairness Doctrine could only exist because the airwaves were a limited resource, and thus regulated, even though what was being regulated was speech, which the First Amendment is pretty adamant about. I don't know about you, but I haven't watched TV over the air in well over a decade. It's pretty irrelevant.

I think a more feasible approach (and the Biden administration is attempting to put some teeth into this area that has been greatly weakened over the past few decades) is to use anti-trust laws to limit media consolidation.