3 ms·
It's a war that has to be fought. It's like...hmm, it's like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful". These two opinions can't really exist in society in large n
by TulliusCicero 5y ago
It's a war that has to be fought. It's like...hmm, it's like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful". These two opinions can't really exist in society in large numbers simultaneously without explosive results. Eventually, one side has to win. That's the only way you get peace.
That's the way I see it, anyway.
edit: an example, and a counter-example. Gay marriage is the example: there was never going to be a steady equilibrium reached of roughly half the US opposed and half the US in favor. One side had to win the fight and settle the issue.
On the other hand, abortion seems kind of similar and has in fact been in a fairly steady equilibrium in terms of public support. I think that may be because it's less one issue than two: the right to life of a fetus + bodily autonomy.
- RubberMullet 5y ago> it's like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful" Or like "racism is great" vs "racism is awful" vs "this isn't racism".
- TulliusCicero 5y agoMaybe? Anyway, the main point is that there has to be a resolution, and that will only come about through conflict of some kind, which is what we're seeing playing out. People don't want to hear this, but does anyone have a plausible alternative that might actually happen? Where a debate like this was resolved sans conflict?
- thaumasiotes 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_divorce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_divorce
- esyir 5y agoThat last one is generally a subset of the second last too.