• erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Surely this will not cause religious friction. I can see no flaws with this plan.

    Solving a problem of violence with even greater violence seems to be shortsighted at best, and would probably cause more unforeseen future issues. I’m no expert, but surely there must be some nuanced position in between “cheer them on like a cage match” and “total authoritarian control over two peoples.” It just seems so reactionary and extreme to say “oh just forcibly disarm them and make them be nice to each other. With force.” It won’t cure decades of cultural friction and religious tension, and seems a bad precedent to set. On whose authority would this coalition act? They have the absolute power to dissolve two states? Could they do this to anyone they dislike? Where is the line?

    Obviously you weren’t genuinely proposing this as a real solution, but reactionary takes like that just dilute the discussion and inflame emotions.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nah, do it the way they did in the immediate reconstruction era south. Lynch mobbers get the rope and their friends and families get to watch.

      • erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Jesus Christ. Take it down a notch, if you want anyone to take you seriously. Perpetuating a cycle of violence leads to lasting resentment and hatred. Sometimes violence is necessary to make voices heard, but that’s from the oppressed against the violence of their oppressors. Violence should never be used to control.