Is a "national divorce" a pragmatic solution at this point?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

What if a blue county in a red state decides they don't want to be part of the state anymore? Why not split Kansas City from Missouri?

Because nobody needs the chaos of the Indian-Bangladeshi Border version 2, nuclear boogaloo.

Splitting up the United States would be an utterly terrible idea. But if it has to be done for whatever reason then state lines make much more sense than county ones.

[Rusozak]

What if a blue county in a red state decides they don't want to be part of the state anymore? Why not split Kansas City from Missouri?

Because nobody needs the chaos of the Indian-Bangladeshi Border version 2, nuclear boogaloo.

Splitting up the United States would be an utterly terrible idea. But if it has to be done for whatever reason then state lines make much more sense than county ones.

And then people realize that , like it or not, we're interdependent. Lest rural areas regress back to the dark age and urban areas go Mad Max.

[Christian Confederation]

What if a blue county in a red state decides they don't want to be part of the state anymore? Why not split Kansas City from Missouri?

Because nobody needs the chaos of the Indian-Bangladeshi Border version 2, nuclear boogaloo.

Splitting up the United States would be an utterly terrible idea. But if it has to be done for whatever reason then state lines make much more sense than county ones.

Since Freedom to Travel would ve allowed this wouldn't be a problem.

[Hamidiye]

...what the f*** is a "national divorce"?

Edit: sorry, forgot your silly sensibilities about the word f**k.

Splitting the nation in two (Or more), because this person thinks its a good idea

´
And just what the hell could ever be an agrument for such a thing? Smells like ethnic nationalism in here all of a sudden...

[HISPIDA]

Splitting the nation in two (Or more), because this person thinks its a good idea

´
And just what the hell could ever be an agrument for such a thing? Smells like ethnic nationalism in here all of a sudden...

honestly, ethnic nationalism is the only argument for it and even then the only time it peacefully happened (in czechoslovakia) the majority didn't want it.

[Ostroeuropa]

Allowing districts to switch which state they owe fealty to every few years would resolve the issue, if carried out alongside states rights.

What if a blue county in a red state decides they don't want to be part of the state anymore? Why not split Kansas City from Missouri?

Because nobody needs the chaos of the Indian-Bangladeshi Border version 2, nuclear boogaloo.

Splitting up the United States would be an utterly terrible idea. But if it has to be done for whatever reason then state lines make much more sense than county ones.

For Enclaves, yes. It's simpler to just accept it.

However border polls would be best.

[Ostroeuropa]

OP, The reality of the situation, much as the left in America likes to bang on about justice, is that they have greatly annoyed the right wing for several decades despite being in a position of weakness in comparison to them. This is indeed part of their arguments and waffling on about justice.

You have continuously demanded they cede power to you. Insulted them. Belittled them. Refused to accept their input on issues of cultural or social importance. Continuously pointed out they have more power than you.

And now you are shocked when they are using it.

You are not in a position to make unilateral demands of people who do not like you and hold power over you, but you nonetheless have cast aside any semblance of "Getting along" with these people in favor of constantly antagonizing them. The result will be your subjugation and it is mind boggling you do not see it.

Potential means by which to frame a better future for all have been consistently refused in favor of advancing an epistemically unjust vision for a future *you do not have the power to bring about without their cooperation*, followed by demonizing, attacking, and humiliting them for refusing to acquiesce to these brazenly absurd set of demands, all the while continuously reminding them they hold power over you.

The "Tolerance" they have given you is being revoked as a result. And they have an epistemically unjust vision of the future too, one their attempt at tolerance of you has prevented them enacting.

One for which they do not require your consent or cooperation.

Why should the country split? You all seem so determined to be master of the other as slave, though one of you is surely incredibly foolish for insisting on that dynamic.

[New Tryphalia]

Forget national divorce. We need a national revolution. Period.

[Moscareinas]

insulted them? for they are worth insulting

belittled them? for they are worth belittling

refused to accept their input? well, they done got their input in, and holy shit, they're bad!

what, then? in the face of such shitty advice, do we polish their turd and call it susan? just to get them to relent for maybe the next brief moment before they clamor that their voices be heard, their advice be heeded, and everyone else be damned?

[New Zoigai]

insulted them? for they are worth insulting

belittled them? for they are worth belittling

refused to accept their input? well, they done got their input in, and holy shit, they're bad!

what, then? in the face of such shitty advice, do we polish their turd and call it susan? just to get them to relent for maybe the next brief moment before they clamor that their voices be heard, their advice be heeded, and everyone else be damned?

Both sides are full of nutjobs whose Ideas are a threat to everyones mental health.

[New Zoigai]

Forget national divorce. We need a national revolution. Period.

Yes we will revolutionize the goverment system by replacing it with some random hooplah that will take 70 years just to become functional, mabye not even 70 years if the right system is chosen.

[Ostroeuropa]

insulted them? for they are worth insulting

belittled them? for they are worth belittling

refused to accept their input? well, they done got their input in, and holy shit, they're bad!

what, then? in the face of such shitty advice, do we polish their turd and call it susan? just to get them to relent for maybe the next brief moment before they clamor that their voices be heard, their advice be heeded, and everyone else be damned?

Case in point.

[Senkaku]

The result will be your subjugation and it is mind boggling you do not see it.

I think a lot of people can, they just don't find your "surrender or be destroyed" pitch terribly compelling.

demonizing, attacking, and humiliting them for refusing to acquiesce to these brazenly absurd set of demands, all the while continuously reminding them they hold power over you.

the usual vague crybaby nonsense about being cancelled. Who are "they"? Who's been "demonized, attacked, and humiliated"? How is it even possible to humiliate a political movement with no sense of shame?

The "Tolerance" they have given you is being revoked as a result.

your boring victim-blamey spiel is as tiresome and delusional as ever. The American right has been trying to dismantle the modern administrative state since the New Deal, and trying to roll back protections for marginalized groups since the civil rights era (at least Johnson, but you could make a case for Eisenhower). they're not doing it because modern liberals were too cancel-y towards them, they're doing it because it's what they've always wanted and political conditions are now ripe, which has a lot more to do with geopolitics, information technology, and atmospheric science than it does with feminism or postmodernism or whatever the fuck

You all seem so determined to be master of the other as slave, though one of you is surely incredibly foolish for insisting on that dynamic.

"One of you"? Who is actually politically committed to restoring a master/slave dynamic to the republic?

Forget national divorce. We need a national revolution. Period.

Yes we will revolutionize the goverment system by replacing it with some random hooplah that will take 70 years just to become functional, mabye not even 70 years if the right system is chosen.

...yeah, that's how a lot of revolutions go. Sorry in advance.

And then people realize that , like it or not, we're interdependent. Lest rural areas regress back to the dark age and urban areas go Mad Max.

Removing the federal political structure doesn't inherently mean that the lights will go off across North America. Our inter-regional trade doesn't have to grind to a halt just because the lines on the map have changed; I'm sure there would be some supply shocks, but we already have the interstate system and a rail network and billions of dollars in flows moving along them that will find ways to continue. I'm not sure any nationality spends more time than Americans fantasizing about their own social apocalypse, it disturbs me.

The Cities would implode into gang wars or Military/ Police Juntas once the food trucks stopped rolling in. Depending on how fast SHTF Militias in the country could form or come out of hiding in a matter of hours to days.

Why would political changes necessarily mean the cutoff of food supplies to urban centers? Just having disturbing fantasies of mass violence does not make them realistic possibilities.

Assuming it started with one State or city succeeding the violent government crackdown would make Protests/ succession of other states explode.

It's not at all clear how such a breakup would be engineered. If it were some kind of spontaneous revolutionary uprising, as you describe here, then I expect it would indeed be very bloody (although it also wouldn't occur cleanly along state lines at all; we'd likely have a myriad of competing regimes in each state). I think it's far more likely that it would occur in the aftermath of some prolonged period of internal unrest, violence, crackdowns, etc., and actually be formalized with relatively little animosity.

California would have to make Treaties or invade neighbors for Water.

Which do you think would end up being easier, for everyone involved? I'm sure it wouldn't be a completely peaceful process, but "invasion" seems quite hyperbolic.

Texas would likely become a petrol state.

Texas already is a petrostate lol this is nothing new

We would probably see Cartels publicly cross the border instead of using pupet Gangs in the us.

I'm not even going to bother going into every part of this that's wrong lmao

Allowing districts to switch which state they owe fealty to every few years would resolve the issue, if carried out alongside states rights.

how

[Senkaku]

insulted them? for they are worth insulting

belittled them? for they are worth belittling

refused to accept their input? well, they done got their input in, and holy shit, they're bad!

what, then? in the face of such shitty advice, do we polish their turd and call it susan? just to get them to relent for maybe the next brief moment before they clamor that their voices be heard, their advice be heeded, and everyone else be damned?

Case in point.

did you think even for a moment about the fact that this is a poster from literally the opposite side of the world!

[Ostroeuropa]

I think a lot of people can, they just don't find your "surrender or be destroyed" pitch terribly compelling.

The issue is not that it is surrender or be destroyed, and that you parse it as such is part of the problem.

Victory of the kind you seek is not an option. You do not have the power to enforce it.

It is find another path, or be destroyed.

the usual vague crybaby nonsense about being cancelled. Who are "they"? Who's been "demonized, attacked, and humiliated"? How is it even possible to humiliate a political movement with no sense of shame?

Whites, Males, and the West. Let's not kid ourselves here.

your boring victim-blamey

You seem to think I am making a moral critique rather than a sociological and materialistic evaluation. You should disabuse yourself of this notion. If more progressives did, perhaps they wouldn't be adopting this approach.

The American right has been trying to dismantle the modern administrative state since the New Deal, and trying to roll back protections for marginalized groups since the civil rights era

And yet it is only recently they have acquired the necessary political support and capital to succeed. Now isn't that interesting. It's almost as though something has caused them to gain more support for this endeavor. But as you say, they broadly haven't changed their behavior in almost 100 years. So what could have changed? Well, the opposition, i suppose.

they're not doing it because modern liberals were too cancel-y towards them, they're doing it because it's what they've always wanted and political conditions are now ripe

Oh, is this some insight?

which has a lot more to do with geopolitics, information technology, and atmospheric science than it does with feminism or postmodernism or whatever the fuck

Alas. Certainly some of those have a role to play, but they are neither sufficient nor necessary. Those things you discount are both sufficient and necessary. Postmodernism less so, unless you take it to mean the Conservative view of it as opposed to what it is in academia.

"One of you"? Who is actually politically committed to restoring a master/slave dynamic to the republic?

The mainstream leftist theories on race and sex are epistemically unjust and this can be demonstrated if you dare to evaluate them in a manner that isn't entirely self-referential. As are the right wing ones. The only meaningful difference is that one contains more accumulated power and is further along in the process of unjust extraction of resources and power, and thus has an advantage in the event of a power struggle where co-existence is no longer desired.

[Ostroeuropa]

Case in point.

did you think even for a moment about the fact that this is a poster from literally the opposite side of the world!

What makes you think that, and given that America's political discussions have basically taken over the planet by this point, does it really matter?

[New Zoigai]

Yes we will revolutionize the goverment system by replacing it with some random hooplah that will take 70 years just to become functional, mabye not even 70 years if the right system is chosen.

...yeah, that's how a lot of revolutions go. Sorry in advance.

Oh sorry my Ass....

Revolutions don't always have to be a group of angry people trying to take over the goverment only to get massacared 3 battles in.

[Senkaku]

I think a lot of people can, they just don't find your "surrender or be destroyed" pitch terribly compelling.

The issue is not that it is surrender or be destroyed, and that you parse it as such is part of the problem.

You are not in a position to make unilateral demands of people who do not like you and hold power over you, but you nonetheless have cast aside any semblance of "Getting along" with these people in favor of constantly antagonizing them. The result will be your subjugation and it is mind boggling you do not see it.

"Stop making demands or be subjugated," I didn't have to "parse" shit.

Victory of the kind you seek is not an option. You do not have the power to enforce it.

What do you know about what "kind of victory" I seek? Obviously as an individual I don't have the power to enforce my political demands on society at large (as I shouldn't), but there's no reason to believe that society is inherently incapable of developing the political structures I think would suit it best. You are making two assumptions here: firstly, that anyone who challenges your rightist drivel can be lumped together with a concoction of the most malignant strands of rainbow capitalism, and secondly, that the only realistic avenues for societal change are those which those strands have embraced (whose apparent failure therefore means societal change of any meaningful kind is impossible, unenforceable, "not an option," or something).

It is find another path, or be destroyed.

Again: I didn't have to "parse" shit. Your advice to both the American liberal and the American leftist is to shut the fuck up or else. It's not really a compelling argument.

the usual vague crybaby nonsense about being cancelled. Who are "they"? Who's been "demonized, attacked, and humiliated"? How is it even possible to humiliate a political movement with no sense of shame?

Whites, Males, and the West. Let's not kid ourselves here.

Whites, males, and the West have been "demonized, attacked, and humiliated," yet remain rich, powerful, and adored. What you mean is that they are no longer collectively wholly immune to criticism from non-whites, women, and non-Western states. Trans women of color are "demonized, attacked, and humiliated," poor Mesoamerican republics are "demonized, attacked, and humiliated." Your incessantly florid outpourings of victimhood strip the meaning from the very words you use to describe your imagined persecution.

your boring victim-blamey

You seem to think I am making a moral critique rather than a sociological and materialistic evaluation. You should disabuse yourself of this notion. If more progressives did, perhaps they wouldn't be adopting this approach.

You are making a moral critique, and as per usual try to disguise your moralizing with a thin veneer of "I'm just making an objective evaluation :^)."

The American right has been trying to dismantle the modern administrative state since the New Deal, and trying to roll back protections for marginalized groups since the civil rights era

And yet it is only recently they have acquired the necessary political support and capital to succeed. Now isn't that interesting. It's almost as though something has caused them to gain more support for this endeavor.

The idea that modern rightists' triumphs must be correlated with the perceived rise of cancel culture is literally just right-wing confirmation bias. The right has achieved things in the context of other people (liberals/"the left") doing stuff you don't like, therefore you construct a moral narrative that the former happened as a sort of punishment for the latter, totally ignoring the actual material and political factors that have led us to where we are.

But as you say, they broadly haven't changed their behavior in almost 100 years. So what could have changed? Well, the opposition, i suppose.

Well, Mr. "Materialistic Evaluation," before attributing 100% of the political causation here to the mean feminists, I might begin with examining changes in (just to give a few examples) the world economy, the energy system, international trade, great power politics, the rise of modern information technology and consequent economic transitions both domestically and internationally, the destabilization of the climate system-- I could go on, but you get the idea. "Leftists/liberals are collectively meaner to white men now" is not the experimental variable here.

they're not doing it because modern liberals were too cancel-y towards them, they're doing it because it's what they've always wanted and political conditions are now ripe

Oh, is this some insight?

Political conditions are not primarily shaped by the ideologies of liberal arts undergrads.

which has a lot more to do with geopolitics, information technology, and atmospheric science than it does with feminism or postmodernism or whatever the fuck

Alas.

Then why do you continue to attribute causation to the latter? Why do you assume that the main variable here is the political quality and tone of the right's opposition, rather than material conditions on Earth?

"One of you"? Who is actually politically committed to restoring a master/slave dynamic to the republic?

The mainstream leftist theories on race and sex are epistemically unjust and this can be demonstrated if you dare to evaluate them in a manner that isn't entirely self-referential. As are the right wing ones. The only meaningful difference is that one contains more accumulated power.

I'm going to give you a tip now: a lot of men on podcasts think that using the word "epistemic" wherever possible makes them sound smart, but when used in the context of such an utterly meaningless, meandering, and obscurantist paragraph, it really doesn't. If you think "both sides bad" say that, if you think "the left" is trying to "enslave" the right just say that, but this dancing around things is tiresome and grows more so when you do it at such length.

In any case, I'll leave this threadjack to continue in some other, more appropriate thread, if you like.

[Giovenith]

No. Splitting countries to keep "those people" away has always been a historically horrible idea because there is no actual way to divide the people of a nation into clean-cut groups. You split apart families, force people into territories where they really don't fit, complicate previously established resource distribution, and increase conflict as radical factions arise fighting for how they think the country should be split. It's not going to happen and you shouldn't want it to happen.

[Senkaku]

did you think even for a moment about the fact that this is a poster from literally the opposite side of the world!

What makes you think that, and given that America's political discussions have basically taken over the planet by this point, does it really matter?

They've said so themselves, and yes, it does matter-- both that our imperialist legacy has left that poster with such an odd affinity for such a hyperspecific brand of extremist US politics, and that you're happy to instantly seize on their perceptions from half a world away as proof that you're right about American left-liberals being out to get [you, the right, everyone, fill in the blank]. A wacko post here does more to confirm your righteousness to you than material conditions in the real world does to lead you to question it.

...yeah, that's how a lot of revolutions go. Sorry in advance.

Oh sorry my Ass....

Revolutions don't always have to be a group of angry people trying to take over the goverment only to get massacared 3 battles in.

I think you're making reference to something but I'm missing it so carry on I guess

[New Zoigai]

No. Splitting countries to keep "those people" away has always been a historically horrible idea because there is no actual way to divide the people of a nation into clean-cut groups. You split apart families, force people into territories where they really don't fit, complicate previously established resource distribution, and increase conflict as radical factions arise fighting for how they think the country should be split. It's not going to happen and you shouldn't want it to happen.

Yes someone who realizes how foolish tihs idea is!

[New Astri]

snip

i'll be real all the big words you're cramming in there kind of just make you sound like a pseudo-intellectual centrist. like i'm not trying to put that in an insulting way or anything it just legitimately sounds like you have very little to say that isn't "leftists bad rightwingers stupid" and you're polishing it up with fancy words like 'epistemically' when in reality yr point is ridiculously common and irrelevant/uninformed overall. btw i'm like 90% sure that's a really weird/inaccurate way to use epistemically there are definitely works that would make more sense there

[Christian Confederation]

Unfortunately as it sits the Right for the most part wants to be left alone and the Left wants the right to bend the knee. Which is why from a leftist perspective a conservative holding the same views they did 10 years ago are radical. In 2012 both sides agreed on the basics like there being two genders (Men and Weman) and disagreed on economic and social policies. Now it's 2022 and the same Republicans that hold the same or mostly the same views they did ten years ago seem radical because the left has gone so far left.

Essentially the left has gone so far left that moderates and Democrats from a decade ago have Essentially been forced out of the party and into the republican party by simply being the same they were a decade ago. The modern American left is a self hating and self destructive group.
Take cancel culture, leftist step have to go through a mine field or have there lives ruined. Meanwhile the right has done a bit of canceling themselves but in comparison the left canceled more people for more pointless reasons. For example Gina Carano was canceled for pointing out that alienating groups of people is dangerous and could lead to genocide. The right rallied around her. JK Rowling believes there are only 2 genders something the left agreed on a decade ago and she was canceled for it.

It's like a story Tim Pool told once. (Forgive me if some details are wrong it's been a while since I heard this one) There's a protest and a counter protest in a park, on one side is the violent and cursing Leftists in black block. The MAGA Patriot types are just hanging out on the other. He goes to the Right side and talks with the protesters and overall has a pleasant and civil conversation. He proceeded to go to the left side and was called a Racist, a Nazi, and a Fascist. Overall treated very uncivilly and unable to discuss why the leftists were protesting. He returned to the Right side and hung out and conversed with the protesters and had a pleasant time.
Now he pointed out how it may be antidotal evidence but bassed on his experience and the experience of others it was clear which side the average person would be more likely to join.

That's not to say that all Leftists are unsavory and all Right leaning people are nice. There's also plenty examples of nice and Civil Leftists and Plenty of Examples of Rude and Violent people on the Right Side. But the most Vocal and Public parts for the most part stay in the Leftists Violent/ Uncivil and Right Peaceful/ Civil Type.

It's simple really, you wouldn't want to get a beer with Antifa rioters but would with the flag waving MAGA Bros. Given a few more years the Left will Canibalize itself and the Right will implode into multiple parties Given the strain of the Politically homeless kicked from the left into the right.
The signs are already on the walls. Culturally and Economically the Modern left is failing and the Right is gaining support leading to the Populist/ Red Wave in 22/24 Election Cycles and possibly beyond.

[Countesia]

Sounds dumb and and quite frankly, childish. Worse than the people who threatened to move to Canada when Trump won.

If you split any country in half just to cater to everyone's political beliefs you would end up inevitably repeating the process every time that new state becomes too polarised. You thought the Holy Roman Empire was a fugly mashup of nations? This would be worse.

better option is to just have the US Federal federal government abolished and allow the states to be independent nations. If you allow national divorce to happen once, it'll keep being used as an option.

Do what the rest of the world does any only give a shit about politics when an election comes up.

[Countesia]

-