Anonymous #1 11w

I think this also speaks to the neglect and dehumanization of the blue populations within those states, particularly native Americans and southern black people, who are generally blue but tend to live within very red states. But the whole state is written off as deserving to suffer.

17

Anonymous #1 11w

i don't believe in people "deserving" to suffer. that said, my life is objectively, materially worse thanks to the parasitic nature of red states, and that parasitism only serves to embolden itself. cutting those states off from the free rides they get would cripple them, and that would create the necessary animus and room to unseat the cartoon villains running those states. you are looking at the short term harm reduction as more important than long term harm prevention

1

Anonymous #3 11w

And if they don’t? Sure Wyoming or West Virginia might come running back, but what if the loss of federal oversight just allows those governments to coalesce authoritarian power. How many trans people in Texas or black people in Mississippi would need to die before it’s “worth it” to you? And this still wouldn’t change that every blue state has its own large red contingent. They’re still there. It’s the conservative suburbs driving the Republican ascendency, not the rural farmers.

3

Anonymous #1 11w

The dissolution of the Soviet Union crippled a number of the post-Soviet states. Azerbaijan was free to genocide Armenians with impunity. Turkmenistan folded inwards into a totalitarian state. Kyrgyzstan’s economy collapsed. Suffering doesn’t guarantee they come running back, especially if it means their leaders can now hold onto power indefinitely.

9

Anonymous #1 11w

then we do what we should've to the confederacy/secessionists; invade, defeat, seize, reeducate how many trans people or black people are you willing to let suffer indefinitely under a torturous status quo that has only further disenfranchised them and empowered their oppressors? you're describing the coalescence of power as if that's not exactly whats happened already. they already have all the power in red states, and they are being funded by us

5

Anonymous #3 11w

You’re doing the “so you hate waffles” thing. I was only talking about the balkanization of the U.S. and why that would be bad.

5

Anonymous #1 11w

Like I think this is clearly reflecting how many Americans have never had to live through an actual civil war or refugee crisis or the breakdown of a nation where you think that the solution to current systematic issues is “burn everything down.” We have never seen what the collapse of a nation actually looks like. The Lebanese, the post-Soviets, the Yugoslavs, they have. Bosnians were discriminated against in Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia broke down, that changed to genocide.

7

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #1 11w

i never said burn everything down, and i'm not advocating for civil war. what i advocated for was cutting off red states from blue funding. *YOU* are doing the "so you hate waffles" thing

6

There is stuff between “do nothing as Republican state politicians target minorities” and “break up the country.” Again, “so you hate waffles.” Saying the country shouldn’t break apart does not mean “do literally nothing”

0

Obviously I think targeted minority populations need to be protected from the persecution they are currently facing. That’s not what the post was talking about. The post was talking about “the country needs to break up.” You are assigning “do literally nothing” to me saying “the country breaking up isn’t a solution”

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 11w

Ok, so you are saying something different than OP. OP was talking about the country splitting up completely. You were talking about cutting off funding. I had assumed you were saying the same thing as OP.

1

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #3 11w

You did literally bring up the civil war though, under a post about the USA balkanizing, and said the word “invade.” I think you can understand why I interpreted it that way

1

I agree. You can make systemic change to a nation without burning everything down. That is what I believe needs to be done, not balkanization, which is what the original post was talking about and hence what my original comments were in response to.

1

Because #3 had replied to my comments which were specifically arguing against OP, I had (seemingly incorrectly) assumed they were arguing in support of OP.

1

Anonymous #1 11w

yeah i was on a relevant tangent so i get the misunderstanding. balkanize is a bit extreme as that means hostilities but i do think there needs to be more antagonism to put pressure on red state leaders

1