DL said "threat of conflict rather than threat of violence".
In most cases, isn't violence really an extreme form of conflict? To me, it sounds like you are both saying esentially the same thing.
But I will disagree with the phrasing in one part of STs post. When he said "sometimes the threat of violence is what's needed ... However, many people seem to think that violence is the only path", I think that "However" should be "Because". Those who consider violence the only path will not respect anything else, and that severely limits the options for the other parties in the disagreement. IMO, it eliminates all possibility of a win-win solution.
And a related comment: I'm in the middle of a book by sociolinguist Deborah Tannen, "The Argument Culture". I'm still reading it, so correct me if needed: so far her premise seems to be that the culture in the US actively PROMOTES conflict by forcing every public discussion into a model based on two-sided, us-vs-them, warfare. The two sides, of course, being the most extreme positions available on the issue under discussion. Intermediate positions or alternate viewpoints need not apply, there's no place allowed for them in the debate.
As I said, I'm still reading it... but the premise seems to make sense and to provide a frighteningly adequate explaination for the increase in US domestic terrorism. |
