"Blame the problems of a country on a specific group." Yep, that is exactly what we did in World War 2. We blamed the problems of a lot of countries on the Nazis.
"Forbid that group from speaking or any opposing views from being allowed." Yes, we did this as well during World War 2. Nazi propaganda was silenced and I can guarantee that our military wouldn't have allowed any soldiers to be reading a copy of Mein Kampf for personal enlightenment.
"Use violence and intimidation to silence opponents." It's called war. We have fought many of them, including against Nazis.
"Silently remove political opponents, perhaps under cover of a lie." We have done this as well in war.
You act as if we have never fought wars before. If all disagreements were resolved through a high school debate program, perhaps we would live in an idealized fantasy land. But they are not. Sometimes, extreme disagreements pop up to which there is no resolution because each side has become completely invested to the point of no return. When that happens, war often occurs. To ignore that is to be eternally naive. That is why we fought the Nazis. Having a debate with them would have been pointless. They were 100% committed to Holocaust and world domination. That was why the Union fought the Confederates. Having a nice chat over some tea wouldn't have resolved the U.S. Civil War. The Confederates were 100% committed to secession and maintaining slavery.
There are matters about which debate can and does occur, and there are matters about which it is pointless to debate. Again, it is nothing but naive to fail to recognize that. It means that difficult decisions have to be made by people of good will in distinguishing between the two.
"Blame the problems of a country on a specific group." Yep, that is exactly what we did in World War 2. We blamed the problems of a lot of countries on the Nazis.
"Forbid that group from speaking or any opposing views from being allowed." Yes, we did this as well during World War 2. Nazi propaganda was silenced and I can guarantee that our military wouldn't have allowed any soldiers to be reading a copy of Mein Kampf for personal enlightenment.
"Use violence and intimidation to silence opponents." It's called war. We have fought many of them, including against Nazis.
"Silently remove political opponents, perhaps under cover of a lie." We have done this as well in war.
You act as if we have never fought wars before. If all disagreements were resolved through a high school debate program, perhaps we would live in an idealized fantasy land. But they are not. Sometimes, extreme disagreements pop up to which there is no resolution because each side has become completely invested to the point of no return. When that happens, war often occurs. To ignore that is to be eternally naive. That is why we fought the Nazis. Having a debate with them would have been pointless. They were 100% committed to Holocaust and world domination. That was why the Union fought the Confederates. Having a nice chat over some tea wouldn't have resolved the U.S. Civil War. The Confederates were 100% committed to secession and maintaining slavery.
There are matters about which debate can and does occur, and there are matters about which it is pointless to debate. Again, it is nothing but naive to fail to recognize that. It means that difficult decisions have to be made by people of good will in distinguishing between the two.