you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (12 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (9 children)

    Because a large part of many of these practices is the exclusion of all others. Thanks for sharing, though!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    They do not want to coexist. The existence of an 'other' is a threat/attack to them.

    Read nazi philosopher carl schmitt or fiction novel 'blindsight'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    Noted elsewhere. Differences will happen. Why make them discrete or sacred?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    I expect the same way you continue as is without any prison or bloodshed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That was not my intention, instead I tried to repeat your idea in my own words to make sure I actually understand. Also I intentionally added kinda opposing factions and the concept "freedom of movement" to my question to make the idea more clear to me and others.

    Also your idea reminds a little of the "World where many worlds fit" idea that comes from (or I have first learned of when reading) zapatista texts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment