Special Needs Society

Kobos wrote: Um Zealot can you tie this in to the thread at hand? I just feel kind of lost here on this one. I might just be lost in what I am seeing here but I don't see this relating to accommodation all that much in the context of the original discussion. Just asking for some clarification.

Much Love,
Kobos

if possible please narrow your inquiry down to a quote. If you're lost on how everything I said applies let's rewind.

OP: Once, it was commonly understood that life wasn't always fair, some had more opportunities than others, and you played the hand you were dealt. Boys were boys, girls were girls, kids had to fight plenty of their own battles, and it often meant a schoolyard scrap or two where you may have come home with a black eye, especially if you didn't fit in.

The OP is trying to advance a theory that society shouldn't treat anyone special. If you are more interested in the "special needs classroom" as a metaphor, my response is geared to the question of whether or not anyone deserves special treatment. The answer, which I think should obviously be yes, is not understood to be so obvious since it is being argued against by this thread which compares people born with a disadvantage to children fighting on a playground.

But what I wanted to point out that "special" is relative and people use biases to determine who THEY think should get to have special treatment. If there is some kind of underlying aversion or hate at the root of said bias then the person will agree that this group should discriminated against and not receive special treatment. Life is unfair is therefore a popular justification of why this group we're biased against, does not deserve special treatment. If life is unfair then why fight it? Why do anything different from what life gives us?

I'll give you an experience of mine... I was that kid who wasn't allowed sugar. "ADHD" they said. The type the school gives you pills for when they can't deal with your behavioural quirks. So, when it was ice cream day, I wasn't allowed any. I had to watch all the other kids enjoying ice cream, while I wondered how anyone could be so cruel. That's how it was and that's how it should be. Sure, it wasn't fair but neither is life. It wasn't up to the school to bend to my needs, it was my problem and my parent's problem. I dealt with it.

The problem with this example may have gone unnoticed. The school gave special treatment. The special treatment given made education better for the kid with ADHD and those around that kid; all who deserve to receive an education. Imagine with the kid with ADHD was sent home instead and forced to be home schooled or even forced to go some special school (away from the other kids) simply because they weren't "normal" or had "special needs". As if ADHD kids are the same as kids with other and possibly more potent mental handicaps. You can argue that the school didn't have to do this but it is their job to educate. Who says it is okay or sufficient for a system designed to educate to ignore kids with special needs? If you have to hire specialists then hire specialists. Refusing to do so isn't a solution. It's simply ignoring a problem. Had they done their job while ignoring the ADHD it would have resulted in unfair treatment because the kid with ADHD doesn't deserve to get into trouble for something they can't control and something you're making worse by giving them ice cream.

OP: Today, everyone is expected to be inclusive, tolerant, and censor themselves if they might possibly offend some group of "specials".

Again... when the OP calls "certain people" special it is RELATIVE; especially to the biases they have against certain minority groups. Most people who harbor such biases don't aim the same standards on other groups of "specials"; just the ones they don't like. Pets are simply special animals. Babies are simply humans at a special stage in their development that is relatively defenseless. So at what point do we start to apply this sense of "life isn't fair so let kids come home with black eyes"? In other words, at what point should we stop protecting people who someone else chooses to define as special? At some point in time someone defined the Jews as special. And they didn't like that these special people had good jobs; jobs that they felt entitled to have. So yes, there is a problem when you go down the slope of defining different groups as special and then using that as an excuse to claim they shouldn't be treated according to how "special" they might be.


Now MOST of the OP is admittedly confined to talking about school situations but I take it as an allegory because of this last comment. Clearly, we're not talking about special needs kids here. Now do you see?

It's as if people are so obsessed with making "specials" feel included and accepted, they have transformed society into one giant special needs classroom.

So society is a "special needs classroom". Who are its "specials"? This feeds right into other threads started by Phoenix.

The Freedom to Hate (see paragraph 7)
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/122820-the-freedom-to-hate?start=0

and also related to the same type of intellectual arguments made trans being one of these "specials" of society and why they should be given special treatment based on gender dysphoria the OP related to more of a mental illness.

https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/open-discussions/122801-transgender-an-identity-issue?start=60

So please excuse me if I'm connecting a few dots here. My brain could not ignore attempt to mask the same discussion under different allegories. It's all essentially the same thing; a lesson in hate.

Well done, sith. Well done.

mental note: I do wonder how many Jedi could a clever enough sith get to argue on their side of such an argument.

Thank you for the clarification Zealot, I was wondering where the other information you pulled was from and how it was connected. I appreciate it, I see what you were getting at now.

There's a lot of speaking in broad, and not necessarily true, or at least specific terms.

"Society is a toilet" - okay, sure. Other than vague references to half-assed articles, that were investigated not-at-all in the first instance for the sake of whatever "news" site or another having something to say about something, there is very few "I have personally experienced this issue in this manner and it has effected me in this way" examples going on.

I have certainly read a great deal about various "Special needs" actions, and I suppose I could clutch at my pearls, but the truth is - I don't see it all that much.

Yes, there is certainly a trend in either employers or education systems to give a "tailored" experience to everyone, apparently individuals are important in whatever cultural era we are in - but this is reflected just as much in allowing people time off to run marathons or travel to crappy parts of the world to build houses and teach people to read as much as it is in "coddling" this or that need.

In terms of "assisting the weak" if you want to call it that, my country has a huge budget set aside for it - https://www.ndis.gov.au/

If you've got some issue or another that makes it hard for you to get along under your own steam, you can access all manner of aid - but this isn't delivered as "blanket changes to daily life for everyone to please a few" it is specific assistance provided to the requestor to allow them to get along with things.

Maybe we should close the NDIS down, and all those people with PTSD can survive without their companion animals - my point is, it doesn't have the appearance to me of telling everyone else how to behave to please a few, it is simply providing flexibility to satisfy a range of lifestyles and needs.

Now, when it comes to schools, (which I think is where much of these stories, fact checked or otherwise, come from)

Teacher/Student ratios are in the 1-30 range. That makes it quite hard to create an individual experience for 30 people, and for whatever reason, parents (and other stake holders who may or may not be entitled to an opinion, and probably know little about education) want a consistent experience for everyone (mmm, tastes like dirt, but at least it's consistent!) so (say) 10 teachers at a school (marshalled by a principal, who probably has a bit of political skin in the game, but that's into another issue of how weird decisions are made) have to come up with a plan that roughly suits 300 students, and depending on your local laws or school system, it may necessarily need to be able to accommodate whomever applies to that school in the local area.

I suppose the teachers could all say "we'll teach Math, English, Philosophy, and Knife Fighting - only the strong will survive" or they might say "okay, how can we manage a program that will, overall, work more or less okay for more or less all the people we have to serve"

so, with much interviews, reading of student application forms, and chalkboarding, (they are teachers, and schools are poor - no fancy white boards here) they come up with a plan, and a list of policies and rules that they hope might meet the end goal)


This is not a perfect plan for 300 individuals, it's not even a perfect plan for 1 individual - it's a plan for an amorphous group of human-larvae with a whole range of skills and abilities and interest levels.

If a school is *lucky* they might have dedicated specialist teachers who can provide a program for 30 "special" kids - but those 30 kids are not all going to be special in the same way, so even a dedicated specialist program is flawed, and any given teacher does not have infinite time and resources to conduct any given program.

This all sounds like rambling, but here's the take away - when you work in an area, or are privy to it's processes and daily grind, the realities of it are far less impressive that a few soundbites and designed-the-enrage-keyboard-warriors "news" articles would have you believe.





Now, I will quickly circle back to principals (or other leadership figures) who forget their trade and get political - I believe it is easy for people to be dragged into a nonsense-hyperdrive where they develop and inflated view of the importance of this-or-that issue, and when they "return" to their place of power, after what spiritual-journey they've been on that awakens them to the seriousness of one-or-another particular matter, they will suddenly enforce a whole range of seemingly inane policies to change the world.

This sort of action is fodder to the media "Local mayor demands all post boxes painted blue, to improve mood of neighborhood cats" that sort of thing. It gets retweeted a couple of times, someone gets hot under their collar about this "blue movement" sweeping the nation, and...well here we are.


Again, you work in an industry (or work with people long enough) that this is just part of the ebb and flow of life, and the more adaptable and cunning workers further down the food chain find ways to influence or modify to "Grand Edict" into workable routines that are far less spectacular than the reported news would have you believe.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: You write this as if evolution is fact. I certainly don’t believe it is. Furthermore, you’re WAY off topic, lost in some half rant. Please, try again and this time, stick to the topic without adding a bunch more armchair pseudo philosophical bs. Also, keep your globalist propaganda to yourself if you would or make a special population control thread. Thanks in advance.

Well since evolution has been recreated in lab conditions I will have to stand by my use of evolution. As far as being way off topic, am I though? Furthermore, no one said anything about eugenics or whatever you are calling propaganda. You, let me remind you, were the one who spoke of the world being one big special needs classroom. I was simply saying that LGBT is a natural counter balance to overpopulation. Now if you think the water is turning people LGBT or creating "gay frogs" that has nothing to do with anything I said. Even if you don't like the word evolution which I was using in the context of social society it isn't necessary to understand my point. All of these things you believe are so unnatural can be presently observed in nature. Again, what you deem special is relative to your own experience and biases. As an animal species we're all special and we're all a minority group on earth. But the more we divide ourselves and refuse to see ourselves as one human race the more we go off into extremes of self-hatred.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: You can take your anti fee speech “Temple” and shove it so far up your ass, it exits though your gob!

It's not anti-free speech at all. If it were, 90% of the drivel I post here would probably be removed :laugh:

They're just asking you to be as considerate to others as they are to you. I've said to you before that i fully support you being here and that I think you have valuable opinions to share, but its very difficult for me to defend you when you're quite so impulsive/oblivious to the impact of your own words/actions.

In response to the OP:

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Environments of inclusivity where people are told everything is okay and nothing is their fault, results in emotionally stunted people who can't deal with conflict.

An atmosphere of blind acceptance, results in people with a weak sense of identity. This identity will fail to stand up to being challenged and this in turn will result in people with an even weaker sense of identity.

Once, it was commonly understood that life wasn't always fair, some had more opportunities than others, and you played the hand you were dealt. Boys were boys, girls were girls, kids had to fight plenty of their own battles, and it often meant a schoolyard scrap or two where you may have come home with a black eye, especially if you didn't fit in.

That was just part of growing up. Rejection was just something that happened. Either you tried to fit in because you wanted acceptance or you didn't. Some created their own groups, some didn't, and some became loners.

I 100% agree with this.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Today, everyone is expected to be inclusive, tolerant, and censor themselves if they might possibly offend some group of "specials". Everyone, every business, and every group is expected to roll out the welcome mat and bend to the needs and wants of all these "specials", including having to build another washroom for men and women who are having an identity crisis.

I think that in most civil society inclusivity, tolerance and censorship has always been promoted. From the early 1600s to mid 1900s it was considered desirable for a man to be a 'gentleman'. Many people consider a gentleman to be overly polite and to avoid conflict or offence (ie someone who caters to your so called 'specials').

However, my favourite definition of what makes a man a 'gentleman' is “a man who never gives offence unintentionally”. The point of this statement, is to define a gentleman as someone who knows what is socially/culturally acceptable in whatever time/environment they find themselves.

In order to do this, a gentleman must be tolerant of other views/cultures/beliefs and able to self censor so as not to cause offence unintentionally, ie in your own words they were 'expected to be inclusive, tolerant, and censor themselves if they might possibly offend some group of "specials"'

HOWEVER, that does not for one moment mean that they were 'expected to roll out the welcome mat and bend to the needs and wants of all these "specials"'. It is entirely possible to be dismissive, stand your ground, be offensive, and still be a gentleman. And you'd still be fine to do all those things today.

So I'd say you're about 50% right about this, over the last 500 years of western society, which hardly constitutes some new phenomena which has just occurred today.

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: In some schools in the US, "jazz hands" have replaced clapping because the autistic kids can't handle the noise. I have a better solution, put the autistic kids in a special needs class or school. I don't see what's difficult about that as it was common practice when I went to school.

I kind of see your point here, but is really a great sacrifice to give up clapping? And do you really think that a child should be sent to the academic equivalent of a leper colony just because they were born autistic?

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: I'll give you an experience of mine... I was that kid who wasn't allowed sugar. "ADHD" they said. The type the school gives you pills for when they can't deal with your behavioural quirks. So, when it was ice cream day, I wasn't allowed any. I had to watch all the other kids enjoying ice cream, while I wondered how anyone could be so cruel. That's how it was and that's how it should be. Sure, it wasn't fair but neither is life. It wasn't up to the school to bend to my needs, it was my problem and my parent's problem. I dealt with it.

By your own logic in the previous paragraph, should you have not either have been forced to eat the ice cream like everyone else, or sent to a school for ADHD kids where they don't have any ice cream?

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: It's as if people are so obsessed with making "specials" feel included and accepted, they have transformed society into one giant special needs classroom.

There is certainly an argument to be made that our latest attempts at inclusivity, tolerance, and censorship to benefit certain minority groups have actually been to the detriment of both those groups and wider society as a whole, but I'm not sure you've done a great job of framing that argument.


Solid B+. Some good points well made, but your logic and reasoning in some of your arguments fall a bit flat.

Free speech is a tricky thing, and honestly new events in my life considered there is a lot of grey area to cover particularly when things get heated.

For example I am all about being able to rip on anything, to quote South Park, "either everything is ok or nothing is ok." However, there becomes a dilema when people forget they are jokes and begin taking things as dead serious. This is when having a laugh becomes literally dangerous.

Another point in this is when and how do we define inciting violence, in most recent cases I have seen via media sources there seems to be a little of double standard. For example, "Defend yourself against being attacke in the street be masked protesters." Is considered inciting violence, on the flip though, "bring weapons to bash the Nazi." is glossed over. It is an interesting and difficult thing for us as a society to put a finger on.

I do hope these dilemmas start some real solutions at some point soon. But, in the mean time as individuals we need to take our own actions and words into consideration. Violence seldom helps any cause you support, and in fact can end up doing more damage to it.

Otherwise, voice your opinion and point of view! But in certain areas such as privately owned forums do not expect the same burden of proof the state needs to block speech as that is why the First Amendment in the US is worded the way it is. An organization also has to right to free speech and that can mean squelching opinions or views that damage the message of the organization. Open forums tend to shy away from it (as we do here) but there are still certain actions that have to be taken.

Just some thoughts,
Much Love,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: Another point in this is when and how do we define inciting violence, in most recent cases I have seen via media sources there seems to be a little of double standard. For example, "Defend yourself against being attacke in the street be masked protesters." Is considered inciting violence, on the flip though, "bring weapons to bash the Nazi." is glossed over. It is an interesting and difficult thing for us as a society to put a finger on.

ahhh... solid point. But if a group of Sith (movie) were threatening an area spreading hate and they were armed with lightsabers...

would you, if you were a movie Jedi...

1. Go there to stop them
2. Go there unarmed

?

I would be armed but negotiation would be my first point, the idea of being prepped for violence and acting in it is different. Also, in most of these rallies (even the ones I absolutely dis-like) when left to their own devices there really is no attack on random civilians the violence happens between the 2 groups there to argue there points (still not oaky IMHO).

One example as evidence, when the Proud Boys (who I do not endorse) were in Portland, they showed up did their flag waving, then left. However, violence ruled the day simply because they were there at one point. How is that ok?

Much Love,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: I would be armed but negotiation would be my first point, the idea of being prepped for violence and acting in it is different. Also, in most of these rallies (even the ones I absolutely dis-like) when left to their own devices there really is no attack on random civilians the violence happens between the 2 groups there to argue there points (still not oaky IMHO).

One example as evidence, when the Proud Boys (who I do not endorse) were in Portland, they showed up did their flag waving, then left. However, violence ruled the day simply because they were there at one point. How is that ok?

Much Love,
Kobos

I loathe that example because there is no such thing as an ANTIFA organization. It's not an organized group. Anyone who wants to oppose facism and wants to show up is antifa. There's no membership... no member dues... no manifesto. So there's no account for crazy individuals who are drawn to some violent extreme, not because the extreme is necessarily violent but because THEY are so others with the same label then have that "violent" tag added to them whether they, as a group, decided to be that or not.

The same thing happened with Black Lives Matter. You can't control every person who shows up. And every person who shows up isn't going to fully subscribe to your methods or what you think the chant should be. But they all get demonized. Did this happen with the "Send her back" chant at the Trump rally? No. In that case people just questioned why Trump didn't stop it or cut it off or rebuke it. But no one assumes that every Trump rally ever is inherently racist. One person can't define a group. Two people can't define a group. No group is a monolith. Only the group can define the group and if you want to be recognized by that group then you have to conform to that groups stated beliefs and goals. What if a Jedi who happened to be a member of this site went and committed an act of terrorism? Would that make us all terrorists? Did we plan it? Of course not. You can't control what people do or what they call themselves.

And don't get me started on things Christians have done that will never be attributed to other Christians.

Never said anything about ANTIFA (there are many many groups) and by including them you kinda proved my point, and being a previous member from back in the Ferguson protests I can absolutely tell you there are cells (when violence became and objective I dropped out, I was an anarchist at the time in my youth but also a pacifist) they act individually but there is a degree of organization.



The Peace sign T-shirt guy throwing the Malatov is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I do not like what's going on at the border but I would not use that image to promote my point because you lose 40% of your audience by doing so it's counter productive at best stupid at worst.

That is organization, on the same level of the right wing groups I and you both loathe.

Are Trump rallies inherently racist? Even when Hispanic, Asian, Arabic and African Americans are present?

And I very much know you can't control individuals, most of us in the Mike Brown protests weren't shooting guns, but some were. I get that. But why can't violence just be condemned by both sides. I don't get it there are a million reasons for people to continue to justify it, but one reason it should be abhorrent to all and that is that we are ALL human.

Anyways man, I hope you know I do respect you quite a bit, and I appreciate the talk you have some good points but we are at a crossroads where I do not believe either of us are open to the ideas which can change minds. We share a lot of views just different ways of expressing them.

Much Love my friend,
Kobos

Kobos wrote: Never said anything about ANTIFA (there are many many groups) and by including them you kinda proved my point, and being a previous member from back in the Ferguson protests I can absolutely tell you there are cells (when violence became and objective I dropped out, I was an anarchist at the time in my youth but also a pacifist) they act individually but there is a degree of organization.

Forgive me for misreading you then because that's what I was taking from your comment:

"bring weapons to bash the Nazi." is glossed over.

I don't think most antifa bring weapons to bash the Nazis but rather they oppose fascism and arm themselves in case the nazis attack. The problem is, you're always going to get someone who is amped up for a fight and feels provoked and you may not be able to control that person. And if antifa, as I understood the comment, is bringing weapons to bash Nazis then what are Nazis bringing weapons for? Weren't they armed first? And which of these groups, organized or not, launched the first terrorist attack?

Kobos wrote: The Peace sign T-shirt guy throwing the Malatov is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I do not like what's going on at the border but I would not use that image to promote my point because you lose 40% of your audience by doing so it's counter productive at best stupid at worst.

I understand that. But, and this is just for the sake of argument, don't US military troops act as the world's "peace keepers"? Aren't they armed while doing so? So what is the difference between peace-keeper and war-maker? Isn't it all relative? All a matter of perspective? This is one of the things I love about Star Wars.

Kobos wrote: That is organization, on the same level of the right wing groups I and you both loathe.

Are Trump rallies inherently racist? Even when Hispanic, Asian, Arabic and African Americans are present?

No, but to be honest with you, I get very annoyed by the few black people that show up. Specifically annoyed at them. The truth is there have always been black people that acted against the interests of the black community at large.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrZZQzyhp7g

Enter David Clarke

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-quietly-ditched-trump-loving-sheriff-david-clarke

They will use any black person they think can look credible just to repeat whatever anti-black sentiment they want to spew without looking racist. A congressman famously brought in a black woman Trump had hired just to point at her, not for her to actually speak, as the 'token black' which proves Trump isn't racist. It's the same as saying "I'm not racist. I have a black friend." We just laugh at stuff like that. You would think that would apply to Omerosa and that she wouldn't think her former buddy was racist but even she thinks he's racist. If I went to a Trump rally they would probably put me on stage behind Trump and remove me only if I wasn't smiling or cheering enough. It's comical. They put the same black guy on stage more than once. Why would you do that if there many black people there? No, you do it to make it look like there are. But no... is a Trump rally inherently racist? I say no but its not a hard no. In other words... Trump rallies are for his base and Trump's opinion of his base is that they share his racist ideas. When he accused Mexican immigrants of being rapists and murderers he had no intention of going out on a political limb. No... he was counting on white people sympathizing with him and wanting to take 'their' country back. There are simply dog whistles that not everyone is supposed to pick up on. The only reason why I pick up on some of them is because the same dog whistles are overused. The whole racist thing in politics isn't new. In the Republican party its called the "Southern Strategy". But its supposed to be subtle. Trump just doesn't do sutble very well. And so the people who normally hear the dog whistles heard the same message through a megaphone when they heard Trump. And that's why these Trump rallies lead to Klan rallies and alt right rallies and tiki torches. He's their guy. They know it. And he knows it. Steve Bannon wasn't there for no reason. And this sets up people like Steve King to say what a lot of other people are thinking.

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” - Steve King

Do you see what he did there? Steve King just told us that white nationalists are white supremacists. He's telling you that the dog whistle is actually the thing we know it is but couldn't prove. Is there any reason we shouldn't believe Steve King? Is it all just a strange coincidence that suddenly, after Obama, all these white groups which are usually quiet, are out in force under Trump?

“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.” - David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK.

Is the former grand wizard, with all his [white] magic, seeing what other republicans aren't seeing? Are all these people delusional for thinking Trump is one of them? Because its not just black people saying Trump is racist. It's white people saying it too. Let's move on.

Kobos wrote: And I very much know you can't control individuals, most of us in the Mike Brown protests weren't shooting guns, but some were. I get that. But why can't violence just be condemned by both sides. I don't get it there are a million reasons for people to continue to justify it, but one reason it should be abhorrent to all and that is that we are ALL human.

Anyways man, I hope you know I do respect you quite a bit, and I appreciate the talk you have some good points but we are at a crossroads where I do not believe either of us are open to the ideas which can change minds. We share a lot of views just different ways of expressing them.

Much Love my friend,
Kobos

I respect you as well. People on the left have condemned violence on their side just as BLM has done. But it doesn't get reported so that people on the other side can continue to think that these groups are unreasonable. Even apologetics is propaganda. That's why us talking is almost a revolutionary act at this point. The more we talk about politics the more we puncture the bubbles of isolation that become echo chambers for extremes. It is a great opportunity to be part of the discussion and I hope it continues.

I understand that. But, and this is just for the sake of argument, don't US military troops act as the world's "peace keepers"? Aren't they armed while doing so? So what is the difference between peace-keeper and war-maker? Isn't it all relative? All a matter of perspective

I object to the premise, but in terms of the question "what is the difference" or "who has the right to power"

It's a bit like every army having God on it's side....

The "Freedom Fighters" (whomever they are this week, Antifa, BLM, OccupyWherever, MeatIsMurder, whichever damned group has an opinion on something are all 100% firmly in the belief that they are in the right, on some ground or another.

and, broadly, the Status Quo team are generally firmly convinced they are in the Right also (and, to their benefit, usually have the better matching uniforms, cleaner weapons, and nicer boots)

Here's the twist - all the other parties are often at each other's throats, fine. Where the political game comes into it, is lobbying to "Dad" (being the government-of-the-day sanctioned police forces, whether you believe them just or not) to convince them that you are just trying to help them, and the real rabble rousers are those OTHER guys.

Visible street protests are one thing, but plenty of work goes into legal battles and trying to motivate the nearest political influence into believing your enemies are their enemies, and then, by some weird default, you can declare yourself the moral victor (if not the real victor) because the REAL power (which, on other days of the week, you might also be condemning, but they can be handy allies) has sided with you....


Since I've gone this far, I'm wondering if the comparison is relevant to establishing the special needs culture (or if it is the other way around - Such great steps were made creating environments and circumstances for such a wide range of young-persons to flourish, that the logical next step (for some people) was that any and all demands be met and treated as valid by the Ruling Power)

I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but just imagine for a second the sensation of having your toes individually smacked with a ball-pin hammer on a concrete floor.
POP!
I love all of you.

Depends how thngs are defined, but for my reading of things "One person freedom fighter is another persons terrorist" is not realty accurate, for terrorism is better defined as targeting of civilians or otherwise illegal warfighting (by the laws of war) for ideological reasons. So IMO it's not the US against anyone who disagrees with the US, but rather the US against anyone breaking the laws of war (and when they can justify the cost of intervention). So it boils down more to globalization and peace.... and those 'bad guys' are the ones trying to cheat the dealt cards by those aforementioned illegal means for their own advantage. In a SW context the Rebel forces target only legitimate military objectives they deem necessary for progress in such a wy to minimize collateral damage ie legal warfighting. In comparison the Empire uses its full power indiscriminately against anyone as a resource to further it's progress. So what is globalization... the rules greed upon by the majority of the planet, but it's not like all people on the planet vote, rather just the representatives of most. So I guess peace is less likely to be some state of non-violence, but rather the least violent way to change the rules without reversing progress in the system to be more representative (and of course managing those that break them for personal gain, but it's not like that is a new thing)?