this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
135 points (94.1% liked)

Asklemmy

43746 readers
1462 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

People keep saying this and I personally don't really believe it, I think there could be a couple riots, but not like a full on civil war. What does everyone think?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 118 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Could it happen? Yes. There is a lot of anger in America. Will it happen in the near (10-15 years) future? No. Why? Watch any and all of the January 6th 2021 videos of the Capitol Riots. That looked like a bunch of alcoholic, mentally ill tailgate partiers tried to take over a nation. It got out of hand and went very, very bad. The only reason they did as much damage as they did, was because actual law enforcement reinforcements were not called in on time. They are just violent idiots who are old, out of shape, delusional about their abilities, and they did not have an actual plan. Civil war is not the immediate threat we face in the USA, it's the fascism of christianity from within our government that needs to be destroyed. We need a return back to sanity, back to a secular government.

[–] [email protected] 69 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The only reason they did as much damage as they did, was because actual law enforcement reinforcements were not called in on time.

Let's be clear about this: law enforcement was minimal to begin with, and reinforcements were deliberately refused, because the people in charge of them were trying to help the coup succeed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

I heard he was too busy watching television news coverage to be bothered with all that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Mostly agreed, but this is naive.

who are old, out of shape, delusional about their abilities

I'll spare you all the anecdotes, but I've been around these people and most of them are no joke. They're neither fat nor lazy nor stupid nor untrained. You only see the fat slobs in their Amazon gear because that's who we like to make fun of.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

That’s actually how you know they weren’t trying to take over: they didn’t bring guns.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Of course it could happen. Do I think it will happen in the next two months as we get through election season? Nah.

I also don't think a civil war in modern days would look anything like it did in the 1860s. Aside from the obvious advance in weapons and tactics, there's no convenient clear line between one half and the other like there was with North/South. It would look more like civil wars do in other countries in the 21st century.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago

Modern civil war happens when a domestic terrorist group starts to act agains the government.

For a full on civil war the army would habe to break apart in factions too, and I don't thinl that's probable in the us

[–] [email protected] 54 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think that the US is primed to have a civil war. Ever since Reagan fucked the fairness doctrine in 1987, we've been getting more and more divided. Gonna sound like an old fogey here, but it used to be that everybody tuned into the same news, and watched the same anchors deliver the same updates about the same world events. We had differing opinions on world events, but we all agreed on what was and what was not reality.

We don't have that now. It's like two completely separate universes occupy the same physical space. In one universe, climate change is fueled by anthropogenic forces and is causing more and more catastrophic damage, viruses are real and vaccines are effective tools to combat them, and thousands of traitors tried to overthrow the government because their cult leader lost an election. In the other? Climate change isn't real, and also the Democrats have secret hurricane machines that they are using to punish Florida for being a red state, COVID isn't real, and also it's a super virus concocted in a lab in Wuhan at the request of Hillary Clinton, vaccines don't work, and also vaccines are secretly a government tool to kill people, and Jan 6th was a peaceful protest of patriots, and also it was a violent insurrection by Antifa.

We don't share the same reality with each other. In one reality, Democrats are basically similar to milquetoast conservatives from any other first world nation, and they care much more about maintaining the status quo than they do about making progress. In the other reality? Democrats are evil incarnate, and they're waging an active campaign to round up all of the patriots and send them to concentration camps, and they're also pedophiles and Marxists. In that reality, it's far more preferable to vote for a dead pimp than it is to vote for a standard, run-of-the-mill Democrat.

And it's not just the whole two-realities thing. Ever since Obama became president, the brains of a huge chunk of people in this country just broke. Some of the nicest-seeming people you'd ever met instantly turned into vile, hate-spewing racists, and started mass subscribing to every single conspiracy theory feed out there. That was 16 years ago. Their rhetoric has been getting more violent every year since. That's to say nothing of the huge increase in terrorist incidents since then - according to the CSIS:

The number of domestic terrorist attacks and plots against government targets motivated by partisan political beliefs in the past five years is nearly triple the number of such incidents in the previous 25 years combined

So yeah. I think that this country is primed for organized, mass violence. At this point, all that it's lacking is the organization. Thankfully, Donald Trump is an incredibly stupid man. I don't think he'd be capable of organizing people to that level. He can stoke their hatred, for sure. He can inspire the craziest among them to firebomb a mosque or shoot up a Democrat's office... but he ain't built to lead people. If someone who had even 1/10th of his prowess as a cult leader, but who was actually intelligent and had a tactical mind came along... hoo boy.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That is what I try to communicate to folks who are freaking out about Trump. You have to worry about the next guy, and the next guy, and the next guy. You can't just keep voting Democrat, you actually have to get organized if you want to stop fascism, because Trump isn't the font that fascism springs from, he is an inept conman who is riding the wave.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

True, but have you looked at the "intelligentsia" of the Republican party? They've got nobody. Just grifters and sycophants. It's one more small mercy. Obviously, this situation can't be counted on to continue indefinitely, but once Trump is gone, the only thing ready to take his place is Trump-based nostalgia, and people looking to profit off same.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 weeks ago

The "intelligentsia" of the Republican Party are dyed-in-the-wool fascist complete monsters like Roger Stone and Steven Miller. They are cunning, dangerous and should not be underestimated.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Having two different realities is not good. I'm not sure what is to be done about it though. Some people will always choose to believe the easy lie over the difficult truth.

Ignoring Fox and the crazies for a moment, how often have mainstream networks given equal time to climate change deniers and actual scientists, pretending there was a debate where there wasn't one.

I want to push back a little on "we all agreed on what was and what was not reality." When there were three TV stations, did any of them highlight police brutality? Overincarceration? The military industrial complex? Anything that would hurt their sponsor's bottom lines?

The news networks we have today are all owned by large media conglomerates. They range from pro-corporate to pro-fascist. I'm glad that there are enough independent voices that we can hear from people who don't profit off of the status quo. It's unfortunate that right wing media is so prevalent and well funded, but if there is an answer to that, it's not going back to the days when Walter Cronkite, CBS, and Gulf+Western would tell us "That's the way it is".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

When there were three TV stations, did any of them highlight police brutality? Overincarceration? The military industrial complex?

This is a very fair point. True, having very limited news options didn't allow for a lot of deviation in agreement on observable reality, but to your point, it could also easily paper over a lot of very ugly parts of the actual reality. Chomsky writes quite a lot about this in his book "Manufacturing Consent", which basically is a dive into how media organizations can be used as the propaganda arm of the government. Everything from choosing what you show to choosing how you talk about things goes towards bolstering an underlying narrative that you want to project.

I'm not sure what a solution would look like, if one is even possible. But solution or no, the narrative divergence in this country has primed us to detest each other, which is the first crucial step towards mass violence.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago

Short answer: yes

Longer answer: I would argue we’ve already had a few civil wars since the “War Between the States” in the 1860s. Reconstruction was arguably another civil war. The labor rights war of the early twentieth century included federal troops attacking organizing coal miners and federal agents along with private security forces attacking striking workers elsewhere. The violence of the civil rights movement (remember: the president had to call in the national guard to enforce integration) would also qualify as a civil war by some standards.

Listen to the first limited series of the podcast It Could Happen Here for an idea of how a more involved civil war could start. The idea is that there would not be clear battle lines drawn up because our divide now is more urban vs rural, and people in rural areas have opportunities to attack infrastructure that would have significant impacts on urban areas.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

So I talked to a PhD who's work covered civil wars across the world, and asked about this. Turns out there are several signs you need to see which makes a civil war more likely. Most of which we haven't even gotten close to, because many of them are economic related and right now the US is still the single largest economy in the world where peoples standard of living is still very comfortable.

I asked ChatGPT to describe this and these are the highlights, in order of historical priority?

  • Political instability and weak governance are present.
  • There are deep ethnic, religious, or sectarian tensions.
  • The economy is declining with high inequality.
  • Persistent social unrest and widespread protests occur.
  • External powers are interfering or supporting different factions.
  • There is significant resource scarcity and competition.
  • Militarization and proliferation of arms increase.
  • Systematic human rights violations and repression take place.
  • Society experiences strong ideological polarization.
  • Demographic pressures such as rapid population growth or urbanization exist.
  • The rule of law and justice systems are breaking down.
  • Historical grievances and unresolved conflicts resurface.

Note that the US does have some of these, but not to the evident level that you saw in Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Syria, Burundi, Eritrea, Somalia, Libya, Myanmar, Haiti, and others. In short, if you look at the indicators, although the US is indeed troubled, it's not troubled enough for people to hot the streets with more than riotous intent.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Let's go point by point:

  • Political instability and weak governance are present.

  • No

  • There are deep ethnic, religious, or sectarian tensions.

  • Yes

  • The economy is declining with high inequality.

  • Economy: not declining - Inequality: high

  • Persistent social unrest and widespread protests occur.

  • Might happen if Trump loses or steals the presidency

  • External powers are interfering or supporting different factions.

  • Yes, big time

  • There is significant resource scarcity and competition.

  • Not yet, but global warming might make this happen

  • Militarization and proliferation of arms increase.

  • Well, it's the USA

  • Systematic human rights violations and repression take place.

  • Might happen under Trump

  • Society experiences strong ideological polarization.

  • Yes

  • Demographic pressures such as rapid population growth or urbanization exist.

  • No

  • The rule of law and justice systems are breaking down.

  • No

  • Historical grievances and unresolved conflicts resurface.

  • No

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Alternate question..

What the fuck is a 'battleground' state, and why does the media even have the nerve to use that term? I mean I know what it basically means, they should stick with 'swing' state, instead of putting the word 'battle' into nutjob's heads just before an election.

I don't care what people's political opinions are, but we already have enough gun nuts out there, and at least a couple attempts on the former president's life.

You can't even feel safe sending your kids to school in numerous areas, and can't even always feel safe in a Walmart these days.

Are you sure we're not already in a civil war?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Our culture phrases damn near everything in metaphors of war. The war on drugs. The battle of the bands. Bob lost his battle with cancer. It's absolutely pervasive, to the point it's almost as invisible as the air.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I guess if we're going to keep using war and conflict terms you could say we're in a cold civil war.

We might as well call schools "sporadic shooting galleries" the way we've been treating the issue... It's absolutely absurd :(

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I think the drug addiction crisis that they have is somehow preventing/delaying this to happen. But the elements for a civil war are there: access to weapons, ideological intolerance, economical imbalance, ever-differing state and federal law and policies, corruption in government and the probable rise of a political group that lost the presidency causing the Capitol Attack out of resentment, between others.

Democracy in the USA feels like holding with pins. I see the country as conservative to far-right with very few space for other political ideologies.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Can? Yes. Contrary to common belief history is not over and white people are not exempt. Will? Maaaybe.

I can't see the US system self-correcting, but a deeply established democracy like the US coming apart is a new thing (all the past ones were much more ephemeral AFAIK). It could just as easily slide into one dictatorship, like Wiemar Germany, or undergo some sort of slow death as states become more and more independent of the broken national system. It's also hard to say what the timeline is.

There isn't really two (or more) sides to go to war at this point. There's only one military, and while the will to fight may exist on the Republican side they aren't really organised for it. That could all change if the crisis goes on for many years, though.

Why do you believe what you believe?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (8 children)

No and you should not listen to people who think it could.

A civil war is large scale armed conflict between groups vying for the levers of power. In the case of the American civil war it was over slavery and came to war because there was no mechanism to integrate the south’s elites into the power structures of the north’s or vice versa and the material bases of those two groups power structures were in opposition.

What two groups would fight an American civil war nowadays? Democrats and republicans? They serve the same masters. We are witnessing propaganda bent to the ends of integrating members of one group into another.

Separatist militias? Not only would that not be a civil war, we saw how the fbi handled them in the 90s.

Corporations? Why would they do that? Government already does the unprofitable things they want and does them how they want them.

Separatist states? It’s against the economic interests of the very people who would make up the elite class of the new nation of Texas to submit their borders to taxes and tariffs.

Workers? That’s a revolution, not a civil war.

If someone wants you to fear modern civil war they’re trying to control you.

If someone makes art about a modern civil war they’re trying to tell you about something else on the sly, like with zombies.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Something I talked about earlier in political discussions was that the Usa has a problem of neighborhoods not being as social as they used to be.

Fewer bars, ymca, gatherings. Neighbors stay inside more. Children do not play in the street so much. Very few adults walk in the streets ( compared to Europe). Religious attendance is down .

That makes grassroots and revolutionary fever hard except on the internet. And the internet is showing it sort of sucks doing that, getting people outdoors, regardless of their creed, religious or political beliefs.

All that show up are usually elites , and some people in cities.

If you look at any modern revolution, there are healthy neighborhood dynamics driving it allowing a parallel bottom up growth

In the USA, People will probably have heated comments on social media, except in some small areas of cities, with only a few casualties

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's crazy how literally every problem in the US is, at its root, a zoning problem.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Haha no.

A lot of people don't realise how shit a war can be, even when you're hundreds of miles away from it. Your local economy fucking TANKS, jobs disappear, workers disappear on the next plane out, and you're left with a population that's struggling on all fronts, trying to make a brave face.

America is full of crazy disparity, but war doesn't care. The one benefit is that the billionaire class would get fucking rinsed by the locals for every shiny trinket they have when suddenly food costs a fortune because your last shipment got shot up.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So your belief is that it can’t happen because it would suck?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

Not the original commenter but I'd wager similarly that yes, the vast majority of the American people are far too comfortable to venture into the "inconvenience" of an actual war. Gripe about it from our couches? Yep. Lift a finger to bring about actual change (and no, signing an online petition doesn't count) in the face of real, actual, severe consequence? ....nah.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't see how you'd have enough parity between two sides, whichever side the military picks would just be the overt over dog and maaaaaaybe you could have some kind of armed mountain resistance or something, but it would be more a rebellion than a civil war.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Veteran here. Speculation - take it for what's it's worth (not shit). There's a weird notion that the military is always just going to default to red, and while the total count definitely does lean red (cuz, y'know... most of us are fuckin dumbasses who vote against out own interests...) there IS a split... maybe... idk, 60-40? Point is there's a lot more blue in the military than we're typically painted as.

So, civil war. First off, not gonna happen cuz we don't have the spine for it. We'll just continue to bitch at eachother from the comfort of our couches; and while that bitching will probably get louder and we'll probably see some increase in domestic terrorism, it will not get to the point of actual war. But if we did... the military isn't going to just pick a side; it'll turn into the world's largest shitshow of infighting. Then once we've sufficiently hamstrung ourselves, we're going to get our asses handed to us by the enemies across the globe we've been collecting like fucking pokemon via our shitty foreign policy.

Tldr, the sides of our civil war are basically two yipping lapdogs that will bark louder and louder at eachother until we eventually prompt our pissed off neighbor to come over with a shotgun. The actual war that happens will kill both dogs well before we get to the point of a civil war.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Why do you think the military wouldn't fracture as well?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

To think it can never happen here is American Exceptionalism. We are just another country. Nothing special here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Nah... Americans may hate each other, but ultimately, unless there's a major irreconciliable internal struggle between two major social movements on

  1. economic system and material conditions

  2. foreign policy

  3. Stability of gov't to maintain liberal rule

and its resulting instability...

I don't think there's gonna be another one

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think people who say it will happen really understand how inconvenient war is. And I use that wording to be laughable, because these are people who couldn't wear a mask because they needed haircuts. They are quite literally the people who would starve to death if they were cut off from Walmart, who are fully dependent on oil to move their cars. They are so attached to American society they wouldn't be able to maintain actual efforts for more than a couple of weeks.

Who i actually worry about are the few (I'll call them) cells who could hold out for longer, who really do think it's war. It wouldnt be full scale, but those unhinged lunatics who hoard weapons just are frothing at the mouth to hurt people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

I think it would be very wise to just vote for the normal person so we don't even have to entertain the possibility of an authoritarian government and a resulting civil war. Once we are no longer a democracy, or are a managed democracy like Russia, it will be extremely difficult to unring that bell.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago

Any country can experience civil war but it requires certain material developments. The US would require a substantial breakdown in shared interests for that to happen. Not just partisan frustrations, there would need to be a fundamental economic split so severe that it pitted states or regions against one another and they could actually act on that. This would almost certainly have to coincide with a weakening of the federal government as well, where the states/regions in question need to push against the federal in order to go in their own direction, for their own interests.

The US Civil War had a material basis like this. The South of course sought to maintain slavery and this was the primary issue, but why was it such a sticking point and conflict in the first place? One clue is to look at what happened to production after the South lost (hell yeah): their plantations were bought up by Northern capitalists and run at a profit. The landless poor, which included basically every freed slave, were forced to work there for very little pay while now needing to pay their new landlords for housing. They became the most abused of the proletariat and racism was kept alive for their marginalization in this market. The ascendant northern capitalists had been doing this kind of thing in bits and pieces and by supporting the halt in any new slave states. The Southern planter ruling class knew their days were numbered and, seeing existential crisis, attempted to carve out a country for themselves to prevent that extinction.

You can imagine that sort of thing developing again during prolonged crisis. Some states and regions may develop very different economies and their ruling class interests may become so at odds that it leads to land grabs, assertions of independence, etc. But that would be a prolonged crisis that changed fundamental regional economics and national economics. It's not necessarily unlikely but it would take decades.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Nah, people are way too lazy and complacent.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

No. Like you say, riots, and of course the ongoing epidemic of stochastic terrorism, possibly with more violence directed against politicians and the government, but it's definitely not going to look like tanks shooting at tanks, and it's also not going to look like people crawling through tunnels a la Vietnam. What American simultaneously cares enough about politics to risk their life over it, while also being willing to go live in a trench without their phone for a month? No, as long as it's an option to live a normal life where you can return to your couch and watch or read the news while feeling righteously indignant and engage with social media however you like, that's what people will do. Look at the January 6'ers, for example, who fully expected to return home and be able to post all about the exciting event all over social media.

Now, that all goes out the window if some lunatic decides to start WWIII with China and institutes a draft (assuming we don't all just die in nuclear hellfire). You tell people they'll have to give up their phones and go live in a trench anyway and maybe some decide they'd rather fight the people making them do that. Americans generally love war, but a lot of that comes from being completely and totally separated from any real life consequences from it. And of course, no insurgency would stand any chance of defeating the US government without foreign support.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

No, not in a North vs South sense. If anything it’s just going to be in the form of terrorism like we saw during his presidency. Just more bold.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yup, it can happen anywhere. The only question is if it will, and if so, when.

It won't be like people think it would be, but it's entirely possible.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

Sure, it can. But if it doesn't happen right after the election, or on January 6th, it's not happening anytime soon.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

Just based off how comfortable Americans are, no.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Inshallah

We're not going to survive global warming if there isn't one.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

"War is only a few meals away" -idk

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago

Arguably the US is already in early stages of one. In fact, a model US themselves produced forecasts collapse and a likely civil war in the near future. https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/model-predicting-united-states-disorder-now-points-to-civil-war/12365280

load more comments
view more: next ›