With the violent division between citizens based on political and religious viewpoints and the growing distrust of the U.S. Government, do you think the United States is headed towards another civil war? From what I am seeing, there is a strong possibility we may have one very soon.

We're probably not headed toward another civil war. However, we could be headed toward a place where right wing extremists set up guerrilla style terrorism if/when Mr. 45 is either ousted or elected out of office, especially considering the level of violence they generally already displayed (paramilitary militias, pipebombs, ect.).

A civil war where there's organized action against the government, though? I very much doubt it.

I think that's the idea, isn't it?

I doubt it.

Short answer: No.

The problem here is that we are still too rich of a country for most to sacrifice their gains with violence for some personnel cause or vendetta against the government or other side. Unlike the Civil War in our past, there is no line that divides the country into a convenient North or South, with today's divided demographics scattered all across the country.

The biggest disconnect in the country would be rural areas and urban ones, which vastly differ in cultural ideas from each other and in economic opportunities. But it would most likely be right leaning rural groups who try to start violence, in defense of their cultural ideas, and anti-government sentiment - which includes guns and militias.

Right wing terrorism has been on the rise in the past couple of decades, which has mostly focused on attacking minorities groups, or government building and officials - with the biggest one being the Oklahoma City bombings by right wing, anti-government, Timothy McVeigh in 1995. I expect this to get worse, and create more fear and resentment against the right.

But most of the division in the country seems to be playing out on social media, in a bloodless civil war, or flame war, between Right and Left, with doxing and name calling.

I don’t understand why there is constant, if still fringe chatter about another American Civil War over political differences. Most people as a whole are too well-off to throw away their lives on a political cause or philosophy, with only the most desperate minority going to violent means, and even then, they are usually dealt with before any major damage is done.

Besides, nothing of serious value will be gained in the end of a hypothetical Civil War on either side, which not only leaves the civilians in a state of ruin, but the uneasy peace that most of the world is living under now will quickly shatter, a power vacuum ensures, and China/Russia will probably fill in that gap and it will get far worse.

So it's mostly a digital war?

A digital, cultural, and sometimes terroristic "war". It won't be between two well organized and militarized sides, but that's not to say it'd be without consequence.

People brushed off the digital culture war that had been broiling from 2014-2016, right up until the candidate that the right wing online culture pushed and supported won the presidency. The new "battlefronts" have very real consequences that could cost tens of thousands of lives (see: Syrian Kurds, Yemen, asylum seekers on the border, etc.), but for the most part this will be due to how culture shifts rather than due to bullets flying in an all out civil war.

Mostly, outside of Trump threatening that civil war will happen if he is impeached - and a lot of that is being done through his twitter account. But his party is not interested in a violent civil war. They rather take over the country through some hostile corporate takeover tactic, using policies to attack blue states (like their recent tax cuts that increase taxes on them), or filling the Supreme Court with partisan Republicans and Conservative activists that favor that party's policies and ideas, or gerrymandering their state districts into the form of fantastical creatures to give them the best advantage, or trying to limit the number of people from voting through various voter laws and schemes. And Democrats just cry foul over it, leading them to try to counter it with activism. Neither party wants a civil war.

Since the rise of social media, which was championed as bringing people together, has led to a lot of division, not just in the US but in the world as well. People are thin skinned, susceptible to fake news from sources that you can't always trace, with a lot of media personalities by preying upon people's insecurities and vulnerabilities and shaping their views with partisan ,and bias rhetoric, that often pits them against another group or side. But the thing to know is that the majority of them fight from the saftey on their own homes, and under anonymity, than actually come face face with those who they attack. People feel braver when they think they are safe. It's all so silly.

Don't you dare forget the Navy.

Most likely not. The majority of people who meme a second civil war are A) paranoid, B) Delusional, or C) LARPing, or any combo of the three.

If a civil war does occur, it won't be the way that you're thinking of. It'll be people vs government, not a right vs. left. It will likely stem from government over-reaching and eroding freedoms due to manufactured or misinformed support from the "public" (see: people who have it so good that they think they're helping when they support policies that actively make things worse in the long run).

Anyone who blames the right vs. left dichotomy for any future civil war has been completely and utterly fooled by the bread and circus that is the US News media. It's not even so much "fake news" as it is "fake government". The majority of US politicians, namely senators and many presidents, are either neo-liberal or neo-conservative. They argue about secondary issues like abortion or gay cakes and shit, while supporting sending our friends and neighbors to the Middle East to support Arabian and Israeli interests, or funding and training "freedom fighters" who later become "terrorist cells" when they outlive their usefulness.

TL;DR Don't be fooled, the government isn't your friend. The military will not "recognize who the real enemy is" and turn on the government. If a civil war happens (unlikely) it won't be right vs. left, it'll be authoritarian vs. libertarian.

It would probably be in response to the excessive media coverage of the right as well as the moral panic that ensued following his election. Let's not pretend that violence hasn't been perpetrated by all sides since the election, and while neither side is correct, the left certainly seems much more unhinged since 2015, evident even more-so now.

So to be clear, you think that the citizens of America are going to go from online pho-activism to a hot war all across America, divided among Democrats and Republicans, over whatever happens in the next few months?

Again, I doubt that, but I already made that point clear.

Mmm hmm.

One side is forming & gathering in paramilitary groups, telling Mr. 45 that they would be willing to join him in war if he were impeached, sends pipebombs to elected officials, and have commit homicide & mass murder on more than one occasion for their side.

But yes, please do tell us how the lefties are equally (or more so) culpable for violence in America, I'm sure you wouldn't just be talking out your ass, here.

If you read my other post on the topic you would understand that I'm not siding with left or right because I simply believe that they're two sides of the same coin being manipulated by the oligarchy running our nation. I'm also convinced that the vast majority of the "come and take it" crowd (those who vocally side with Trump's apparent civil war) are also the same people who vocally defend cops taking guns from law-abiding citizens, and ultimately would do nothing if the situation ever escalated.

On the note of paramilitary groups, paramilitary groups exist on either fringe of the political spectrum. I'd argue that right-wingers may be more adept at organization and planning of such groups though (i.e. militia units vs. whatever system Antifa seems to be running).

Also, singling out individuals to uphold blanket group statements is something that occurs in all movements and against all people. Anti Left? Point out Antifa, these lefties have lost it! Anti-right? Check out this El Paso kid, the right are all nazis! Middle Eastern guy shoots a white lady? The hordes of Africa are coming to dismantle society! It's dribble meant to catch people up in a flurry of emotions so they can't think.

My comments on the unhinged left come from this reasoning:

The more that pop culture icons and literary mags push this "we don't need white peoples' voices on X" idea, the more they are telling young white males that they are not a part of society, just in the same way young black males don't feel as though they're a part of society. We are actively splintering ourselves further and further into exclusive tribes because we're arguing over redundant points presented to us by cable news media and politics. For example, Columbus Day vs. Indigenous Peoples Day. Changing the day doesn't matter a hoot to me, it just seems like one more point of contention between a growing animosity between two aspects of our culture, in order to push individuals to either side of the fringe.

The thing that the left has over the right, is that their ideas are more accepted in popular culture, shared more by celebrities and people of social import, and generally supported by the overall present narrative. This puts the left in a great position, but by virtue of isolating a confused and angry demographic, they are creating a bigger problem for themselves.

That is what I mean. You can drop the whole "did you insult the left? what about the RIGHT?!?" schtick, and the righties can do the same visa versa. Both suck. Both want authoritarianism. Both are not as good as the people who idolize them think they are.

At 10/23/19 05:53 PM, GiusepeCicero93 wrote:

Basically, your case in a nutshell, and frankly, it’s asinine on all levels. As I mentioned before, there will be nothing to gain in a hypothetical civil war for anyone, and all but the most extreme or idiotic understands this. The media may be responsible for a lot of questionable diatribes and sensationalism, but none of them are advocating one side to take up armed resistance.

Too many times, I keep hearing and reading about how people and the government will fight each other over whatever trivial cause they’ll make up because they’re either too ignorant to understand the nuances of our representative democracy, or are total trolls who promote discord in a childish manner that isn’t worth bothering. All of the civil war talk (regardless of combatants) is nothing more than a mix of crying wolf and empty fear mongering, and as the most powerful nation in the world in terms of military and economy, we are (or should be at least) above using the threat of civil war over political platitudes.

Miss the point much? I agreed with your point that there wouldn't be a civil war and that the outcry for one from any side is mostly mindless emotional wailing that they'd never back up... Perhaps you didn't see my initial post?

I don't think you quite understand why people are not accepting your argument. No one here is disagreeing on the unlikelihood of a civil war in the country, they are just disagreeing with your false equivalency of the left being just as violent/militant as the right. While they may be equal in their flame wars against each other on social media, they are not on par when it comes to militias, or promoting violence, or even owning guns. And statistics show this, from hate crimes that overwhelmingly are aimed at other groups, to attacks on government buildings and government officials, committed by people overwhelmingly from the right, which is called terrorism.

You might call it authoritarianism vs libertarianism, but most people would call that government versus terrorism. People, by far, would not feel sympathy towards groups who have a bizarre opinion of what freedom is while using violence to promote their cause - and you look at some other countries, where people experience 100x worse in oppression, and it hard to justify that terrorism here. And these same people you don't see rising up against Trump, but hailing his policies against minorities, or going after left leaning states, while being the closest to a wannabe dictator that we have seen in decades - who praise dictators in other countries, and thinks he is above the law.

And while it is true that many politicians, and many in the media, are dividing us, for their own personnel gain, it's hard to see beyond the most egregious example of it who currently resides in the White House, with the right leaning media, and right leaning politicians, protect him with clearly false claims and fake news, using the most divisive rhetoric to justify what he does and make him look like a victim.

So, it's hard to take what you say as something that is objective when statistics, or current events, don't support your view.

First, my apologies, you do not believe this, according to a post prior to the one where you responded to me. I missed it since I responded from my notifications rather than from this thread.

Just wanted to clear that up and retract this statement, first and foremost.

Well, Democrats and Republicans are both Neoliberals, so among them that's true. "The Left" is by definition not run by oligarchs, though, considering being a leftist means you support the redistribution of power from the powerful to the people. Be careful not to get "The Left" confused with "Democrats".

Me too, we totally agree there.

They literally do not, this is uniquely a problem on the Right, as far as I can tell. Do correct me if I'm wrong, though, with a counter-example.

Before it's brought up, Antifa is not a paramilitary outfit, by the way - not even their black bloc is "militaristic", just violent, in the leaat charitable interpretation of their actions.

Yes, confusion and muddying the waters makes it much more difficult to discuss these things honestly. But I do try, at least. I won't pick that apart piece by piece, but do understand that it's possible for one side to be lying and obfuscating while the other side has hard evidence of an example representing a trend.

I notice centrists & moderates often get this part wrong and believe that an argument with a similar construction to opposing arguments means that the argument has the same merit, which doesn't take into account the possibility of one side is simply lying about their data. Not making any accusations here, but do be wary of this.

That's... a valid point against the broader left, actually, and it's much less an issue on the right. Coalition building is definitely a problem, exacerbated by the fact that mainstream liberalism focuses on identity politics rather than the more inclusive intersectional politics.

I don't think this leads toward civil war in any meaningful way, but your point is taken.

Not necessarily. How does the mainstream feel about Unions? Collective bargaining? Public services? Welfare? Public housing?

Socialism?

Communism?

The fact of the matter is, the media is very Neoliberal, and won't entertain any ideas left of Capitalism. I would argue that it would support Fascism before giving Socialism positive coverage, but that's a topic for another day.

I'm going to be charitable and say you're really talking about Democrats vs Republicans, in which case most of your talking points are pretty on the mark; that's what happens when both parties adopt Neoliberalism (which is a center-right wing ideology). You hardly touch on leftism causing issues, though; would you be interested in exploring this topic further elsewhere (aka a different thread)? I'd be delighted to discuss it with you on here.

I think I should clarify that the vast majority of my statements on the topic are geared towards the political establishment as they exist as parties (namely republicans and democrats because, honestly, what other parties hold viable power in legislature? And which 2 parties hold the majority of American votes/allegiance?)

I have my own gripes against libertarians, anarchists, and pretty much all groups on the political spectrum just as I'd expect anyone else would, but the topic wasn't about my opinions on the naked libertarian party guy, the topic was about a possible civil war, which in most peoples' view would come about as a republican v. democrat

1.) I politely disagree about the left (democrats in this instance) being run by oligarchs. The DNC is clearly biased as we saw with their ousting of one Bernard Sanders in favor of the disastrous candidate, Mrs. Clinton.

2.) Antifa may not be a paramilitary outfit akin to my example of a militia, and I wasn't trying to make a false equivalency, but their tactics, in my opinion, only stoke the flames of a potential act by such groups and so I at least count them as violent idiots.

3.) My "confusion" of the left with democrats is itself confusing. I'll clarify by saying that a good portion of self described leftists in my hometown (very liberal blue state, generally speaking white liberals living in gated neighborhoods flying rainbow flags but scared to drive 5 min. to the "bad" part of town [see: Jamaican majority neighborhood]) espouse socialist rhetoric but continue to vote for establishment democrats, and defending their position with TV talking points (for instance, friends who lean left called me after election day and asked if I thought Trump was going to put gays in concentration camps, who want a complete revolution against the government prior to trump's election but voted for clinton, BIG mental gymnastics there). That's who I refer to. Not Bostonian college socialists writing in independent candidates and such.

4.) information resulting in a trend is good, but so little information can be factually checked unless statistically proven, and quite frankly I've seen very little on any side that hasn't been outrageously twisted, at least concerning the US. I find it difficult to find genuine and objective information that doesn't outright support some partisan point in the same text, only to find it debunked minutes later. I do welcome objective info though, and don't want to give the impression I don't.

5.) Not a main point, but even intersectional politics tend to run me ragged with the required mental gymnastics. I think that there are instances of good and bad intersectional politics, with the worst acting as a major detraction against the entire ideology.

6.) Regarding the acceptance of leftist ideals in popular media, I could have clarified that this is more common in entertainment than in financial boardrooms and the like. But really, who's surprised that it occurs in the fields of artistry?

7.) At the end of the day, I find that a good portion of the political sub-parties in the US are only effective in their regions, presently. I have a hard time seeing the National Worker's party, Democratic Socialists, or any other sort of smaller organization reaching levels of power or influence that our 2 major parties currently have.

I wouldn't mind talking about this at all elsewhere. I'd prefer to be asked questions about case by case events or groups, as speaking generally only leads to problems in communication and interpretation.

I would say you have a point, and again I have no intention of promoting a false equivalency, but I do believe that the ramping of certain narratives in our media cycle are driving this escalation of violence.

I agree with a good majority of your post, which is also why I hate speaking generally on topics that are multi-faceted, and so I'll try to clarify my reasoning like I did with Gario.

The right far outweighs the left in militia participation and gun ownership, there's no denying this. I'd imagine that a good portion of this is due to leftists being concentrated primarily around urban centers and in blue states both with tighter gun restrictions than red states and rural areas, where conservative populations congregate.

I agree that the majority of individuals keeping with current events would disagree with the right taking action in violent fashion against government facilities, groups, and representatives, as well as innocents. I'm not arguing that these folks wouldn't be terrorists, nor am I arguing that they'd be justified. I also don't think that groups like Antifa, as well as current narratives being pushed in news/blog sites and alternative media (vice and the like) that whites are all white supremacist and inherently evil/racist helps the issue. My point is that people are being pushed to either end of a spectrum for whatever purpose, and that the endgame is a complete dissolution of amicability between the public.

I think that it would entirely depend on the combatants, but instead of repeating myself I've replied to Galio with a more expansive explanation of what I was trying to say. I'm also not really all that confused considering that Galio already explained he only read my one post without reading the other, and I think we came to a pretty common ground.

All in all, I'm used to people being really defensive and intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting political statements.

I'm not arguing for or against one side or the other.

I don't particular care for Antifa either, but I come across way to many people who often promote this impression that whites are under siege. Is that the impression that Antifa promotes, or is that something that people on the right (even libertarians) are promoting to create a stereotype against the left with? Which is worse? Or are they both equally bad?

I don't much get involved with this SJW shit until people bring it up and complain about how they think they are affected by it. I'm not very nice to them, especially if I don't think they have any grounds to complain. Being called names, or you think something is implied about you, often means you need to grow some thicker skin. It's not always a valid excuse to take a side on an issue with, imo.

And yes, the way things are today, with certain media sites, and partisan politicians, worse than others in creating emotional reactions to certain issues, for personnel gain and to distract from other important issues that can affect people,I wish there was less of. But they don't represent the entirety of those sides, just the worst aspect that is made all the worse when ignored by those on the same side.

And sides can balance the other out.

That is rather an arbitrary answer. You most likely have taken sides in one or more of your positions you hold. There is a whole lot of variation in grey between black and white.

I am a moderate, centrist, whatever you want to call it, who dives into both sides. I vote both Democrat and Republican, depending on who they are, and for what office they are running for. To me, it's all about balance to keep the other from going too far, or picking the lesser evil to get things I hope will get accomplished... And sometimes you will have to take a side, especially if some policy, or politicians, goes too far from where you stand on something. Using a blanket excuse not to support either side doesn't work,.

No. Everyone are too busy on their phones. People can't even cross the street properly without scrolling on FB.

sometimes you will have to take a side, especially if some policy, or politicians, goes too far from where you stand on something.

I used to be extremely liberal, then I veered extremely conservative, and then I realized politics was a waste of my energy. I stay abreast of things because I feel like I should, but I don't take sides or argue points for the sake of supporting anyone. I don't take a side for anyone that isn't me, quite frankly.

That being said, I'm not trying to tell you the whites are under siege or talk about SJWs destroying American values or anything like that. All I'm saying is that the presentation of their values in excess on both television and the internet is causing people to react that way. That's all. Calling my words nebulous shows that I didn't get across how neutral I am on this topic. Sorry about that.

P.S. I do have some pre-conceived notions about certain sides of politics, just like anyone else. I don't pick up ye olde poster-board for anyone or anything though, and I'm not here to convince anyone of anything.

wrong post

It wouldn't be like the first with armies marching from state to state, etc. It would be groups of the left and right fighting it out in cities in large groups (think the protests in Portland, but with guns and homemade explosive devices). Possibly leading to martial law being declared in those cities.

That clarification helps a lot, actually - thank you. Considering there's a faction within the Democratic pqrty that's trying to uproot it from within that's more Progressive, it's tough to talk about Democrats as if they're one unifying block (as it was with Republicans a few years back), so one often needs to clarify between establishment and progressive dems.

I don't think we disagree; the DNC is definitely influenced by oligarchs.

Debateable, but I go over this in more detail in the Antifa thread. No need for me to retread ground.

That's basic harm reduction from a leftist, if you're curious; Clinton, awful as she was, would've been better than Trump for a number of reasons (SCOTUS, border, etc.), but we can leave that convo in 2016. Also, your friends sound like basic liberals/Democrats, based on their description, and I mean no offense when I say that.

Mmm, post-truth society is a bitch. All you can do is rely on sources that have a better history of being accurate, or accept direct sources. We do the best we can in this society, eh?

Honest, I'm not nearly educated enough in the field to mount a spirited defense of it's flaws. Considering the alternatives are Identity politics and color blind class politics, though, I think I'll stick with it. :)

Debateable, but too broad to discuss like that.

Well, considering AoC is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, I'd beg to differ. The newest strategy of leftist parties is to primary Democrats and replace them from within & pressure the rest from the outside. Seeing the successes of leftists throughout 2018, it's not as irrelevant as you'd think.

The topics are pretty diverse, but it's probably a good idea to move them elsewhere since we're not talking about some sort of civil war anymore. The aforementioned Antifa thread is one place, the democrat primary thread is another one if you want to discuss the differing Democratic factions (Liberals/Centeists vs Progressive/Leftists), or perhaps a new thread on something else would work, too.

Just some options, there; call me out and I'm happy to talk. :)

Those that cannot escape their left/right bubble will perish no matter what.

Or those extremist become congressmen

Ohhh boy, here's a subject that I hear come up every now and then.

No I do not think that there will be a second civil war any time in the near future. Even if it does it wouldn't come down to the right vs. left as much as it will be the people against the government if it ever tries to overplay their hand. And that's very unlikely.

On the note of any of the extremists groups on both sides, there is no arguing that right wing extremists are usually the ones who want to start something and have no regard for the line in how they go about preaching their false concience. However, as for left wing extremism I have no particular respect for it either. Not because of what their beliefs are on people, but more so because they support confrontational methods without any real focus on a target. Which doesn't make things look any better for them if they're targeting random people who they automatically assume holds racist beliefs and not only can I see that as a different kind of false conscience, but something that fuels right wing rhetoric even more so, which isn't good.

The only time that confrontational methods in protests would be anywhere near effective is if they were aiming to go at their government or higher authority. With that being said, most people have too much to lose before they can go declaring a revolution without any good reason in America, until that happens we should not expect to see anyone attempting to pull something greater than Hong Kong's mess. And that goes beyond all the paranoia both extremes have.

IDK, I was told in the late 1970's by a bone fide psychic there would be a civil war, sometime after Pelosi was ousted. Don't think Trump's Ukrainian thing is gonna get him out of office... he was only following the lead of 3 other democrats

Trump said in the mid-late 1990's he'd just do what the CIA tells him, and my super psychic said the CIA was evenly split between the Bankers and the international Corporate entities... and the Bankers win, since they've been around to solidify their base longer.

The war shouldn't last long, 2 months? Face it, us Yanks have been duped since Wilson approved the Fed and the IRS just over a century ago.