this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
136 points (94.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43731 readers
1176 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_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago (1 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.

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

In Florida, I have heard it from way too many people to feel comfortable. Republicans will say how they are ready if Trump loses. They say it's because there is no way he can lose unless it's all rigged. They believe this will happen. The worst I heard was a guy saying he will shoot anybody he suspects is not on his team. Others were not quite as ready, but definitely as angry and ignorant with the means. Some of the more intellectual I talk to are quick to point out the flaws of Democrats and how that said is more violent because of all the riots.

Living here is scary. It would be a war of ignorance, frustration, and hate against a false enemy. It will be a passionate group of clueless rebels without an enemy based in reality. Anyone could become a casualty in the chaos. These people are anti-intellectual, basing everything on what they call "common sense." What that actually mean is whatever reinforces their anger in the moment is the truth no matter how ignorant or hypocritical.

It feels too real that citizens will be taking up arms. The worst part is not knowing who they will attack since the enemy is all in their heads.

[–] bloodfart@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago

That’s not a civil war though, that’s stoichastic terrorism at least and militia violence at most. I, uh, was just in a disaster in the us where militias were said to have been run off by the national guard and local law enforcement.

It’s still scary, but it’s not civil war.

To give you an idea of how common what you’re describing used to be, when 9/11 happened people who hadn’t already gotten the word from the federal government were blaming it on domestic terrorist organizations and individuals. We had just come off of a decade of federal law enforcement torching Waco, sniping ruby ridge, package bombs, federal building bombs (including wtc!) and school shootings there at the end.

The harmless nut job was such a common idea that the Feds had to really struggle against it when they bungled Waco and ruby ridge.

There’s been thirty years of domestic counter terror training to deal with just this type of situation. Fifty if you count the bender mienhoff group in Europe as the start.

You may see Waco 2.0 but you won’t see a civil war.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Republicans will say how they are ready if Trump loses.

99% of people who profess revolutionary politics are full of shit, for what it's worth. It's cheap to talk tough, and not so cheap to actually be in the line of fire, or in jail.

Actual uprisings have a structure to motivate fighters in other ways, be it by greed, ego or coercion. There is no military branch of the Republican party so far.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

While I agree civil war is unlikely, there are paramilitary groups in the republican party, which Frontline investigated.

I could see a more minor version of The Troubles taking place.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Groups "in" and groups "of" are two very different things. The militias that exist are pretty wimpy, and pretty fractured. I'd guess 90% of militiamen are also full of shit, but with more merchandise.

If there was a power vacuum they'd get bigger, but that seems unlikely with so many various established authorities in the mix. I could see them getting coopted into whatever hypothetical faction, though, or just doing terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately, I can't actually see that video.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How do you define the destinction? I assume you're only counting 'in' as officially recognized by the republican party, the political entity?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

There's no way those guys vote Democrat, so it's fair to say they're "in" the Republican party, but they're not a paramilitary "of" the Republican party, because none of the organisation and centralisation which makes the Republican party a force crosses over. They're totally separate, and very unofficial - if a pastor or a local politician supports a militia group, they're going to be doing that quietly on their own time. As a result, they all have a kind of "startup" thing going, and don't really have logistics the way a viable insurgency would.

Sorry, I should have expanded a bit more there. Brevity vs. clarity is always a tough balance.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

It is still not civil war, it is just plain old fascism. The politicians that endorse "vigilantes" to uphold "democracy", "freedom" or whatever bullshit they can make up, are just exerting regular political violence from the old fascist playbook.

Making you feel scared is the point.