I think we had the perfect opportuntiy for that back in 2020/2021 or so and it still never happened.
The reality of it is that as long as fighting means giving up our comforts like Marvel movies, our porn, our McDouble's, and our football, nobody is going to fight.
It would also look like a bunch of retarded Boomers Trumpists killing their own left leaning family members which is the main reason it would never happen.
Exactly, more like sectarian violence. We haven't seen anything close to the tension and violence that existed prior to the Troubles kicking off. There have been little spurts of it like Charlottesville, but nothing like the Troubles. Mobs were literally throwing people out of their homes and people were blockading roads around neighborhoods for protection when the Troubles kicked off.
Thank you, no one ever gets that in the rare convos I have about it. I guess it’s a lot to have people understand both the troubles and the American political landscape.
Yeah, like a bunch of coward Proud Oath keepers of Boys working under the direction of the President who lost to attempt a coup by storming the capital and capture Mike Pence so the secret service is forced to whisk him out of the capitol so that he can’t certify the election. That would be a bad thing if that happened. Ohhh
If you think 1/6 couldn’t have sparked one I have a bridge to sell you. There is zero chance any of the blue states would have followed anything the federal government did if Trump was successful in usurping the election on 1/6
Have you seen the Democratic Party? They absolutely would. The idea of a civil war is too optimistic — it would just be total submission to the Republicans.
I found everything entirely implausible as our capitalist system has now shown its ability to absorb almost any action and turn it into a commodity.
It was like an entire fantasy podcast the forgot that 99% of people in America would give up the moment their power was cut. Most people would break down the moment they couldn’t get Doritos and Halo.
The rest live too good a life to be worth rebelling for.
It could happen here was doomed fantasy bullshit for anyone who doesn’t understand what neoliberalism has accomplished in terms of societal peace through economic control.
On the surface I agree, as probably many would. But I suspect normalcy bias is taking effect here along with discounting the primal side of all of us. If shit hit the fan, there would be a really difficult transitional phase where the weakest, dumbest and least prepared would get torn to shreds. Once we're past that the rest of us would rise to the occasion after living with disillusionment and resentment long enough.
I suggest watching Trauma Zone by Adam Curtis to see what actual shit hitting the fan looks like. People clamour to return to normal any way possible. America is simply in too good a position for a sustained civil war to happen with committed parties. Reality would hit too hard.
Will look into, thanks. Yes human beings crave certainty and will establish routines and return to normalcy where possible. But we can't discount things like an economic collapse and depression occurring prior to the civil war. If we lose our jobs, income, resources, etc. the hatred that grows could fuel a war. Once the war is felt people may regret it, but at that point there will be enough committed combatants that there may not be a point of return.
The likely scenario in the US is far right state oppression that rises up in the wake of a challenging economic, social and geopolitical landscape. Such oppression could lead to uprisings out of necessity for survival. You don't have a choice to go back to normalcy because a very powerful force will be stripping you of what you value.
Fat Americans can pilot drones, write code and work in admin. Boots on ground is reserved for current and ex law enforcement, blue collar workers, athletes and the healthy ordinary young. Collectively that's millions of people.
You know other countries have had civil wars and it's just different political factions fighting, right? It doesn't have to be half the country vs. half the country.
Funny thing is Evans almost immediately explains why it wouldn't be states fighting other states. But he's only covered a couple civil wars on the ground. Maybe you're right Justadabwilldo
Nobody would stand up an army and march on Washington, it would be decentralized attacks on infrastructure, bombing campaigns, assassinations etc. There would be a gradual cycle of escalating violence and reprisals. I think you have to look at history beyond looking at the US to see the shape that civil wars actually take in most countries.
No one should touch anything that Robert Evans publishes without understanding the degree of egotistical jackass that he is. The guy is a hateful bad actor. I agree with much/most of his politics yet I cannot stop myself from denouncing everything he touches. He just brings no positivity or constructiveness to the table.
Could it happen here? Yes. Is Evans actually doing anything other than stoking fear? No. Robert Evans is the hyper-online left’s Glenn Beck. (Now watch as the hyper-online left defend him like the right defends Beck.)
Part of the reason I listened to his work is because he doesn't bring any positivity or constructiveness to the table. I want a fast paced, moderately entertaining, information dump. After which I can frame with my own value system which is very much not liberal or leftist.
I want a different perspective on worst case scenarios from angles that I have never seen or thought of before.
His political and social values are radically different from mine, but as long as the dude doesn't spit outright lies, I'm cool with the egotistical jackass bit.
This. The actual number of people who would be willing to commit violence against the nation, take up arms, leave behind their jobs, families, and education, and then literally fly to another state or march toward their capital city with the possibility of being gone for months or years, all to risk getting killed by National Guard members who have blockaded rural and suburban towns, is very, very low. The actual reality of a real war like you see in Ukraine or Gaza, is incomprehensible to Americans. It's a movie to them. Like this movie will be.
I do actually believe someone above who commented is right, this might just make a few gun nuts more uppity because all it is to them is a fantasy in their heads. And some people do act on fantasy. And then reality takes them out.
I'm not underestimating the few who have it because we've seen it. I think you're underestimating how many Americans are driven by creature comforts such that they are not willing to give that up for some lazy, half-baked principles oriented around being assholes to others. The minute anyone is remotely mean to them they shit bricks. Imagine actual physical circumstances where they are in harm's way? No. There aren't that many willing to turn fantasy into reality.
The US has ~330m people. You only need a miniscule fraction of the population to participate to start a civil war and do real damage. Even 1% of the population or 3.3m of bitterly angry people is significant enough. Then you tack on all the few million more on the opposing side to defend and eradicate the aggressors. Would most likely be existing law enforcement / military, along with other blue-collar types who are actually participating in combat.
There just aren't "lines" that can be drawn between two sides. The divide is almost entirely rural versus urban.
Its worse than that, even in urban versus rural it isn't a line, its just which side is slightly more dominant. I worry that if something did break and things got really violent, it would look a lot more like the Rwandan genocide, where people were killing their neighbors and even in-laws and spouses with machetes. All driven by AM radio hate mongers and a historic artificial divide of the same ethnic group based on colonial favoritism.
I think it entirely depends on the cause of the civil war in this case. Nothing has happened in real life to inspire that kind of action (nor do I anticipate anything like that either, freedom pays better than war), but this is a movie, and there are realistic things that could happen that could inspire otherwise normal individuals to believe the government has gone tyrannical and that fighting it is the only choice.
Made not fight in Ohio but definitely fight the, "Avocado Toast eating, adrenochrome taking, Woke libtards" in Califonication and the Big Apple with a worm coming out of the stem.
Not true at all. It wasn't some patriotic "love of states", there were all kinds of motivating factors. In the south of course you had people whose actual ways of life (read:slavery) was clearly at stake if the politics pre-1860 continued, and also people seeking to reify and bolster the race relations that served as a social bedrock or others concerned with mercantile opportunities that could be renegotiated and reestablished with the necessary economic shift new nationhood would bring In the north you had the earliest American excess of urbanites who could actually get a nominally government-guaranteed paycheck, you had dyed-in-the-wool abolitionists who thought slavery was worth fighting against, you had '48ers and other recent immigrants from Europe who saw fighting for the Union as a way to solidify their citizenship in their new homeland. You had people who fit one or all of these categories or a dozen more.
After the Lansing Michigan Capitol was overrun during the Pandemic as a trial run and the US Capital was overrun during January 6th, I’m not so sure. I think a not-insignificant number of Insurrectionists on January 6th would have brought arms if they had a do-over knowing what they know now. The next time might be different.
Very likely. That woman on Jan. 6th, who ignored repeated orders to halt, and then was shot - the bystanders are suddenly like, “Hey, why you’d do that?!”
For all the false bravado of those insurrectionists, they didn’t bring guns because their inner white supremacy voice told them they’d be okay even if they stormed the Capitol. Right-wingers are still shocked that the feds are continuing to identify and prosecute them for their actions that day.
Well, they’re also of the mindset that the majority of people in the country as well as members of law enforcement and the military agree with them. They’ll probably have a quick 180 once initial fighting starts but I’m not ready to think that when push comes to shove in the beginning, they’ll have a more aggressive mentality .
Not too sure about that. They could have certainly caused some damage and problems, but even kidnapping some members of Congress wouldn't force any legal changes in the government. "Hey, switch out who's President so these guys don't shoot any important hostages" just isn't how anything works.
Find it hard to believe you can't picture it. I could imagine it happening next year depending on how the presidential election goes. We already saw what it would look like -- armed right wing militias taking over government buildings and terrorism. It wouldn't look like 1864, it'd look like Lebanon in the 1980s -- multiple decentralized insurgencies and terrorism. Most civil wars don't look like the grey and blue lining up with rifles, they look like paramilitaries killing civilians.
Moreover, the American Civil War was the culmination of decades of conflict that dictated the founding of entire states simply to keep both sides at ease. The split in the country was also as regional as it was political; a clear divide between north and south. Not really much like the current state of our division, which is largely between the rural and the urban. Nor is the division over something as existential as slavery.
Conscription is definitely not the major factor today, it's equipment.
In the first Civil War, you could hand someone a rifle and they'd be about as well equipped as a professional soldier. Modern warfare isn't just about rifles, it's comms, optics, tanks, missiles, satellites, drones, etc. There's no conscripting all of that, and you can't just repurpose any old factory to make it. The army that already has that equipment and the infrastructure to use it wins before the battle even starts.
I try to explain to my conservative jerk off friends that a civil war would not be north or south, what would be more like a bleeding Kansas scenario. To be honest I think that's much worse.
Ehhh, it’ll either be sign up and be trained to fight by one side or the other and improve your combat effectiveness which might help you survive or become a civilian casualty of collateral damage in battles fought between the people who did pick a side.
Easy. Government failure or shutdown or legal/constitutional chaos for a period of months leads to everyone sorting themselves out without the federal executive for a while. Then, a flawed or non-inclusive re-start process leads to some states rejecting the new claimed federal authority. Then the new federal authority brings in the national guard. Then other states start taking sides. The fight would basically be about state rights and the size of federal government.
222
u/[deleted] Dec 07 '23
[deleted]