Is America burning? (Black Lives Matter protests, civil unrest and riots 2020)

[two sheds]

There is no essential difference between the Democratic "party" ad the Republican "party".

Before Trump I'd have agreed with you. I'd say the Republicans are now being taken over by actual fascists wearing the cloaks of christian fundamentalists. They don't believe in democracy. If/when they get into power again because of the gerrymandering and vote rigging that's going on, that's when you'd get a civil war, only they'll have the police and army behind them and it'll just become a dictatorship.

You really don't see any difference between the republicans and democrats as the parties are now?

Has 8ball always been like this and I've just not noticed, by the way? 8ball have you always been like this and I've just not noticed, by the way?

 

[kabbes]

Before Trump I'd have agreed with you. I'd say the Republicans are now being taken over by actual fascists wearing the cloaks of christian fundamentalists. They don't believe in democracy. If/when they get into power again because of the gerrymandering and vote rigging that's going on, that's when you'd get a civil war, only they'll have the police and army behind them and it'll just become a dictatorship.

You really don't see any difference between the republicans and democrats as the parties are now?

The recent John Ronson series for Radio 4 (on BBC Sounds) was interesting for noting that a lot of this was a very deliberate decision by the Christian Right starting in the 1970s to stop ignoring the rest of America and start fighting it. Worth a listen.

Has 8ball always been like this and I've just not noticed, by the way? 8ball have you always been like this and I've just not noticed, by the way?

He was always like this. It’s probably best to take it in the spirit I think that it’s intended, which is naive inquiry rather than deliberate political wedge-making?

 

[8ball]

Before Trump I'd have agreed with you. I'd say the Republicans are now being taken over by actual fascists wearing the cloaks of christian fundamentalists. They don't believe in democracy. If/when they get into power again because of the gerrymandering and vote rigging that's going on, that's when you'd get a civil war, only they'll have the police and army behind them and it'll just become a dictatorship.

You really don't see any difference between the republicans and democrats as the parties are now?

Has 8ball always been like this and I've just not noticed, by the way? 8ball have you always been like this and I've just not noticed, by the way?

I just have one account on u75, by the way.

 

[8ball]

Let's call it a "cold civil war", then. One that, thankfully, hasn't exploded into something that is too horrific to take on board. If you listen to the never ending scream of the internet (brought to you by the up mentioned angry far right, incels, uber patriots, gun freaks, etc) outside of urban, you'll get a taste of it.

It's been brewing for years. The internet has amplified the divide, it has propelled the "battle" to the foreground, assisted by the relevant media (Carlson, etc) and the politicians have not been slow in wrapping themselves in old glory and using it for their agenda. There's open talk about defeating/crushing the leftists/socialists and their wokeness. The idea that people other than white hetero males might want to have a say about the future/equality/shared spaces/capitalism and so on... it fills them with terror.

Used to dismiss the far right drivel until the last few years. It's getting so loud now, it's impossible to filter it out.

Wish it was just a few cranks, loons and bigots but with regular reports on the rise and threat of domestic (right wing terror) in the US, can't dismiss the prospect of something terrible as easy as before.

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States

Far-right terror poses bigger threat to US than Islamist extremism post-9/11

There's also the murky connections with cops and the far right

The right is preparing for a breakdown of law and order, but they are also overtaking the forces of law and order. Hard right organization have now infiltrated so many police forces – the connections number in the hundreds – that they have become unreliable allies in the struggle against domestic terrorism.

The next US civil war is already here – we just refuse to see it

The January 2021 insurection was a (shambolic and bumbling) dry run. Hoping that they will not become more organized and disciplined. But it's seriously worrying.

What you and maomao in the post after you are talking about is a mixture of what is usually called “terrorism”, with a big dose of polarisation and mutual suspicion between groups.

There’s a bit of both of those things, and it doesn’t look to be getting better very soon.

As for “civil war”, that appears to have become a thought-terminating cliche on this thread. Posters seem to be talking about different things using the same word and the response to someone asking “so how would that happen” shows a weird enthusiasm for the idea of something that would be globally devastating in reality.

 

[krtek a houby]

What you and maomao in the post after you are talking about is a mixture of what is usually called “terrorism”, with a big dose of polarisation and mutual suspicion between groups.

There’s a bit of both of those things, and it doesn’t look to be getting better very soon.

As for “civil war”, that appears to have become a thought-terminating cliche on this thread. Posters seem to be talking about different things using the same word and the response to someone asking “so how would that happen” shows a weird enthusiasm for the idea of something that would be globally devastating in reality.

Am very, very much against and terrified of the prospect. So, nah, zero weird enthusiasm for an escalation of this situation.

 

[kabbes]

What you and maomao in the post after you are talking about is a mixture of what is usually called “terrorism”, with a big dose of polarisation and mutual suspicion between groups.

There’s a bit of both of those things, and it doesn’t look to be getting better very soon.

As for “civil war”, that appears to have become a thought-terminating cliche on this thread. Posters seem to be talking about different things using the same word and the response to someone asking “so how would that happen” shows a weird enthusiasm for the idea of something that would be globally devastating in reality.

I don’t know what mechanism would lead to a civil war — these things always seem obvious in retrospect yet never in advance. However, something like the attempt to storm the Capitol building can become the spark that spreads. Mostly, civil war involves State vs Populace. It’s not impossible to see that happening in the US.

 

[8ball]

I don’t know what mechanism would lead to a civil war — these things always seem obvious in retrospect yet never in advance. However, something like the attempt to storm the Capitol building can become the spark that spreads. Mostly, civil war involves State vs Populace. It’s not impossible to see that happening in the US.

I think that bunch of confused idiots going round the Capitol acting mostly like tourists have a long way to go before they can take on the State in any meaningful or organised sense.

I understand how mechanisms become obvious after the fact, but we are speculating before the fact. Without some kind of “who does what and why”, it looks to me like some posters have become over-excited by clickbait.

What timeline are we talking about by the way? Something kicking off around the next election? Or a decade? Twenty years?

I def wouldn’t want to speculate as far ahead as 20 years the way things are right now.

 

[two sheds]

I think that bunch of confused idiots going round the Capitol acting mostly like tourists have a long way to go before they can take on the State in any meaningful or organised sense.

I understand how mechanisms become obvious after the fact, but we are speculating before the fact. Without some kind of “who does what and why”, it looks to me like some posters have become over-excited by clickbait.

What timeline are we talking about by the way? Something kicking off around the next election? Or a decade? Twenty years?

I def wouldn’t want to speculate as far ahead as 20 years the way things are right now.

There was a reddit post that I wish I'd saved about the extensive planning that led up to January 6th. There are dozens of reports coming out about the republicans' actions to steal the upcoming election - gerrymandering, stopping black people from voting, trying to stuff the voting booths with Trump supporters, interference with the voting machines. It's pretty much a repeat of the last election but they're much better planned for it now.

I didn't mean to suggest you had another account by the way, I'd just seen you as a balanced well read poster which isn't how you've come across on a number of threads more recently. It just puzzled me.

 

[8ball]

I didn't mean to suggest you had another account by the way, I'd just seen you as a balanced well read poster which isn't how you've come across on a number of threads more recently. It just puzzled me.

You quoted a post by PTK earlier which seems to have become conflated with your replies to me. That’s why I brought up the multiple accounts thing.

Re: the paragraph before, yes, there were plans to play dirty and there are most certainly plans to do that again.

Since you brought up gerrymandering as a threat in terms of Republicans stealing the election, you may find this interesting:

How Democrats learned to stop worrying and love the gerrymander

Republicans titled the House map. Democrats are gerrymandering their way back.

www.vox.com

 

[maomao]

I wouldn't expect all out national civil war at the click of a finger, some possible routes into a wider armed conflict could be:

Armed protest at state governments (of which there have been plenty already) become actual insurrections or even attempts to secede.

Larger scale versions of Bundy/Waco type events attract larger numbers of militia types and become genuine armed conflicts between militias and the state.

Dissatisfaction at the police's handling of BLM or Portland type protests turns into armed militias turning up for violence.

Mainstream political support from the right of the republican party for any of the above could blow them up into more serious conflicts.

Any sense that the federal government is losing control over any of these would lead to local power struggles and new factions being willing to get involved.

And yes, it would be very shit for most of the world if America descended into violence. Talking about the possibility is not 'enthusiasm'

 

[maomao]

As for “civil war”, that appears to have become a thought-terminating cliche on this thread. Posters seem to be talking about different things using the same word and the response to someone asking “so how would that happen” shows a weird enthusiasm for the idea of something that would be globally devastating in reality.

You didn't ask 'so how would that happen', you openly mocked the idea and asked who the 'sides' would be as if civil war could only mean a rerun of 1861.

 

[8ball]

You didn't ask 'so how would that happen', you openly mocked the idea and asked who the 'sides' would be as if civil war could only mean a rerun of 1861.

You need ‘sides’ to have a civil war, yes.

I was mocking the idea that “things are beginning to spiral”. We also had the idea come up that I was “in denial” of a “genuine threat that is going on”.

But without even pointing to a particular menacing group that is apparently going to take on the American State?

Though in your post prior to the one I’m quoting, you seem to be back to a “talking about the possibility state”.
Other posters may still be in the “spiral of chaos” stage.

Talking about possibilities is all good, but we have some posters who seem to think a civil war is already happening.

 

[maomao]

You need ‘sides’ to have a civil war, yes.

Syria is geographically about 2% of America's size with a prewar population about 7% of America's. It's currently involved in a conflict with, roughly speaking, four sides and over 1200 armed groups. Is that not a civil war then?

 

[8ball]

Syria is geographically about 2% of America's size with a prewar population about 7% of America's. It's currently involved in a conflict with, roughly speaking, four sides and over 1200 armed groups. Is that not a civil war then?

You just mentioned four sides right there.

 

[maomao]

You just mentioned four sides right there.

None of which, aside from the state, were particularly clear in 2011 and here you are asking for an order of battle for something that remains a possibility. And given the size of the country, likely to be even more complex.

 

[8ball]

None of which, aside from the state, were particularly clear in 2011 and here you are asking for an order of battle for something that remains a possibility. And given the size of the country, likely to be even more complex.

Ok. The state is involved. It’s to be expected. Good to clarify, though.

One unified state, or perhaps State and Federal Government armed actors, maybe some military coup involvement?

 

[story]

I think that bunch of confused idiots going round the Capitol acting mostly like tourists have a long way to go before they can take on the State in any meaningful or organised sense.

I understand how mechanisms become obvious after the fact, but we are speculating before the fact. Without some kind of “who does what and why”, it looks to me like some posters have become over-excited by clickbait.

What timeline are we talking about by the way? Something kicking off around the next election? Or a decade? Twenty years?

I def wouldn’t want to speculate as far ahead as 20 years the way things are right now.

Last night I watched the Netflix film Four Hours in the Capitol.
There was plenty of footage of people wandering about fairly aimlessly. Then they showed something I'd been unaware of, the battle for the tunnel. It was quite shocking and if there had been a stampede or crushing event or if someone had opened fire in there, I think it cooks have set off a really dangerous chain of events.

Call it a cold civil war or as I did elsewhere a new kind of war that is fought on different fronts, I think it's foolish to dismiss the current situation as not-a-war.

 

[8ball]

Last night I watched the Netflix film Four Hours in the Capitol.
There was plenty of footage of people wandering about fairly aimlessly. Then they showed something I'd been unaware of, the battle for the tunnel. It was quite shocking and if there had been a stampede or crushing event or if someone had opened fire in there, I think it cooks have set off a really dangerous chain of events.

Call it a cold civil war or as I did elsewhere a new kind of war that is fought on different fronts, I think it's foolish to dismiss the current situation as not-a-war.

I’m not saying the US doesn’t have a big dose of fucked-upness, but I can’t equate the current internal US situation as anything like a “war”.

Unless we’re re-defining to the extent where the culture war counts (which is what this ‘civil war’ stuff is part of).

 

[story]

You need ‘sides’ to have a civil war, yes.

I was mocking the idea that “things are beginning to spiral”. We also had the idea come up that I was “in denial” of a “genuine threat that is going on”.

But without even pointing to a particular menacing group that is apparently going to take on the American State?

Though in your post prior to the one I’m quoting, you seem to be back to a “talking about the possibility state”.
Other posters may still be in the “spiral of chaos” stage.

Talking about possibilities is all good, but we have some posters who seem to think a civil war is already happening.

Following the film last night I was thinking about these things.
I wondered what would have happened if an articulate erudite person with a well thought out agenda had been there, had managed to gain access to Congress or some other forum (be that the Capitol steps to a hushed crowd, an open transmission channel or something else) and had made a rousing speech. Again, I think that could have triggered a dangeroys and frightening chain reaction.

If cops had been killed in any number, that too would have been a trigger point. One was nearly beaten to death by the mob. Four have committed suicide since it happened.

It really wasn't a bunch of tourists.

Does civil war start at the point when someone makes a ckear decisive deliberate move against the government? More probably it starts like this, with pockets of anger and flurries of dissent. If they get larger, more connected, then something cohesive and identifiable occurs. Some people are seeing what's happening as potential precursor to possible civil war. There will always be others who go "Naah, not happening, not possible" not cos it's not happening and not possible but cis they don't yet see it.

 

[story]

I’m not saying the US doesn’t have a big dose of fucked-upness, but I can’t equate the current internal US situation as anything like a “war”.

Unless we’re re-defining to the extent where the culture war counts (which is what this ‘civil war’ stuff is part of).

There you go. I'd say the culture wars, which are super charged and materially dangerous in the US, is a civil war front. Nit so much elsewhere perhaps, but in the US it is.

 

[8ball]

There you go. I'd say the culture wars, which are super charged and materially dangerous in the US, is a civil war front. Nit so much elsewhere perhaps, but in the US it is.

If it is there, then I’d say it is here.

 

[maomao]

Some people are seeing what's happening as potential precursor to possible civil war. There will always be others who go "Naah, not happening, not possible" not cos it's not happening and not possible but cis they don't yet see it.

I'm reminded of Urban's near-consensus in mid-February that Russia would never invade.

 

[story]

I'm reminded of Urban's near-consensus in mid-February that Russia would never invade.

I didn't bother saying anything out loud (because I can't be arsed with the brawling) but it was absolutely obvious to me that invasion was inevitable.

 

[story]

.

 

[maomao]

I didn't bother saying anything out loud (because I can't be wasted with the brawking) but it was absolutely obvious to me that invasion was inevitable.

Doom merchant.

 

[8ball]

I didn't bother saying anything out loud (because I can't be wasted with the brawking) but it was absolutely obvious to me that invasion was inevitable.

Yeah, I don’t recall it being close to consensus.

 

[story]

If it is there, then I’d say it is here.

Not at all in the same way.
American culture is built on basic premises that are very different to the old world/europe.
Also guns.

 

[krtek a houby]

I think that bunch of confused idiots going round the Capitol acting mostly like tourists have a long way to go before they can take on the State in any meaningful or organised sense.

I understand how mechanisms become obvious after the fact, but we are speculating before the fact. Without some kind of “who does what and why”, it looks to me like some posters have become over-excited by clickbait.

What timeline are we talking about by the way? Something kicking off around the next election? Or a decade? Twenty years?

I def wouldn’t want to speculate as far ahead as 20 years the way things are right now.

Watching footage from the day, it's a little bit more than a tourist visit.

 

[two sheds]

I thought it was only Pence refusing to overturn the election that actually stopped them. Trump certainly thought so, and apparently said Pence should be hanged for it.

 

[8ball]

Watching footage from the day, it's a little bit more than a tourist visit.

Closer to a civil war?