4 days is too long. I don’t think Americans understand what a civil war is actually like. For fuck’s sake, what we’re seeing now is a direct result of how we handled the aftermath of the last one.
6 Likes
I’m don’t believe in the fallacy of “form without mirrors moral failings within”, but for him I’ll make an exception.
4 Likes
#dumbdonald shows flabby butt once more.
1 Like
Hey, I am not the one advocating “get your guns ready, they’re coming.” I am saying that anyone thinking that is oversimplifying the situation.
This will not be “North vs South”. This will not be about succession.
isn’t going to work, because I guarantee you that there are “thems” throughout Washington, Idaho, Minnesota, Michigan, etc.
Washington state. In case you didn’t notice, that’s so far North of your line to practically be Canada. And you’re also saying that it’s fine to be a white supremacist asshole, so long as you do it over there. That is some serious SEP bullshit. Because there are people fighting that shit below that line of yours and you’re either making them the “else” or telling them they need to abandon everything they’ve ever known and essentially become refugees.
18 Likes
Trumps base (25-30% of our population) have a fundamental difference in worldview that is incompatible with the rest of the country.
This thing I don’t think the left is adequately grasping is that they don’t think that Trump is a successful, strong, and wise leader because they’re misled, they believe it because by every moral and logical measure they use, he is. They genuinely believe that Obama was the worst president in American history because according to their fundamental concepts of right and wrong, he was.
It’s like dealing with a religious fanatic or a paranoid schizophrenic. They are not people whose minds can be changed, short of outright literal brainwashing. Sure, there are areas we can agree on and compromise within, but with too many others, there’s only a couple ways that ends: we appease them, we eradicate them, or we disengage.
I advocate for the option that ends with the least amount of human suffering. We go our way, let them go theirs, and we take in anyone with the wherewithal to want to escape.
The fourth option, of course, is to continue down the path of permanent power struggle, in which case we need to accept that LGBT rights will never be secure, legal abortion will always be under attack, and presidents like Trump are just going to happen every so often. That is the natural cost and consequence of trying to live together with people who literally believe climate change will be solved by Jesus coming back.
4 Likes
I should ask, what do you think is a realistic scenario for “things getting bloody”? As others have noted, a repeat of 1861 isn’t probable.
I don’t have fantasies about blasting bad guys with my pistol. “Run and hide somewhere safe” is always a good option when faced with an armed maniac (it’s the standard advice for civilians in active shooter situations).
Not very, but city governments would be incentivised to be more vigilant about that sort of thing if they’re openly under attack by white supremacists in one way or another (e.g. a fascist federal government or a right-wing terrorist movement).
8 Likes
Well, let’s look at the areas for which we have an established precedent:
- Mass shootings. Typically by white, Christian, right wing males.
- Organized hate groups. SPLC tracks over 1,000 in the US, and a significant number are actively encouraging their membership to commit violent crimes against the rest of us.
- Militia groups. These guys have always been a problem, but the past few years we’re seeing them doing things like seizing control of federal lands and buildings, and
kidnappingdetaining people. Response from law enforcement has been lackluster at best.
If you want to know what I think the most realistic and plausible scenario is, it would be a sudden increase in those things, bolstered by a more or less official sanction in the form of the federal government simply ignoring the escalation and/or actively encouraging them albeit with a veneer of plausible deniability.
This strikes me as pretty realistic in that a) we can point to actual cases happening right now, and to their increasing frequency and severity; b) that our current administration is in fact doing just this already, and c) that it is traditionally how fascist regimes have taken power- not with uniformed soldiers marching in formation through the streets, but with their supporters acting “independently” to terrorize and destabilize the rest of the population.
Somewhat less likely but still within the realm of possibility, I could see a scenario where Trump refuses to leave office, or much more likely, uses his last few moments in office to whip up his base with a series of accusations against whomever is responsible for removing him, and a plea for them to extract justice themselves against his “corrupt and lying” opponents and their supporters.
Again, my realistic scenario would be a rapid escalation of known threats with an established history of violent acts.
6 Likes
Sadly that does seem to be the logic behind much Republican behavior.
Perhaps now might be a good time to stop believing in fallacious over-generalizations and biased stereotypes that have long been perpetuated by those with a very specific agenda.
That is such a shorted-sighted, self-centered and just poorly thought-out idea, that I cannot even begin to address it.
Fuck that needless defeatism and fatalism.
14 Likes
Do? Nothing. I won’t have to, because they’re all talk. What’s there to fear about a bunch of gunhumping cowards? If they do stick their heads out, someone with actual training will turn them into a fine red mist. Problem solved.
7 Likes
Obviously Trump is trying to make the Mueller investigation into his Reichstag Fire.
5 Likes
Thanks. That is a more realistic scenario than some sort of civil war. Fascist regimes rise on the basis of more than political street violence and terrorism, but they’re definitely factors.
I’m still not sure how support for unrestricted individual access to powerful firearms by liberals and progressives will forestall that situation or make it better, especially since the fascists would be taking advantage of the same relaxation of already-lax American gun control laws.
I’m also not sure how appeasing fascists by giving them territory (and a base of operations from which they can make all of America “great” again) will help improve the situation in your scenario.
On the other hand, living in or retreating to strong and diverse urban communities that will refuse to accede to the policy demands of fascists and that will disavow hate groups and send the police after violent criminals strikes me as a better response, based on established precedent.
10 Likes
Lots of places above that line don’t have lgbt rights - PA - VA - OH - The Dakota’s, Idaho, Montana- Michigan
I’ll stop there.
7 Likes
He thinks it’s a coupe - that’s going to take him to Club Fed.
If only.
10 Likes
That’s a separate issue to address, most effectively via civic action and without firearms. That’s especially true since, when disenfranchised American minorities start arming themselves in response to discriminatory policing, white conservative ammosexuals suddenly come out in favour of gun control.
13 Likes
All you’d have to do is tell him it’s time for a gala event with his loyal followers, have some photographers with bright flashbulbs at the side of a red carpet that leads to the back of a police car. He’d get in on his own.
11 Likes
I could post my exact thoughts and wishes on Trump’s claim… but it would definitely go against community guidelines.
2 Likes
Once again, I’m looking at established and recurrent precedents that show racists and fanatics having a firm hold within the police and military. Until those issues are meaningfully addressed and corrected, this idea that the police are going to protect you is both implausible, and the privilege-iest thing ever.
And there’s another angle to that as well, which I think @spetrovits summed up better than I could:
That’s not a nonviolent solution, it’s merely expecting other people to do your killing for you. Your mileage may vary, but for me, that crosses so many moral and ethical lines I can’t even begin to count them.
Which ties into my other major problem with this “retreat to the cities” issue- the red states’ influence on federal policy. What you’re arguing is basically to separate, but still allow them to have authority over the whole. That’s great when we’re in control and cracking down on anti-gay bakeries, but when it’s them shutting down abortion providers, it’s going to be a very different story.
While I was being somewhat facetious with my Myrtle Beach to Omaha comment, I am absolutely serious about splitting along some sort of geographic line that reflects the cultural differences in play. Personally, I’d use Woodward’s work as a guideline, but the specifics are certainly up for debate. Alternately, we could push hard on the states rights / minimal federal interference option. I don’t like it as much as a clean break, but it’s probably more plausible.
Right now, by staying together, we’re gambling that our ability to influence policy in Texas and Mississippi is going to outweigh their ability to influence policy on us. I think that the current administration, the continuing battle over abortion and LGBT rights, and a dozen other examples prove that this is not a worthwhile bet. We might win in the long run, but a whole lot of people have been hurt, and will continue to be hurt along the way.
1 Like
Wait, you’re not a white guy?
7 Likes
He is on some straight-up ‘Norma Desmond’ level of delusion.
7 Likes
