8 ms·

Imagine you live in a country where about 40% of the population wants to destroy democracy. Even if the other 60% regains control, isn't your society basically

Imagine you live in a country where about 40% of the population wants to destroy democracy. Even if the other 60% regains control, isn't your society basically fucked anyway? Because you can never trust that 40% with any kind of power ever again. Because the moment they would regain that power, they would try to forever cut you off from any power ever again.

DFHippie 6y ago
40% wants to destroy democracy, always demonizes the 60% as sub-human violent scum, and has been stockpiling guns and ammo for decades. And the 40% has violent fantasies of a Civil War do-over. And is enthusiastically receiving active support from foreign powers who would love to see the country descend into bloody chaos.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  And the other 60% is not doing basically the same? > 40% always demonizes the 60% as sub-human violent scum One sentence later... > 40% has violent fantasies of a Civil War do-over
  - Swenrekcah 6y ago
    It's probably not true that all Trump supporters want a civil war, but to me it seems true that most/all of Trump's and the enabling Republicans actions are leading their country to either civil war or Putin-style autocracy. So why anyone would still be a supporter is beyond me. I'm a European who has been watching the last four years first in disbelief, then in optimism, then in pessimism and now in horror.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > It's probably not true that all Trump supporters want a civil war Probably? Dude. Don’t be ridiculous. Exactly this kind of demonization of the opposing political party is causing so many problems today.
      - Swenrekcah 6y ago
        That's fair. It's definitely not true. I considered changing the words but decided to keep probably since it is after all a more accurate statement (being a weaker assertion) and partly because it's more damning of his supporters I admit.
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        Thanks for the thoughtful reply, cheers.
    - DenisM 6y ago
      > most/all of Trump's and the enabling Republicans actions are leading their country to either civil war What exactly is the contribution of the Trump supporters to the development of the looming civil war? Provoking the opposition to commit violent acts?
      - Swenrekcah 6y ago
        I am talking about Republicans as in the party officials, not regular people. They could have investigated in good faith and taken action against Russian meddling. They could have blocked appointments of obvious partisan hacks like Barr and Kavanaugh. They could have cared about Trump not using the US foreign service and policy to line his own pockets. They could have called out and condemned Trump's pandering to the racists in his base. The bar was not high but they have completely failed it. When Trump took office, I genuinly believed Congress and the Republican party would keep him in check. Unfortunately the rot was too deep. From what I gather of the current riots, everyone has failed in containing the spread and damage. But still there, Trump insists on pouring gasoline on a fire, by visiting the sites knowingly provoking more unrest. A statesman would address the nation with grace, send someone else to sensitive sites, but he thrives on the chaos.
        DenisM 6y ago
        I’m sorry, how is appointment of a Supreme Court justice threaten a civil war? Are you quite certain you are not blowing it out of proportion?
        cycomanic 6y ago
        Well the obvious hipocrasy of the republicans with respect to the appointment of a supreme Court judge in an election year really does not lead to increase people trust in democracy. I encourage you to listen to the talks by republican senators when they blocked Obama from appointing a new Supreme Court judge 9 month before the election and how they are talking now (less then 3 months before an election). Particularly damning are lindsey graham's statements, he literally said as late as 2016 supreme court judges should not be appointed in an election year, we (as republicans) will not do it. You can hold my words against me. And now he supports Trump appointing a new judge. The blatant disregard for any accountability, not calling out (and support) of corruption and fascist rhetoric from trump certainly undermines democracy, if it will lead to civil war is a different question. However the rethoric from some parts of the republican party are definitely going in that direction. Hell some parts are actively supporting qanon.
  - DFHippie 6y ago
    You should compare the antifa vs. fa fatality count sometime. It would put the "both sides are equally violent" hypothesis into some perspective. Or guns and ammo count.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      How would you even begin the comparison? Seems like it would quickly devolve into subjective shitshow when deciding what gets included in each count.
      - Can_Not 6y ago
        https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism-linked-to-every-2018-extremist-murder-in-the-us-adl-finds https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism... It's already been researched. 50 murders vs zero in 2018, and the other years and reports have similar results.
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        This is the same ADL that got this [0] emote banned from Call of Duty because “it‘s a symbol for white power”. Very unbiased source for sure. [0]: https://images.mein-mmo.de/medien/2020/07/cod-modern-warfare-warzone-emote-ok-geste-im-einsatz.jpg https://images.mein-mmo.de/medien/2020/07/cod-modern-warfare...
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > fatality count If you count WW2 in, sure, but nowadays? I think very few of even the most extremist people on either side will murder for their convictions. If we’re talking political violence, we should focus on counting stuff like beatings, arson, even people getting canceled, because it usually doesn’t manifest in killings. > Or guns and ammo count. Not indicative of violence at all.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  I think you really need to take a step back. Do you genuinely believe that a full 40% of Americans have "violent fantasies of a Civil War", or that legitimately want to "destroy democracy"? Have you met a single person in real life that thinks that way? Or have you only seen retweets and characterizations of a couple people online and have associated that with large swathes of the population? > always demonizes the 60% as sub-human violent scum > the 40% has violent fantasies You have to see the irony here, right? You are doing more than your fair share of demonizing. For a little perspective, only ~ 40% of people vote in presidential elections (and ~half vote democrat). So your percentages are way off from the start. Even among those that do vote, there are a huge portion of people who "don't really follow politics". The reality is much closer to 5% galvanized left vs 5% galvanized right, 90% people who don't really participate. Perpetuating hate and division does nothing to help anyone.
  - jjav 6y ago
    > Have you met a single person in real life that thinks that way? Not the OP but yes. Can't speak to any percentages but I do personally know two people who have been vocally advocating for civil war to "wipe out the left" for years now. Both are successful very wealthy entrepreneurs in CA.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
It's more like 10-80-10. You've got some small minority of people on both sides who want complete control as a means to their own ends and then the 80% in the middle who don't really care that much and will ally with either side depending on the other specifics of the situation. I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but pretty much every contentious issue breaks down this way. Most people mostly don't care about most things until you start getting really extreme.
- akuji1993 6y ago
  I don't think that this is true anymore. Trump is moving the Overton Window to the right [1], while a part of the Democrats, lead by Bernie Sanders and other left politicians are trying to pull it to the left. So right now, a lot of people are travelling from the center of the Overton window to the sides. This also leads to more "political fights" and political tribalism. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-hzc6blGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-hzc6blGI
  - pc86 6y ago
    What statement in the above isn't true (other than the numbers of course). "Most people don't care about most things, most of the time" seems pretty apt, especially for national politics.
- tertiary 6y ago
  That's just another cynical "both sides are bad" argument. Judge the parties by their actions, not some vague handwaving about the Pareto principle and that all politics is corrupt. From what I've seen, there's one party that has done more to disenfranchise voters and attack our democratic processes in the last year than I can remember in my entire lifetime. Attacking the postal service during a historic mail in election, inviting foreign influence into the election and directly soliciting it in exchange for military funding (and then getting impeached for it), the constant suggestions that the election is illegitimate so that he can scream and shout about it if he loses. The Trump reelection campaign (yes the political campaign itself, not even a neutral government entity) has also been litigating to make it harder to vote across the country. At this point, coming to an article about a republican administration committing pretty clear voter suppression in the context of the past year of partisan voter suppression and saying "well actually, both sides are bad" is basically gaslighting. All sorts of voter suppression tactics like hardcore voter ID laws, purging the voting record (and "accidentally" getting rid of hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters), poll taxes by proxy, and crazy voting deadlines, restricting resources for polling places, and making it harder to leave your job to go vote leans to one side of the aisle.
netsharc 6y ago
"Destroy democracy" just sounds too abstract to make it scary. The however many % want their team to be in charge so they can rule the country to their liking, to overuse the f-word, a fascist state where police have impunity to do whatever they want. Or maybe call it a Mafia state, with the police, DHS and ICE being the henchmen, where someone can destroy a nature conservation area for oil, as long as he contributes to the senator's "reelection campaign" funds. Hah it's even okay to give Supreme Court justices weekend getaways, or to have their wife be a lobbyist. Imagine having an army where, yeah, a high percentage is trying to sabotage the mission, even to their own detriment. Was the US ever a shining beacon of democracy, or was that all just a fairy tale?
trymas 6y ago
I would like to optimistically believe that from that 40%, most of them (80% ?) do not know any better, or in some kind of cognitive dissonance. I imagine, they're thinking something along "we are a country of freedom, we help install democracy in the world, this is the system founding fathers created so it cannot be undemocratic, is it?". I guess only small amount from those 40% are actively undemocratic and trying to brainwash the rest, by telling them that they're "temporarily embarrassed millionaires/senators/congressman, etc.", thus the system actually will benefit them, when it won't.
- DFHippie 6y ago
  I think most people, in both the 40% and the 60%, avoid involving themselves in or thinking about politics as much as possible. They are conflict avoidant. They just want to get along and their approach to unpleasant truths is to think about something else. They vote as they do not out of any conviction but to avoid conflict with their less conflict-avoidant neighbors and relations. In this world it helps to be not only opinionated but violent and maybe a little unhinged. The more enthusiastic you are about conflict and the more damaging you are to others in conflict the more the conflict-avoidant majority around you will side with you to protect themselves. In other words, this is a world that favors bullies.
arp242 6y ago
This is the real problem innit? Like I've been saying: Trump will go away in 4 to 8 years regardless; but his voting base will remain. I don't think Trump is the last President of his kind the US has seen, but I sure as hell hope I'm wrong on that.

DFHippie 6y ago

40% wants to destroy democracy, always demonizes the 60% as sub-human violent scum, and has been stockpiling guns and ammo for decades. And the 40% has violent fantasies of a Civil War do-over. And is enthusiastically receiving active support from foreign powers who would love to see the country descend into bloody chaos.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
And the other 60% is not doing basically the same? > 40% always demonizes the 60% as sub-human violent scum One sentence later... > 40% has violent fantasies of a Civil War do-over
- Swenrekcah 6y ago
  It's probably not true that all Trump supporters want a civil war, but to me it seems true that most/all of Trump's and the enabling Republicans actions are leading their country to either civil war or Putin-style autocracy. So why anyone would still be a supporter is beyond me. I'm a European who has been watching the last four years first in disbelief, then in optimism, then in pessimism and now in horror.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    > It's probably not true that all Trump supporters want a civil war Probably? Dude. Don’t be ridiculous. Exactly this kind of demonization of the opposing political party is causing so many problems today.
    - Swenrekcah 6y ago
      That's fair. It's definitely not true. I considered changing the words but decided to keep probably since it is after all a more accurate statement (being a weaker assertion) and partly because it's more damning of his supporters I admit.
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        Thanks for the thoughtful reply, cheers.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    > most/all of Trump's and the enabling Republicans actions are leading their country to either civil war What exactly is the contribution of the Trump supporters to the development of the looming civil war? Provoking the opposition to commit violent acts?
    - Swenrekcah 6y ago
      I am talking about Republicans as in the party officials, not regular people. They could have investigated in good faith and taken action against Russian meddling. They could have blocked appointments of obvious partisan hacks like Barr and Kavanaugh. They could have cared about Trump not using the US foreign service and policy to line his own pockets. They could have called out and condemned Trump's pandering to the racists in his base. The bar was not high but they have completely failed it. When Trump took office, I genuinly believed Congress and the Republican party would keep him in check. Unfortunately the rot was too deep. From what I gather of the current riots, everyone has failed in containing the spread and damage. But still there, Trump insists on pouring gasoline on a fire, by visiting the sites knowingly provoking more unrest. A statesman would address the nation with grace, send someone else to sensitive sites, but he thrives on the chaos.
      - DenisM 6y ago
        I’m sorry, how is appointment of a Supreme Court justice threaten a civil war? Are you quite certain you are not blowing it out of proportion?
        cycomanic 6y ago
        Well the obvious hipocrasy of the republicans with respect to the appointment of a supreme Court judge in an election year really does not lead to increase people trust in democracy. I encourage you to listen to the talks by republican senators when they blocked Obama from appointing a new Supreme Court judge 9 month before the election and how they are talking now (less then 3 months before an election). Particularly damning are lindsey graham's statements, he literally said as late as 2016 supreme court judges should not be appointed in an election year, we (as republicans) will not do it. You can hold my words against me. And now he supports Trump appointing a new judge. The blatant disregard for any accountability, not calling out (and support) of corruption and fascist rhetoric from trump certainly undermines democracy, if it will lead to civil war is a different question. However the rethoric from some parts of the republican party are definitely going in that direction. Hell some parts are actively supporting qanon.
- DFHippie 6y ago
  You should compare the antifa vs. fa fatality count sometime. It would put the "both sides are equally violent" hypothesis into some perspective. Or guns and ammo count.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    How would you even begin the comparison? Seems like it would quickly devolve into subjective shitshow when deciding what gets included in each count.
    - Can_Not 6y ago
      https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism-linked-to-every-2018-extremist-murder-in-the-us-adl-finds https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/right-wing-extremism... It's already been researched. 50 murders vs zero in 2018, and the other years and reports have similar results.
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        This is the same ADL that got this [0] emote banned from Call of Duty because “it‘s a symbol for white power”. Very unbiased source for sure. [0]: https://images.mein-mmo.de/medien/2020/07/cod-modern-warfare-warzone-emote-ok-geste-im-einsatz.jpg https://images.mein-mmo.de/medien/2020/07/cod-modern-warfare...
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    > fatality count If you count WW2 in, sure, but nowadays? I think very few of even the most extremist people on either side will murder for their convictions. If we’re talking political violence, we should focus on counting stuff like beatings, arson, even people getting canceled, because it usually doesn’t manifest in killings. > Or guns and ammo count. Not indicative of violence at all.
dahfizz 6y ago
I think you really need to take a step back. Do you genuinely believe that a full 40% of Americans have "violent fantasies of a Civil War", or that legitimately want to "destroy democracy"? Have you met a single person in real life that thinks that way? Or have you only seen retweets and characterizations of a couple people online and have associated that with large swathes of the population? > always demonizes the 60% as sub-human violent scum > the 40% has violent fantasies You have to see the irony here, right? You are doing more than your fair share of demonizing. For a little perspective, only ~ 40% of people vote in presidential elections (and ~half vote democrat). So your percentages are way off from the start. Even among those that do vote, there are a huge portion of people who "don't really follow politics". The reality is much closer to 5% galvanized left vs 5% galvanized right, 90% people who don't really participate. Perpetuating hate and division does nothing to help anyone.
- jjav 6y ago
  > Have you met a single person in real life that thinks that way? Not the OP but yes. Can't speak to any percentages but I do personally know two people who have been vocally advocating for civil war to "wipe out the left" for years now. Both are successful very wealthy entrepreneurs in CA.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

It's more like 10-80-10. You've got some small minority of people on both sides who want complete control as a means to their own ends and then the 80% in the middle who don't really care that much and will ally with either side depending on the other specifics of the situation. I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass but pretty much every contentious issue breaks down this way. Most people mostly don't care about most things until you start getting really extreme.

akuji1993 6y ago
I don't think that this is true anymore. Trump is moving the Overton Window to the right [1], while a part of the Democrats, lead by Bernie Sanders and other left politicians are trying to pull it to the left. So right now, a lot of people are travelling from the center of the Overton window to the sides. This also leads to more "political fights" and political tribalism. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-hzc6blGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-hzc6blGI
- pc86 6y ago
  What statement in the above isn't true (other than the numbers of course). "Most people don't care about most things, most of the time" seems pretty apt, especially for national politics.
tertiary 6y ago
That's just another cynical "both sides are bad" argument. Judge the parties by their actions, not some vague handwaving about the Pareto principle and that all politics is corrupt. From what I've seen, there's one party that has done more to disenfranchise voters and attack our democratic processes in the last year than I can remember in my entire lifetime. Attacking the postal service during a historic mail in election, inviting foreign influence into the election and directly soliciting it in exchange for military funding (and then getting impeached for it), the constant suggestions that the election is illegitimate so that he can scream and shout about it if he loses. The Trump reelection campaign (yes the political campaign itself, not even a neutral government entity) has also been litigating to make it harder to vote across the country. At this point, coming to an article about a republican administration committing pretty clear voter suppression in the context of the past year of partisan voter suppression and saying "well actually, both sides are bad" is basically gaslighting. All sorts of voter suppression tactics like hardcore voter ID laws, purging the voting record (and "accidentally" getting rid of hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters), poll taxes by proxy, and crazy voting deadlines, restricting resources for polling places, and making it harder to leave your job to go vote leans to one side of the aisle.

netsharc 6y ago

"Destroy democracy" just sounds too abstract to make it scary. The however many % want their team to be in charge so they can rule the country to their liking, to overuse the f-word, a fascist state where police have impunity to do whatever they want. Or maybe call it a Mafia state, with the police, DHS and ICE being the henchmen, where someone can destroy a nature conservation area for oil, as long as he contributes to the senator's "reelection campaign" funds. Hah it's even okay to give Supreme Court justices weekend getaways, or to have their wife be a lobbyist. Imagine having an army where, yeah, a high percentage is trying to sabotage the mission, even to their own detriment. Was the US ever a shining beacon of democracy, or was that all just a fairy tale?

trymas 6y ago

I would like to optimistically believe that from that 40%, most of them (80% ?) do not know any better, or in some kind of cognitive dissonance. I imagine, they're thinking something along "we are a country of freedom, we help install democracy in the world, this is the system founding fathers created so it cannot be undemocratic, is it?". I guess only small amount from those 40% are actively undemocratic and trying to brainwash the rest, by telling them that they're "temporarily embarrassed millionaires/senators/congressman, etc.", thus the system actually will benefit them, when it won't.

DFHippie 6y ago
I think most people, in both the 40% and the 60%, avoid involving themselves in or thinking about politics as much as possible. They are conflict avoidant. They just want to get along and their approach to unpleasant truths is to think about something else. They vote as they do not out of any conviction but to avoid conflict with their less conflict-avoidant neighbors and relations. In this world it helps to be not only opinionated but violent and maybe a little unhinged. The more enthusiastic you are about conflict and the more damaging you are to others in conflict the more the conflict-avoidant majority around you will side with you to protect themselves. In other words, this is a world that favors bullies.

arp242 6y ago

This is the real problem innit? Like I've been saying: Trump will go away in 4 to 8 years regardless; but his voting base will remain. I don't think Trump is the last President of his kind the US has seen, but I sure as hell hope I'm wrong on that.