10 ms·

An expert on civil war issues a warning about America, but exaggerates

32 points by leafmeal 5y ago

rbanffy 5y ago
It's just a bit delayed in relation to John Titor's timeline. On the bright side, we may have time machines after all ;-)
vorpalhex 5y ago
Trump won the first time because every little thing he said or did was carried repeatedly by the media, for days. Articles like this significantly help his 2024 run.
- na85 5y ago
  The Economist, despite being one of the few journalism outlets still worth reading, is not immune from the economics (pun only partly intended) of mass market media. To regular folks, Trump is like a car accident. He's awful but you tend to be interested in the goings on, despite the distaste.
  - darkteflon 5y ago
    I would pay real cash money for a browser extension that muted every reference, every article that has anything to do with him or his brood. Harry and Meaghan too, while we’re at it.
- syki 5y ago
  It seems overly simplistic to say he won because of constant media exposure. The 2016 election was a white nationalist backlash against both political parties. Trump’s catering to this surely had quite a lot to do with his victory.
  - toolz 5y ago
    Trump won the hispanic vote. Trump is many bad things, but I have no idea why his haters feel the need to make him into an imaginary racist. Really all that has done is make uninterested folks (like me) more sympathetic to him for having to deal with this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense.
    - jorts 5y ago
      He pandered to racists all the time. It's not imaginary or unsubstantiated. Muslim ban, "build that wall", "shit hole countries", etc...
      - trembonator 5y ago
      - toolz 5y ago
        If those things are racist then every sitting president has been racist, including the current one. It doesn't seem very useful to make racism so broad that everyone is a racist.
      - iszomer 5y ago
        When "dog whistles" become loudspeakers to those whom understand the language; a relatively new term I learned about I might add. Back during the beginning of the pandemic, no one would have thought it would be framed as xenophobia had the US closed it's borders by restricting incoming international flights from Wuhan China but some policymakers got it in their heads that that was the case. As an Asian myself, that would've been the simplest of preventative measures that they could have done.
        syki 5y ago
        And that is the problem with knee jerk reactions. Trump’s travel ban against China was widely criticized but he was right to do so. Just because Trump said it or did it doesn’t make it wrong.
      - gspetr 5y ago
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    That's an oversimplification. They helped but white nationalists weren't the only ones not interested in the GOP status quo during the primaries, or the Democrats offering for POTUS. The two parties served up tired rehash and paid for the mistake. W.DC is still living the myth that they contributed nothing to Trump's rise. That's impossible. Every moment has context. And while that was for the win in 2016, the fact is Trump got more votes in losing than either Obama win. Yet look at how the media paints each. I don't like Trump but the majority of the narratives spun around him are nonsense, which only fuels the idea that The People are not being served by the system.
    - hangpelosi 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        @dang a likely throwaway account with a username that advocates violence.
        philipkglass 5y ago
        Writing "@dang" in a comment doesn't notify him. Email hn@ycombinator.com to report badly behaved users. For unhinged users like this one, the community flags them enough that notification emails usually aren't needed to get the account banned by mods. Click on the timestamp of the post and then click "flag" to flag egregious posts when you see them.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Thanks-- I've had dang reply to @ references before, but it's useful to know there are more direct ways of dealing with this. I very rarely even downvote a comment, especially if I merely disagree with it, but this...
    - syki 5y ago
      I don’t claim they were his only supporters but he clearly targeted them and emboldened people to say/do things that they kept suppressed. I think historians will agree with my assessment. I could be wrong.
  - Chyzwar 5y ago
    > It seems overly simplistic to say he won because of constant media exposure. The 2016 election was a white nationalist backlash against both political parties. Trump’s catering to this surely had quite a lot to do with his victory. If not of free media coverage[1], he would be a failed right wing fringe politician. Because of this coverage and his polarizing policy, he created conditions where even moderate republicans needed to vote for him. He successfully hijacked the Republican Party, from party working on immigration reform helping Mexican immigrants to party that want to build a wall. I think if Trump managed to maintain women support, he might win again. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/sabotaging-immigration-reform-house-republicans https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/sabota...
- ineedasername 5y ago
  It helped that Hillary was a fairly unpopular candidate. That didn't lose her anyone that was going to vote Democrat no matter what. But that's in contrast to Trump, also an unpopular candidate with the GOP establishment, but again he'd get the votes of most people who were going to vote no matter what, and his 300+ firebrand rallies were a style that attracted many new voters. Though yes-- media coverage of every controversial statement made probably helped as well.
  - krapp 5y ago
    >It helped that Hillary was a fairly unpopular candidate. And yet she got more votes than the other guy...
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      It's the states that were traditionally (but closely) blue where the expanded Republican voter pool made a difference, along with a few swing states. To some extent, she lost by very little in states where it mattered and won by huge margins in some states where it didn't.
      - krapp 5y ago
        Yes, she lost because of bad strategy and bad press, not because she was unpopular. Certainly not because Trump was significantly more popular.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Well, she was also a bit unpopular too. Better strategy, or better popularity, might have made the difference. Hard to say. Things were so close in key states that it all approached a chaotic system where minor things could have unpredictable results.
aeternum 5y ago
Seems more likely than people think. Both sides now work hard to silence opposing or even moderate viewpoints. Even our dictionary definitions are moving more extreme, someone pointed out a few weeks ago that the definition of anti-vaxer for example now includes anyone that opposes any vaccine mandate. There's very little engagement on ideas or push to get closer to truth.
- multjoy 5y ago
  >Both sides Lol.
  - sanedigital 5y ago
    Your comment does the very thing you ridicule. Be better.
    - multjoy 5y ago
      Nope. The 'both sides' argument is the paradox of tolerance. Both sides didn't launch an armed insurrection, it was just the one.
      - aeternum 5y ago
        There are some equally extreme leftist groups. It's pretty unfair to base your opinion of nearly half the country on the actions of a very small extreme minority.
        multjoy 5y ago
        I think it's absolutely fair, especially when the organisation of it goes to the literal heart of government.
      - heyjamesknight 5y ago
        As a former Democrat turned party-agnostic by the last few years, I disagree. I would call CHAZ/CHOP an armed insurrection. And it was the left that bombed the U.S. Senate in 1983. Most liberals are good people. Some aren't. The same thing goes for conservatives.
gigatexal 5y ago
If the media is to be believed I could see it. There’s so much hate in Trump/MAGA/QAnon country and they’re armed so… What’s really scary is the quiet coup happening. All across the country the GOP is gerrymandering in its favor, putting forward Stop the Steal acolytes for key positions so that when the time comes to not certify they can.
- csw-001 5y ago
  Yeah - when I read the news I see it... But when I go to the grocery store, the PTA meeting, or the mall I don't. It very well might be my bubble, but I don't see neighbors arming themselves, and the ones I know that are most adamant that Trump should be President for Life, would be shocked and appalled if called upon to leave the couch or keyboard to fight. It's become a passtime to predict the end of our democracy, but it takes a lot more than Twitter rants to really overthrow the government and install a new one.
- sheeshkebab 5y ago
  As the communists would say - it’s not who votes matters, but who counts. GOP is learning all the right lessons from Lenin and soviets (and Nazies too I think).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
misc213 5y ago
Nope
fasteddie31003 5y ago
Here's a wild idea. Everyday people should not label themselves by a political party. Only politicians need to have a political party. Why put ideology horse blinders by self labeling yourself by a political party? That's why I'm a radical Independent. I look at each issue individually and come up with my own conclusions.
- Bostonian 5y ago
  Some research has found that many people who label themselves independent vote for one party or another a large fraction of the time. I almost always vote for one of the two major parties, so the label of that party applies to me.
  - milkytron 5y ago
    The label might apply in certain contexts, but do you tie your identity to it? Will you switch parties if given a reason?
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  Technically, even politicians could run as independents, although it only very occasionally works. George Washington's farewell address warned of the dangers of political parties (he was not a member of one).
  - jrs235 5y ago
    I have a dream that someday ballots will list only a candidates name. Party affiliation and incumbency status will not appear anywhere.
- antisthenes 5y ago
  > I look at each issue individually and come up with my own conclusions. That takes an enormous amount of brainpower. Not in terms of being particularly intelligent, but just in terms of time required to form a position on every single issue. This isn't a good time investment, considering the duopoly of politics in the United States. At best you'd be able to get a slightly bigger overlap on your issues by going with one party or another, since independents are unlikely to win in the foreseeable future. That being said, your position is admirable, if only for developing critical thinking skills and exercising them, something that modern politics is in dire need of.
_jal 5y ago
The war started some time ago. One side is still in denial, the other is still building strength.
- mrzimmerman 5y ago
  Which "side" are you talking about?
  - _jal 5y ago
    I'm talking about two sides. Which one are you referring to?
uejfiweun 5y ago
I think what we're headed for, is a total loss of credibility of all media outlets, mostly due to ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense like predicting an imminent civil war or asserting that Jan 6 was on par with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Looking forward to it - screw these self-appointed thought police officers. Edit: My comment was a knee jerk reaction to a misleading post title. In reality the Economist is in agreement with me here, they are reviewing a book that is predicting a civil war and calling it very hyperbolic. Good to see there are still some outlets with journalistic integrity.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hangpelosi 5y ago
pmarreck 5y ago
The article is actually a critique of this idea, but clearly, no one read it
IAmGraydon 5y ago
The media will plant and reinforce the idea until it does happen.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  This will certainly be how the cause is framed by many people, if it happens.
  - iszomer 5y ago
    I came across an interesting wikipedia article that attempts to describe how and why mass media behaves the way they do.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory
    - trembonator 5y ago
      [dead]
IIAOPSW 5y ago
Personally I want a referendum. Why does everyone jump to war as the first option (unless the killing of the others is the true desire rather than a necessary evil)?
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  It seems preemptive to frame a future war as the fault of people speculating about the possibility of a future war. Speculating is not "jumping to war as the first option", as that implies a desire to enact, not a speculation of the future (and it's unclear what "first option" means here). You've made that leap explicit by simply stating it as a question in your parenthetical.
_8j50 5y ago
Yes, but you would think the economist would describe the preceding economic turmoil. Whatever their politics, all americans have it relatively very good. When that changes and there is serious blaming and fingerpointing then it is the liberals fault or conservatives fault, the worse it gets the more racial and xenophobic it gets. The difference between social unrest and civil war is the latter has organized military forces on both sides. In the US it will never be militias going at it, it will be state national guards and other branches of military. Things would need to get very bad to where for example nebraska blocks trains and California blocks trucks to opposing states. I am not saying the whole blm vs white supremacist b.s. has no place, I am just saying that social unrear would need to be very bad with state gov/police support causing other states to intervene. One way or the other, a state would need to refuse to cooperate with fed gov even with military intervention. For perspective, when JFK sent troops to let the first black kid attend school with white kids, the governor did no command his military to resist. Things would need to get worse than that. Even with the internet, this can't be less than 8-10 years away, by that time the population will change significantly. Boomer deaths but also post 9/11 kids who only knew crisis after crisis either very hungry or repulsed by the idea of an internal conflict. Meanwhile China, Russia and pals are working very hard to undermine the US economy. My guess is they will somewhat succeed before any serious social turmoil. Also, keep in mind, terror works very well against the US population (sorry NSA guy monitoring this), be it 9/11, afghanistan or vietnam, events that get the people overhwelmed and upset will have lasting and effective change. If that were not the case the US would have invaded pakistan and afghanistan leaving them in ruins very fast and getting out, vietnam would have been a proper invasion instead of supporting south vietnam and it would have lasted as long as it needed to, the military would be much more brutal and cruel like most other non-western military forces (rape, murder,etc... rampant). My point is the US as a whole country is not the same as 156 years ago, serious conflicts will not persist due to weak stomach. It will take a lot (hunger, national shame,etc...) Horrible things to think about.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  I think you make some cogent points, but what do you mean by preceding economic turmoil? After '08/'09 there were daily steady decreases in unemployment through to the 2016 election and steady market increase to ~historic highs by the 2016 election.
IAmGraydon 5y ago
I’m very curious what Biden thought he was accomplishing by bringing this all up today as if it’s some anniversary to be remembered and then putting Trump in the spotlight. The man is either that ignorant or is attempting to push the wedge deeper.
- whodunnit 5y ago
  It’s an election year. Rather than address why voters are supporting Trump it’s easier to demonize them than reflect on one’s own shortcomings.
itcrowd 5y ago
Actual title: An expert on civil war issues a warning about America - But Barbara Walter exaggerates
- dang 5y ago
  Ah thanks. Fixed above. Submitted title was "Is America headed for a civil war?"
iszomer 5y ago
I remember HN being a place to discuss microcosm of things related to hacking and tech but am saddened to see it lean towards redditesque macro style of cognitive dissonance. If ya'll want to remember 1/6 as some hate-driven event, I want no part in it.
- oldcigarette 5y ago
  eh it's not really HN - this has been the narrative of certain elements for a long time now: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1085/text?r=94&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1085... the left has become obsessed with authoritarianism under the guise of "liberalism". i don't think any of them know what the word means anymore. they rile up imaginary "injustice" to distract and sow discord. people who would do that are far more traitorous than grandma going on a larp in the capitol.
mitchbob 5y ago
Archived: https://archive.ph/uze0y https://archive.ph/uze0y

32 points by leafmeal 5y ago

It's just a bit delayed in relation to John Titor's timeline. On the bright side, we may have time machines after all ;-)

vorpalhex 5y ago

Trump won the first time because every little thing he said or did was carried repeatedly by the media, for days. Articles like this significantly help his 2024 run.

na85 5y ago
The Economist, despite being one of the few journalism outlets still worth reading, is not immune from the economics (pun only partly intended) of mass market media. To regular folks, Trump is like a car accident. He's awful but you tend to be interested in the goings on, despite the distaste.
- darkteflon 5y ago
  I would pay real cash money for a browser extension that muted every reference, every article that has anything to do with him or his brood. Harry and Meaghan too, while we’re at it.
syki 5y ago
It seems overly simplistic to say he won because of constant media exposure. The 2016 election was a white nationalist backlash against both political parties. Trump’s catering to this surely had quite a lot to do with his victory.
- toolz 5y ago
  Trump won the hispanic vote. Trump is many bad things, but I have no idea why his haters feel the need to make him into an imaginary racist. Really all that has done is make uninterested folks (like me) more sympathetic to him for having to deal with this kind of unsubstantiated nonsense.
  - jorts 5y ago
    He pandered to racists all the time. It's not imaginary or unsubstantiated. Muslim ban, "build that wall", "shit hole countries", etc...
    - trembonator 5y ago
    - toolz 5y ago
      If those things are racist then every sitting president has been racist, including the current one. It doesn't seem very useful to make racism so broad that everyone is a racist.
    - iszomer 5y ago
      When "dog whistles" become loudspeakers to those whom understand the language; a relatively new term I learned about I might add. Back during the beginning of the pandemic, no one would have thought it would be framed as xenophobia had the US closed it's borders by restricting incoming international flights from Wuhan China but some policymakers got it in their heads that that was the case. As an Asian myself, that would've been the simplest of preventative measures that they could have done.
      - syki 5y ago
        And that is the problem with knee jerk reactions. Trump’s travel ban against China was widely criticized but he was right to do so. Just because Trump said it or did it doesn’t make it wrong.
    - gspetr 5y ago
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  That's an oversimplification. They helped but white nationalists weren't the only ones not interested in the GOP status quo during the primaries, or the Democrats offering for POTUS. The two parties served up tired rehash and paid for the mistake. W.DC is still living the myth that they contributed nothing to Trump's rise. That's impossible. Every moment has context. And while that was for the win in 2016, the fact is Trump got more votes in losing than either Obama win. Yet look at how the media paints each. I don't like Trump but the majority of the narratives spun around him are nonsense, which only fuels the idea that The People are not being served by the system.
  - hangpelosi 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      @dang a likely throwaway account with a username that advocates violence.
      - philipkglass 5y ago
        Writing "@dang" in a comment doesn't notify him. Email hn@ycombinator.com to report badly behaved users. For unhinged users like this one, the community flags them enough that notification emails usually aren't needed to get the account banned by mods. Click on the timestamp of the post and then click "flag" to flag egregious posts when you see them.
        ineedasername 5y ago
        Thanks-- I've had dang reply to @ references before, but it's useful to know there are more direct ways of dealing with this. I very rarely even downvote a comment, especially if I merely disagree with it, but this...
  - syki 5y ago
    I don’t claim they were his only supporters but he clearly targeted them and emboldened people to say/do things that they kept suppressed. I think historians will agree with my assessment. I could be wrong.
- Chyzwar 5y ago
  > It seems overly simplistic to say he won because of constant media exposure. The 2016 election was a white nationalist backlash against both political parties. Trump’s catering to this surely had quite a lot to do with his victory. If not of free media coverage[1], he would be a failed right wing fringe politician. Because of this coverage and his polarizing policy, he created conditions where even moderate republicans needed to vote for him. He successfully hijacked the Republican Party, from party working on immigration reform helping Mexican immigrants to party that want to build a wall. I think if Trump managed to maintain women support, he might win again. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-t... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/sabotaging-immigration-reform-house-republicans https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/12/sabota...
ineedasername 5y ago
It helped that Hillary was a fairly unpopular candidate. That didn't lose her anyone that was going to vote Democrat no matter what. But that's in contrast to Trump, also an unpopular candidate with the GOP establishment, but again he'd get the votes of most people who were going to vote no matter what, and his 300+ firebrand rallies were a style that attracted many new voters. Though yes-- media coverage of every controversial statement made probably helped as well.
- krapp 5y ago
  >It helped that Hillary was a fairly unpopular candidate. And yet she got more votes than the other guy...
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    It's the states that were traditionally (but closely) blue where the expanded Republican voter pool made a difference, along with a few swing states. To some extent, she lost by very little in states where it mattered and won by huge margins in some states where it didn't.
    - krapp 5y ago
      Yes, she lost because of bad strategy and bad press, not because she was unpopular. Certainly not because Trump was significantly more popular.
      - ineedasername 5y ago
        Well, she was also a bit unpopular too. Better strategy, or better popularity, might have made the difference. Hard to say. Things were so close in key states that it all approached a chaotic system where minor things could have unpredictable results.

aeternum 5y ago

Seems more likely than people think. Both sides now work hard to silence opposing or even moderate viewpoints. Even our dictionary definitions are moving more extreme, someone pointed out a few weeks ago that the definition of anti-vaxer for example now includes anyone that opposes any vaccine mandate. There's very little engagement on ideas or push to get closer to truth.

multjoy 5y ago
>Both sides Lol.
- sanedigital 5y ago
  Your comment does the very thing you ridicule. Be better.
  - multjoy 5y ago
    Nope. The 'both sides' argument is the paradox of tolerance. Both sides didn't launch an armed insurrection, it was just the one.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      There are some equally extreme leftist groups. It's pretty unfair to base your opinion of nearly half the country on the actions of a very small extreme minority.
      - multjoy 5y ago
        I think it's absolutely fair, especially when the organisation of it goes to the literal heart of government.
    - heyjamesknight 5y ago
      As a former Democrat turned party-agnostic by the last few years, I disagree. I would call CHAZ/CHOP an armed insurrection. And it was the left that bombed the U.S. Senate in 1983. Most liberals are good people. Some aren't. The same thing goes for conservatives.

gigatexal 5y ago

If the media is to be believed I could see it. There’s so much hate in Trump/MAGA/QAnon country and they’re armed so… What’s really scary is the quiet coup happening. All across the country the GOP is gerrymandering in its favor, putting forward Stop the Steal acolytes for key positions so that when the time comes to not certify they can.

csw-001 5y ago
Yeah - when I read the news I see it... But when I go to the grocery store, the PTA meeting, or the mall I don't. It very well might be my bubble, but I don't see neighbors arming themselves, and the ones I know that are most adamant that Trump should be President for Life, would be shocked and appalled if called upon to leave the couch or keyboard to fight. It's become a passtime to predict the end of our democracy, but it takes a lot more than Twitter rants to really overthrow the government and install a new one.
sheeshkebab 5y ago
As the communists would say - it’s not who votes matters, but who counts. GOP is learning all the right lessons from Lenin and soviets (and Nazies too I think).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

misc213 5y ago

Nope

fasteddie31003 5y ago

Here's a wild idea. Everyday people should not label themselves by a political party. Only politicians need to have a political party. Why put ideology horse blinders by self labeling yourself by a political party? That's why I'm a radical Independent. I look at each issue individually and come up with my own conclusions.

Bostonian 5y ago
Some research has found that many people who label themselves independent vote for one party or another a large fraction of the time. I almost always vote for one of the two major parties, so the label of that party applies to me.
- milkytron 5y ago
  The label might apply in certain contexts, but do you tie your identity to it? Will you switch parties if given a reason?
rossdavidh 5y ago
Technically, even politicians could run as independents, although it only very occasionally works. George Washington's farewell address warned of the dangers of political parties (he was not a member of one).
- jrs235 5y ago
  I have a dream that someday ballots will list only a candidates name. Party affiliation and incumbency status will not appear anywhere.
antisthenes 5y ago
> I look at each issue individually and come up with my own conclusions. That takes an enormous amount of brainpower. Not in terms of being particularly intelligent, but just in terms of time required to form a position on every single issue. This isn't a good time investment, considering the duopoly of politics in the United States. At best you'd be able to get a slightly bigger overlap on your issues by going with one party or another, since independents are unlikely to win in the foreseeable future. That being said, your position is admirable, if only for developing critical thinking skills and exercising them, something that modern politics is in dire need of.

_jal 5y ago

The war started some time ago. One side is still in denial, the other is still building strength.

mrzimmerman 5y ago
Which "side" are you talking about?
- _jal 5y ago
  I'm talking about two sides. Which one are you referring to?

uejfiweun 5y ago

I think what we're headed for, is a total loss of credibility of all media outlets, mostly due to ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense like predicting an imminent civil war or asserting that Jan 6 was on par with Pearl Harbor or 9/11. Looking forward to it - screw these self-appointed thought police officers. Edit: My comment was a knee jerk reaction to a misleading post title. In reality the Economist is in agreement with me here, they are reviewing a book that is predicting a civil war and calling it very hyperbolic. Good to see there are still some outlets with journalistic integrity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hangpelosi 5y ago

pmarreck 5y ago

The article is actually a critique of this idea, but clearly, no one read it

IAmGraydon 5y ago

The media will plant and reinforce the idea until it does happen.

happytoexplain 5y ago
This will certainly be how the cause is framed by many people, if it happens.
- iszomer 5y ago
  I came across an interesting wikipedia article that attempts to describe how and why mass media behaves the way they do.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda-setting_theory
  - trembonator 5y ago
    [dead]

IIAOPSW 5y ago

Personally I want a referendum. Why does everyone jump to war as the first option (unless the killing of the others is the true desire rather than a necessary evil)?

happytoexplain 5y ago
It seems preemptive to frame a future war as the fault of people speculating about the possibility of a future war. Speculating is not "jumping to war as the first option", as that implies a desire to enact, not a speculation of the future (and it's unclear what "first option" means here). You've made that leap explicit by simply stating it as a question in your parenthetical.

_8j50 5y ago

Yes, but you would think the economist would describe the preceding economic turmoil. Whatever their politics, all americans have it relatively very good. When that changes and there is serious blaming and fingerpointing then it is the liberals fault or conservatives fault, the worse it gets the more racial and xenophobic it gets. The difference between social unrest and civil war is the latter has organized military forces on both sides. In the US it will never be militias going at it, it will be state national guards and other branches of military. Things would need to get very bad to where for example nebraska blocks trains and California blocks trucks to opposing states. I am not saying the whole blm vs white supremacist b.s. has no place, I am just saying that social unrear would need to be very bad with state gov/police support causing other states to intervene. One way or the other, a state would need to refuse to cooperate with fed gov even with military intervention. For perspective, when JFK sent troops to let the first black kid attend school with white kids, the governor did no command his military to resist. Things would need to get worse than that. Even with the internet, this can't be less than 8-10 years away, by that time the population will change significantly. Boomer deaths but also post 9/11 kids who only knew crisis after crisis either very hungry or repulsed by the idea of an internal conflict. Meanwhile China, Russia and pals are working very hard to undermine the US economy. My guess is they will somewhat succeed before any serious social turmoil. Also, keep in mind, terror works very well against the US population (sorry NSA guy monitoring this), be it 9/11, afghanistan or vietnam, events that get the people overhwelmed and upset will have lasting and effective change. If that were not the case the US would have invaded pakistan and afghanistan leaving them in ruins very fast and getting out, vietnam would have been a proper invasion instead of supporting south vietnam and it would have lasted as long as it needed to, the military would be much more brutal and cruel like most other non-western military forces (rape, murder,etc... rampant). My point is the US as a whole country is not the same as 156 years ago, serious conflicts will not persist due to weak stomach. It will take a lot (hunger, national shame,etc...) Horrible things to think about.

ineedasername 5y ago
I think you make some cogent points, but what do you mean by preceding economic turmoil? After '08/'09 there were daily steady decreases in unemployment through to the 2016 election and steady market increase to ~historic highs by the 2016 election.

IAmGraydon 5y ago

I’m very curious what Biden thought he was accomplishing by bringing this all up today as if it’s some anniversary to be remembered and then putting Trump in the spotlight. The man is either that ignorant or is attempting to push the wedge deeper.

whodunnit 5y ago
It’s an election year. Rather than address why voters are supporting Trump it’s easier to demonize them than reflect on one’s own shortcomings.

itcrowd 5y ago

Actual title: An expert on civil war issues a warning about America - But Barbara Walter exaggerates

dang 5y ago
Ah thanks. Fixed above. Submitted title was "Is America headed for a civil war?"

iszomer 5y ago

I remember HN being a place to discuss microcosm of things related to hacking and tech but am saddened to see it lean towards redditesque macro style of cognitive dissonance. If ya'll want to remember 1/6 as some hate-driven event, I want no part in it.

oldcigarette 5y ago
eh it's not really HN - this has been the narrative of certain elements for a long time now: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1085/text?r=94&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1085... the left has become obsessed with authoritarianism under the guise of "liberalism". i don't think any of them know what the word means anymore. they rile up imaginary "injustice" to distract and sow discord. people who would do that are far more traitorous than grandma going on a larp in the capitol.

mitchbob 5y ago

Archived: https://archive.ph/uze0y https://archive.ph/uze0y