30 ms·

Half of Americans anticipate a U.S. civil war soon

• czbond 4y ago
  People just need to get off social media for 6 months, and stop watching the news - and they'll be just fine.
  • unethical_ban 4y ago
    I agree detoxing from news is great, but I think that's easier to do when your daughter isnt raped and unable to get an abortion, your gay son can't marry his love and thus have equal protection under the law, and when you aren't one broken leg or week out of work away from bankruptcy. That said, unless someone is planning to do more than vote (volunteer, run for office, etc) then keeping up with news more than weekly is simply exhausting.
    • giardini 4y ago
      Very funny! I regret the group missed your satiric post and is now voting you into oblivion (where this entire topic belongs!8-)) Your last sentence is priceless!
• bastardoperator 4y ago
  And with a single article, science.org loses all credibility. Nobody wants war and nobody wants to fight against the US Military. It wouldn't even be a civil war, it would be a containment of traitors using mostly drones.
• 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  I don't listen to any news or watch TV and I don't use social media. Now that I don't consume any of it, I don't feel any of the fear or anger that the media talks about. I can't remember when I was last at peace as much as I am now. If everyone else would unplug from the hate-tainment machines they'd probably calm down too.
• elil17 4y ago
  Is there any data to suggest whether public belief that a civil war is imminent is indicative of a civil war actually being imminent?
  • lazide 4y ago
    It probably doesn't help? That said, in the '70s it was probably 80%+ I don't see an ACTUAL (declared) civil war happening. None of the participants actually could I think, nor would they benefit from taking anything. Would Texas try to actually take Washington DC? Nah. Could they? No chance. Would the Feds do anything but setup sanctions/blockades and wait for Texas to beg to come back if they tried to leave? Nah. They might arrest a few key leaders or 'leak' a bunch of embarrassing intel too, of course. Simmering 'fuck yous' and 'civil disobedience' I see building though, with the occasional unhinged terrorist, and a lot of folks haven't deal with conflict enough to see the difference between that and civil war.
    • stale2002 4y ago
      Well, the incorrect part of you analysis is implying that right leaning states would start the war here. Given the current state of upcoming election polls, local politics, and the supreme court, the right leaning states are going to get most of what they want. They have no reason to secede, when they are winning the current politics battles, and are likely to win future elections in the next few years.
      • amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        The talk of secession is from the right leaning states. If, say, Texas were to secede, I wouldn’t be totally surprised if the US were to invade, after all that’s how the last civil war started. On the other hand, maybe they would do nothing.
        • stale2002 4y ago
          > The talk of secession is from the right leaning states. There has been rhetoric from right leaning people, for decades on this,yes. But the point is, that from the actual on the ground political reality, the right is winning. They are winning in the courts, local/state power, and based on current voting polls, they are going to win in the upcoming federal elections. There is no need to secede if you simply control all the levers of government. And the recent facts are that the right is only going to get more power. Therefore, despite the rhetoric, right leaning places have no need to secede, when they can instead just take over the government the regular way.
• texaslonghorn5 4y ago
  Linked pre-print: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v... I found this interesting: > more than 40% agreed that ″having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy″ and that ″in America, native-born white people are being replaced by immigrants.″ and > Among 6,768 respondents who considered violence to be at least sometimes justified to achieve 1 or more specific political objectives, 12.2% were willing to commit political violence themselves ″to threaten or intimidate a person,″ 10.4% ″to injure a person,″ and 7.1% ″to kill a person.″ Here's most of the rest of the abstract: > Design, Setting, Participants: Cross-sectional nationwide survey conducted May 13 to June 2, 2022; participants were adult members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. > Main Outcomes and Measures: Weighted, population-representative proportions endorsing an array of beliefs about American democracy and society and the use of violence, including political violence, and extrapolations to the US adult population. > Results: The analytic sample included 8,620 respondents; 50.6% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 49.4%, 51.7%) were female; mean (SD) age was 48.4 (18.0) years. Two-thirds of respondents (67.2%, 95% CI 66.1%, 68.4%) perceived ″a serious threat to our democracy,″ but more than 40% agreed that ″having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy″ and that ″in America, native-born white people are being replaced by immigrants.″ Half (50.1%) agreed that ″in the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States.″ Among 6,768 respondents who considered violence to be at least sometimes justified to achieve 1 or more specific political objectives, 12.2% were willing to commit political violence themselves ″to threaten or intimidate a person,″ 10.4% ″to injure a person,″ and 7.1% ″to kill a person.″ Among all respondents, 18.5% thought it at least somewhat likely that within the next few years, in a situation where they believed political violence was justified, ″I will be armed with a gun″, and 4.0% thought it at least somewhat likely that ″I will shoot someone with a gun.″
  • codefreeordie 4y ago
    "agreed" in this paper, though, includes all responses above "do not agree" -- they gave four possible answers: "do not agree", "somewhat agree", "strongly agree", and "very strongly agree". Many people will choose "somewhat agree" to mean "well, I mean, it could happen". (Normally, you wouldn't want to so heavily skew your responses towards "agree" by having two "strongly agrees" but zero "strongly disagrees")
• post_break 4y ago
  Is it bad that I'm not surprised by this? Or the fact that I'm kind of in the 50% that can see it coming.
  • Aaronstotle 4y ago
    Maybe I'm too naive, but I feel absolutely no need nor desire to act violent towards my fellow Americans. I feel the divineness growing, I don't know what a "civil war" would actually look like. It seems like most Americans already live in bubbles where most people are aligned politically, so who are they going to fight?
    • post_break 4y ago
      People will almost murder people wearing the opposite sports team attire in america. The police have shown they wont protect you and are under no obligation to as well. So when things keep going sideways, rent, food, energy, and inflation soars, the division will keep growing until we get a breaking point. Look at the LA riots, and tell me you can't see that playing out again, only this time with social media, cell phones, and many more guns.
    • Izkata 4y ago
      > It seems like most Americans already live in bubbles where most people are aligned politically We're not. The most likely geographic split would be urban/rural, cities against everyone else. Around half the population is tightly concentrated and align mostly with the Democrats, the rest are spread out and align mostly with Republicans. Even blue states are mostly red outside of cities. For just one example of something that could spark it, the current hot topic of abortion access: the often-disregarded side sees abortion as killing babies, not even close to how the other side sees it. With that viewpoint and tensions rising in general, how long do you expect such a huge number of people to simply endure?
      • Aaronstotle 4y ago
        Even with the Urban/rural split, are rural people going to come into Urban areas to fight?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• kokanator 4y ago
  History is full of civil wars which were fought for very clear reasons. Do we truly have CLEAR reasons?
  • yellowapple 4y ago
    History is full of civil wars which were fought for very unclear reasons as well.
  • ProAm 4y ago
    Did we have clear reasons for Iraq or Afghanistan? It's better if you have clear reasons, America (as a republic and democracy) is probably the weakest it's been in 50 years
  • infamouscow 4y ago
    This is why people that have experienced war roll their eyes at these headlines. A civil war means you will kill other people and also volunteer to die over something that was irreconcilable through *all* other means. It also means being able to distinguish in a crude and unsophisticated what team everyone is fighting on.
• PragmaticPulp 4y ago
  Source is apparently a preprint (that is, not peer-reviewed) uploaded here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v... > Participants: Cross-sectional nationwide survey conducted May 13 to June 2, 2022; participants were adult members of the Ipsos KnowledgePanel. 8,620 respondents, but I don't see how they were recruited or how potential bias was accounted for. Given how weird some of the internet surveys have been in the past year, I don't take singular polls all that seriously. These polls seem to end up extremely skewed toward subjects who overestimate small probabilities. For a reality check, consider that 1/8th of respondents said they would be willing to commit political violence themselves and 7.1% of respondents said they'd be willing to kill someone over politics. > 12.2% were willing to commit political violence themselves ″to threaten or intimidate a person,″ 10.4% ″to injure a person,″ and 7.1% ″to kill a person.″ And to cap it off, 4% of respondents were pretty sure they were going to kill someone soon: > and 4.0% thought it at least somewhat likely that ″I will shoot someone with a gun.″ Yeah, I don't think so. This feels like a survey of people who consume too much news and social media and have become increasingly disconnected from the reality on the ground.
  • Enginerrrd 4y ago
    I wonder if that's in the context of a civil war. As in was the question something like: "In the event of a civil war, would you...?" Because than it makes more sense to me. It's one thing to be willing to fight in a civil war, which involves all of the things you just mentioned, and another thing entirely to want to instigate those things.
    • CalChris 4y ago
      No, the questions are listed in the Supplement section of the paper. They aren't prefaced by anything like In the event of a civil war, would you ....
  • lordleft 4y ago
    Sadly, even a small, concerted group of violent actors can terrorize a society. I don't think the paramilitary core of the Nazis were a particularly large part of German Society, for example. That doesn't mean that an outright civil war would break out, but it does mean that all it takes is an organized group to upset the political balance, and disturb long respected norms.
• jonnycomputer 4y ago
  Civil war, for what? Every time I see this mentioned, I think, "for what?"
  • ant6n 4y ago
    What was the last one for? “States’ rights”?
    • stale2002 4y ago
      Fortunately there is no need to start a war over federal vs state power, given that the current supreme court is ruling in favor of state power, in recent court cases.
      • DawnQFunk 4y ago
    • jonnycomputer 4y ago
      The civil war happened because the abolition of slavery threatened the wealth and power of Southern elites. It was about wealth. I just don't see a similar situation right now.
      • danans 4y ago
        > I just don't see a similar situation right now The flight of capital to the most productive and/or cosmopolitan locations (domestically and globally) and the increase in immigrant representation in positions of influence threatens the cultural centrality of the part of society that has traditionally occupied it, and they would like to have that status restored any way possible. Does that outweigh the tremendous destruction (and loss to everyone) that would ensue? Perhaps not. Depends what enough people think they have to lose.
      • notch656a 4y ago
        I reject this notion. The civil war happened because the North didn't accept the peaceful right to secession. I do not think there would have been a war at all had the nation simply allowed the south to secede.
• ThePaulAlek 4y ago
  Kind of a silly article designed to scare people. Let’s decide our differences over a match of Call of Duty
  • travisgriggs 4y ago
    Rap Battles! (says the guy who finally watched Hamilton)
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• rngname22 4y ago
  Would love to see what percentage of Americans would be willing to fight in a civil war. My guess is it's a whole lot lower. 3 way civil war between left extremists vs right extremists vs the federal government?
  • Verdex 4y ago
    I would be interested in seeing of who would be willing to fight in a civil war how many of them are physically able to fight in a war. Also, how many are capable of organizing a civil war. How many are willing to take orders that would send them off to die for the cause. How many are willing to take orders at all. Final test would be how many people are willing to just sit outside in August heat for an hour with no internet.
    • lapetitejort 4y ago
      Simply reframe the question so that it's more accurate to what would actually happen in a civil war: "Who wants to enlist as an E-1 and lug jerry cans around for 14 hours a day only to die from a drone strike in the middle of the night?"
• 0x53 4y ago
  It’s hard for me to gauge the difference in attitudes now and in the past. Things seem worse now, but maybe that is just because I’m more aware.
• lr4444lr 4y ago
  Remind me also how many believe in astrology and young earth creationism? Also, to even entertain this idea, where would the battle lines be drawn? Political differences aren't even blue state/red state anymore, let alone North vs. South: it's more like urban vs. a spectrum of less urban.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Something like the rural Taliban blitzkrieg into Kabul?
• astockwell 4y ago
  Anyone who wishes for a civil war has never seen war, full stop.
  • notch656a 4y ago
    wish != anticipate
  • yellowapple 4y ago
    I don't think this is measuring wishes. I don't wish for a civil war, either. That doesn't mean I don't expect one to happen given the current conditions.
    • bastardoperator 4y ago
      What conditions?
      • prepend 4y ago
        Twitter and CNN.
        • yellowapple 4y ago
          And 4chan and Fox News. Let's not pretend the polarization is one-sided.
          • bastardoperator 4y ago
            I recommend everyone ditches social media and cable news
  • trasz 4y ago
    On the other hand a civil war could be a lesser evil, because it would curb US capability to wage actual war by invading China.
• smm11 4y ago
  The great majority of that 50 percent belong to one political party, that is fond of carrying around gallows, encouraging people to be locked up after being chained, etc. They're willing things to happen, as Q predications let them down.
  • lbrito 4y ago
    I think this is a worldwide phenomenon. Usually one side of the political spectrum gets progressively reactionary (no pun intended) and extreme, while the rest of the political spectrum reacts mildly to that extremism. The media then creates a bizarre narrative that there are in fact two warring political factions, both equally extreme, one the mirror image of the other. That is almost always a strange fantasy. There is really just one radical side in most countries right now, the rest are just trying to keep things sane.
  • travisgriggs 4y ago
    I have thought about this and the whole right to bear arms that seems to be rampant in those circles (I live in a more rural community and work in Ag Automation). On a careful reading of the lengthy 2nd amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."), I realized that ownership or property is not actually enumerated here. But when I visit with my peers, what is emphasized is gun ownership. "My" guns, is the important piece that is shared with me. The ability to exchange wealth/property for a mechanism that can assert violence helps gun owners file safe, strong, secure, even if it comes at some risk to self. The gamble seems to be that they're more willing to pay this price for this comfort. So the thought experiment I walk them through goes something like this: "You know, you're right! Guns are good! This 2nd amendment thing is awesome. Power to the people, ya know? I think everyone should have a gun" (and this is where the expression starts to shift from glee to suspicion) "I support funding that provides everyone with guns. Everyone gets a machine gun. And a days worth of ammo. The Canadians will definitely think twice before invading then." At this point, there's a look of horror on their face as they begin to ponder a world where the threat of violence is equalized throughout the entire country. There's a weak laugh as the satire I'm pushing dons on them. Suggest that everyone own a current and power weapon, and you'll see the suggested legislations to limit who participates start flying. Sometimes More is Less
• codefreeordie 4y ago
  mmmmmmmmmmm, the science.org writeup of the actual study somewhat exaggerates the findings. The survey was not primarily about this question, but here's how it was worded: "In the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States." The allowed responses were: "Do not agree", "Somewhat agree", "Strongly agree", "Very Strongly agree" 47.8% said that they "Do not agree" and a further 36.4% responded "Somewhat agree". A further 2.1% did not respond. So, only 13.7% gave one of the top half of the answers ("Strongly agree" or "Very strongly agree"). This paper was just posted to medrxiv today, but I've seen this list of survey questions elsewhere (perhaps this was posted elsewhere a month or two ago?). It's not a great paper -- many of the survey questions are pretty slanted (though this civil war-related one is not), and they're slanted exactly the way you would expect given the conflicts-of-interest disclosure in the paper that every author on the paper is a member of multiple left-wing anti-gun political organizations. Still, have a look at the actual survey questions and responses. They're somewhat interesting despite the study's problems: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v...
  • bombcar 4y ago
    Somewhat interesting that they don't provide the standard "breakdown" of responses by gender, age, political affiliation, etc. Perhaps those breakdowns would be ... troubling?
• thr0wawayf00 4y ago
  One of the biggest problems is that most current gun violence doesn't necessarily represent any sort of targeted pattern (i.e. shooting up a political convention or party headquarters). It's malls and schools because that's such an easy way to create shock and awe. If we do wind up in some sort of civil conflict, I imagine it will look a lot like Ireland from the 60's to the 90's, which was by no means a good time.[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
  • joe_the_user 4y ago
    Several of the recent shooting involved white supremacists targeting minorities, so it's not entirely untargeted.
    • hopevillian 4y ago
      sounds like you really havent done much investigation besides being told that.
    • MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
      Mosques, gay night clubs etc. have all been targets in the last few years. But a civil war isn't made of lone wolf attacks.
    • _-david-_ 4y ago
      Several recent shootings have involved black supremacists as well. This isn't exactly one sided.
    • wyldfire 4y ago
      That certainly has happened more than once in recent history, but I thought it was interesting when I learned that many mass shooters are actually committing suicide [1]. > POLITICO: You’ve written about how mass shootings are always acts of violent suicide. Do people realize this is what’s happening in mass shootings? > Peterson: I don’t think most people realize that these are suicides, in addition to homicides. Mass shooters design these to be their final acts. When you realize this, it completely flips the idea that someone with a gun on the scene is going to deter this. If anything, that’s an incentive for these individuals. They are going in to be killed. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-m...
• maerF0x0 4y ago
  more than half of americans are unfit for a bar fight let alone a war. I hate to say it but these kinds of surveys are pretty weak. I recall a friend who's a history buff telling me something along the lines of non-professional soldiers often refuse to shoot their firearms, or intentionally miss, because people often don't truly want to kill. A quick google suggests some credibility to this claim[1]. I always try to remember that survey science simply tells us what people say on surveys, not what is actually the truth. [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-come-easy-for-soldiers/2017/10/13/6008e742-ae26-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/killing-does-not-com...
  • johnny35 4y ago
    On Killing by Dave Grossman explores the research backing up your friend's assertion in depth. I highly recommend that book to anyone whose interest is piqued by your comment.
    • grandmczeb 4y ago
      The core research that "On Killing" was based on (S.L.A. Marshall’s "ratio of fire") was probably fabricated[1]. I'd treat any claims in the book with a lot of skepticism. [1] From https://www.gwern.net/docs/history/s-l-a-marshall/1988-spiller.pdf https://www.gwern.net/docs/history/s-l-a-marshall/1988-spill...: > His surviving field notebooks show no signs of statistical compilations that would have been necessary to deduce a ratio as precise as Marshall reported later in "Men Against Fire".
      • giardini 4y ago
        Grossman devotes almost an entire page to the history of controversy over Marshall's results in the Notes of "On Killing"*, p. 336 (Section 1: Killing and the Existence of Resistance") . IOW Grossman clearly acknowledges the debate and welcomes more research.
        • grandmczeb 4y ago
• cbanek 4y ago
  I feel after January 6th it's definitely possible. I don't want it, and I wouldn't do anything to start it, but I could see it happening. And that honestly scares me the most. So maybe I'm one of those half.
• Symmetry 4y ago
  Well, presidential systems like the US has mostly don't remain democratic for that long, we were lucky to have the spoils system moderating ideological conflict for most of our history and a period of unusually low polarization in the time since it ended. We've been seeing round of constitutional hardball like regular use of filibusters on every bill by the opposition that would have been unthinkable in 2000. But on the other hand we don't have senators seriously trying to kill each other on the senate floor like we did before the actual Civil War so as pessimistic as I am I'd be very surprised if things got as far as a civil war within the next decade. I wouldn't rule out a serious constitutional crisis though. EDIT: I'd highly recommend How Democracies Die, The Revolt of the Public, and Why We're Polarized for understanding the current circumstances.
• ipnon 4y ago
  The Civil War was preceded by a constitutional issue divided geographically. The question of slavery in new states was forced by pro-slavery presidents, congressman, and justices. They sought to erase all middle ground, the tenuous bridge maintaining the union. Once it came to blows, the geography of slavery allowed the slavery states to band together. The upshot is that not all of these factors seem possible at once today.
  • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    States are increasingly polarized, as people move to states that have politics that they like. The states don't clump all that nicely, though.
  • TheCondor 4y ago
    Further on this... Free states refused to honor slaves states' "property rights." If a slave were to make it to a free state, they could get away and the authorities wouldn't do anything about it. If someone owned (I hate this language) a slave and traveled through a free state they could potentially lose "their property" with no recourse. I don't know which states have actual fighting forces that makes a civil war like situation possible, there is the whole mob mentality thing where maybe a group of really angry citizens would start to take actions on their own. Something else to consider is that the bluest of states still have a fairly large red contingent (north of 30%) and the same is true for the reddest states. I think that dilutes the mob. There might be places like rural Montana and Idaho where things could light up but I couldn't see Texas taking up arms against New Mexico. I think there would be a lot of obvious build ups. The abortion laws create a lot of interesting inter-state problems. If we were willing to have a shooting war because of "property," it doesn't seem far fetched that there could be one if one state supports the "murdering" of "killing" of lives from another state that tries to protect them.
    • watwut 4y ago
      No, fugitive slave laws required return of slaves from free states to slave states. Free states activists resented it, because it imported slavery. This was by Supreme Court decision by the way. Also, the judges making decisions in runaway slave cases were financially motivated to rule that "this person is ex slave", so kidnappings of free black people were common. (Man, children, women were kidnapped in free states and sold in slave states.) The slave states had slave patrols - armed men looking for escaped slaves. They would also check people on trains and borders, whether no one is escaping. It just so happen that slavery don't hold itself - it requires a lot of effort, arms and violence to keep slaves.
• jacooper 4y ago
  Honstly I got so tired of american drama and american doom and irrelevant news, I cleaned all my socials from american news, and started following more international ones. It gives a more global perspective and only covers things that are important, also I follow tech websites like the absolutely awesome "The Register". Now all I hear about the US is someone got shot or there is a new school shooting, which is actually important although its a bit ridiculous that its like a daily occurrence at this point. In general, the US is so divided, its starting to look something will happen, maybe a bigger jan 6.
  • tsol 4y ago
    I somewhat follow news, but try to just stick to science and medical news. I was in cancun recently and a employee at the hotel said she was sad to hear about the shooting. I didn't even know there was a shooting-- there are too many to even follow sometimes. It was a weird feeling
• hunglee2 4y ago
  eh...America is way too big (territorially) for civil war. I mean, how would you even organise it? There's not two sides which could cohere into organised military forces. Worst scenario will be an increase in temperature to what we already have now - anti-federalists who might engage in intimidation, street fights with rival groups and perhaps acts of sabotage and terrorism. In the grand scheme of things, fairly low wattage stuff
  • 650REDHAIR 4y ago
    It’ll be like The Troubles and you’ll think twice every time you ride a bus or go to a large social gathering.
    • hunglee2 4y ago
      yes, a reasonable analogue. Even so, I don't think anywhere near - US is far more intermixed, not as clear divisions between the two ideological tribes. There'll be vicious conflict alright but mainly online and under pseudonyms, punctuated periodically with an offline incident by some guy who takes it too far
  • commandlinefan 4y ago
    Well, it did happen once already.
• bjt2n3904 4y ago
  I think there will be a civil war. But I think it will be more of a "cold" civil war with flashes of loosely coordinated and unsanctioned mob violence. Edit: Dreher has an excellent book called "Live not by Lies", that explains a theory of soft totalitarianism. Combined with the devestating power of weapons, the reluctance to use them, the powerful surveillance state, and the strong desire to live in comfort means that we might not see a conventional civil war. As an example: gun owners largely fear getting raided in the night and a violent standoff like Ruby Ridge. I suspect much more likely, they will get a call from CPS notifying their children are being held until investigators can confirm the reports of firearms in the house -- or perhaps credit cards and finances being shut down. Why go for a risky confrontation when you can bring someone to their knees with a button push? If there is a cold civil war, I expect it will be waged asymmetrically instead of conventionally.
  • krapp 4y ago
    Yeah, I've been hearing about the "cold civil war" since Obama's administration, it seems to have been part of the right's attempt to stoke fear among white voters about his "radical Marxist agenda" or some such, making it seem as if there was widespread populist anger against him that could flare up into a wave of violence if he weren't stopped. I'm convinced Trumpism and its accelerationist messaging is, among other things, a reaction to the Tea Party not getting the noose party they were promised.
• pupppet 4y ago
  As long as we have Fox News serving up an alternate reality to half the US population that’s exactly where we are headed.
  • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    It's bizarre that anybody takes it seriously. After 10 seconds it is blatantly obvious they are shoveling insulting flamebait. You don't even have to pick a side- just look at the emotionally charged language.
  • pupppet 4y ago
    Hilarious this was voted down. Go look at Foxnews.com at this very moment, the entire front page dedicated to smearing everything Democrat. It's shameless.
    • kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
      I play a game when reading Google news and avoid reading the byline when scanning headlines. If a headline is making wild accusations or pumps up an irrelevant trifle it's most likely from Fox News. I'm right most of the time.
• tjstankus 4y ago
  A full-blown civil war, circa 1800s? Probably not, although a growing number of fascist types are fantasizing about it and planning for it. More frequent and extreme episodes of violent civil unrest? Yes. I think it's going to get worse. https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/03/08/they-are-preparing-war-an-expert-civil-wars-discusses-where-political-extremists-are-taking-this-country/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2022/03/08/they-are-...
  • buscoquadnary 4y ago
    See that's an important thing people don't realize about a new civil war. In the civil war you had various clearly defined government apparatuses that chose to withdraw themselves from the union to form a new nation state. This time however it isn't a certain group of geographic area it is divided along urban vs rural lines. If a "civil war" were to come again it is much more likely that we'll see something more along the line of the "The Troubles" that happened in Northern Ireland than anything approximating what happened in the 1860s.
    • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      If it goes down as urban vs rural, it is likely to involve food as a weapon.
    • kfarr 4y ago
      I think you're right, and I'd go one step further to suggest that it's already happening. The path to radicalization for young American males is well known and straightforward and already delivers stochastic terrorism (not isolated events) on behalf of specific interests.
    • notacoward 4y ago
      Agreed that the ~1860 civil war is not a likely scenario. Here are some other possible scenarios from US history. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/shays-rebellion https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/shays-rebellion https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion Were those civil wars? Or did they fall short? There's no simple, clear line. What we can almost certainly expect is terrorism, civil unrest, and moves toward legal autonomy short of actual secession. It will probably be a decade or so before we can tell whether those things (plus the reactions to them) are leading to an actual civil war.
• javajosh 4y ago
  It will probably more like an insurrection. The more Trumpian states will choose to ignore the Federal government in various ways, especially regarding election laws. Opportunistic politicians will take advantage of this to consolidate power to the extent elections become a formality. Well-armed Trumpians will be targeted at specific people, places and events, and it will work. Meanwhile, police services, national guard and military will be of dubious effectiveness given that many in their ranks are themselves Trumpians. It is truly remarkable how much damage a bad faith president can do to a democracy. But honestly, I wonder that he didn't do much more damage. It's almost incredible to me that we're in as good of shape as we are right now; the fact that it's even possible that Trump could be arrested for insurrection is a very hopeful sign. This has all been a great test of our spirit, and I think we get a strong "B".
  • jeffbee 4y ago
    Not only are the cops going to be useless, they are the ones who are trying to stage the coup. Things like the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association are just organized gangs of armed people who reject the authority of civilian oversight. Right now, today, a prominent CSPOA member is trying to arrogate to himself control of elections in Overland Park, KS. Armed men who say they alone can adjudicate elections is no different from any other coup in any backwards banana republic.
  • icare_1er 4y ago
    Well-armed Trumpians ? I seem to recall that there was quite a few BLM military parading here and there in the US ? The only ones without arms will be the liberals leftists in the middle, with nothing but rainbow flags and balloons... i doubt this will be quite effective but we will see... especially when you have called for the police to be defunded. :o)
• tsol 4y ago
  On a survey. In real life, people will do anything to avoid war especially considering most aren't fit enough to handle it
• TheAceOfHearts 4y ago
  Not convinced at all that civil war is likely to happen. But then again, I probably would've said the same about Russia invading Ukraine at the start of the year. Part of me thinks this is the result of countless foreign adverserial brainworms slowly trying to push Americans over the edge. Do you have plans if civil war were to break out? The dark part of me thinks it would be interesting to see how a modern civil war would play out in the US. My good side just thinks it'll be a waste of human life which is unlikely to meaningfully affect the ultrarich and powerful. I'm reminded of that Seinfeld episode where George tries to break up with his girlfriend and she says no. What if the other half of Americans just said: no, we're not going to civil war. It's not necessary, stop LARPing. Stop and think about what you're getting us into.
  • Apocryphon 4y ago
    Russia invaded Ukraine under the table back in 2014 and full on invaded Georgia in 2008. There was actual clear precedence for that scenario being realistic.
  • alldayeveryday 4y ago
    > Part of me thinks this is the result of countless foreign adverserial brainworms [...] > which is unlikely to meaningfully affect the ultrarich and powerful. Or perhaps non-foreign ultra-rich and powerful whom see creating divisiveness as a sure means to retain their status. I am not so quick, personally, to point the finger at those outside the US and see far more obvious evidence of it being perpetrated by domestic actors. Russia does not control what broadcasts on ABC each night, and they don't control what trends on Twitter.
  • SapporoChris 4y ago
    No criticism intended. I didn't expect it either. However, anyone following the story probably did expect it. Russia has been in Ukraine since 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War It's not just Ukraine. In 2008 they entered Georgia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#Russo-Georgian_War_and_since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#Russo-Georgi...
• jhallenworld 4y ago
  I suppose the closest example was the Spanish Civil War. Would different military bases choose different sides? https://man.fas.org/dod-101/fac/conus.htm https://man.fas.org/dod-101/fac/conus.htm Also, what would Trump's tomb look like (assuming he's leading one side and wins). For example: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/24/franco-victory-people-spain-mausoleum-dictatorship https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/24/franco...
• frellus 4y ago
  Puh-leaze. Have you seen TickTok? Half of my fellow American's can't answer what the capital of the US is, what two countries border us, and how many stars there are on the flag. I wish I was kidding. We've raised and trained the next generation to feel very strongly about many things, understand very little and believe they can define what "truth" is instead of discovering it.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• KoftaBob 4y ago
  Whatever the real percentage is, those people deeply lack logic and critical thinking skills if they anticipate a civil war.
• andrewcl 4y ago
  Why is science.org reporting on this and not thehill?
  • giardini 4y ago
    Not enough page-clicks?
• dukeofdoom 4y ago
  Maybe mail in voting wasn't such a great idea, when so many people don't trust the results. In person voting, paper ballot, simplest and most transparent.
  • teg4n_ 4y ago
    Weird add to grind. States have had mail in voting for years and it has not been a problem.
    • dukeofdoom 4y ago
      It's at the center of the dispute over the credibility of the last election. While mail in voting has existed before, never at scale where potential fraud would decide elections. te.
      • teg4n_ 4y ago
        The “dispute” over the credibility of the last election is fabricated and not based on any concrete fact other than that Trump lost and didn’t like that. Also entire states rely on mail in voting as the primary method of voting. If mail in voting was so fraught with fraud every one of their election would be suspect but they aren’t!
  • lbrito 4y ago
    Yes, paper ballot, very safe. That's why banks handle all their transactions with pen and paper, and not on totally unsafe computers.
  • quintusnominus 4y ago
    It's not quite that simple. It goes back more than one election, at least back to the supposed Russia-Trump scandals (Steele dossier, etc.). Basically this happened: - There was once a time when most every American believed that anyone could be elected President, then the following happened: - Donald Trump was nominated for the Presidency, - Prior to the election, branches of the federal government began investigating candidate Donald Trump(and everyone around him) for what?? - Anything and everything! False and misleading information was released to a press that was largely hostile. - Donald Trump won the Presidency after a close election. The transition was difficult. Many in the federal bureaucracy opposed his incumbency. He and his continued to be under investigation as before, even though nothing tangible came of these investigations. Nonetheless Trump took to the office surprisingly well. The press continued their hostility. The common man now saw that, while not anyone could become President, at least most any person could become President, but that person would have to have a very thick skin and be very rich b/c it was clear that, for the Swamp, the Press and the Democratic Party, a war on Trump had been declared. The common man felt a sharp twinge of unfairness to his very bones. - After 4 years another hot election campaign was fought. Trump et al were still under investigation with promises of indictments daily. Democratic opposition leaders in Congress used their only significant tool, investigative committees, to question every move and more of the sitting President, his lawyers, friends and past friends. Meanwhile Democratic majorities in various states were modifying election laws to be more lax and lower scrutiny. This was noticed by even the Press. - Joe Biden won the election by the slimmest of margins. Had it rained in a few states more the election could have gone the other way. such is the nature of politics in the USA. Federal agencies and Congressional committees continued their investigations of Trump et al, the Press continued to harass, and bureaucracies continued to balk at the reins. - As the scales fell off his eyes, Donald Trump saw the incredible viciousness of politics in a free democracy. Being who he is, he fought with every tool he had to continue his Presidency, pursuing even the slimmest of options for hope. Judging from his competitive background in business, I would expect no less in politics. But it was for naught. He stepped down. Today, 4 years after he left office, federal agencies continue to investigate Trump et al, as do Congressional committees. The Press continues to publish every lie and rumor, never looking back to consider that nothing substantial had ever been uncovered. Do you see a pattern here? Common man sees his myths broken, sees that a fellow man, even one who is wealthy, cannot be President of the USA unless something changes. What must be done? If voting margins are so close then the sanctity of the vote must be guaranteed. Ergo, moves to reduce/eliminate fraud. If bureaucracies are reaching into the political realm for poltical reasons then they must be more closely monitored. Some may need to be eliminated, purged or reorganized. If the Press has become captive to one party or one candidate, measures must be taken. Here I'm talking about FAANG as well as the usual Press.
• petilon 4y ago
  If a civil war happens, the blame will be on (1) social media and (2) politicians using topics such as abortion and guns to divide people in order to get votes. But politicians leveraging divisive topics to get votes is not new. What is new is social media. In the old days news was filtered, vetted and verified by reputable news services before being distributed. Now because of social media everyone is a publisher, and lies and conspiracy theories spread before truth has a chance to get its pants on. The events of Jan 6 shows what can happen if a large percentage of the citizenry believes the lies. If this continues unchecked a civil war is not outside the realms of possibility.
  • realcertify 4y ago
    Absolutely agree. The amount of hate increased significantly over the last few decades. A lot of people became absolutely intolerant to other's views. Many of my friends stopped talking about politics, because it quickly becomes drama. I don't remember society being so divided before. This is very concerning.
  • trasz 4y ago
    In the old days the reputable sources often spread the lies themselves - from local lobbying, to national propaganda, to churches.
  • JamesSwift 4y ago
    I agree social media is mostly the problem but I think the issue is that social media (and more generally a globally connected digital world) creates a _much_ tighter feedback loop. So you can see that politicians or anyone else with an agenda is able to test messaging and see how it succeeds/fails then iterate at a much faster pace. I don't think its a coincidence that we saw so many similarities in how certain world leaders mimicked Trumps approach of declaring Fake News etc. You see the same thing in a lot of app development frameworks / languages being more homogeneous in features these days after github and open source has really taken hold. Its much quicker to see something working in another ecosystem and then adopt it into your own.
  • foolinaround 4y ago
    social media made this situation bad. and cancel culture made it worse. So, a lot of self-censorship is happening...
• mschuster91 4y ago
  I'd be interested in how people of other countries see the situation in the US, particularly people living in regions that have devolved into civil war situations in the last thirty-ish years. For what it's worth, the US have been judged as a "high risk" country for social unrest escalations even before the current mess with inflation, the bogus "stolen election" claims, the open partisanship of the Supreme Court and barely after the George Floyd murder [1]. I would not be surprised if a more recent study similarly based on quantifiable data would indicate an even greater risk factor... and depending on how the elections in November this year and especially 2024 turn out, IMHO there is a definitive and massive risk of widespread unrest. The Republican voter base is riled up on the "stolen election" claims - 70% of them believe Joe Biden is not the legitimate US President [2]. It is possible that the Republicans manage to gain control of the Senate this year, but (assuming the Democrats put up a halfway decent candidate, which means neither Biden, Clinton nor Harris!) they may not win the Presidential election in 2024. And at that point, the situation can get really nasty really fast. Republicans are already openly thinking of putting up laws allowing state legislative bodies to overturn electoral college votes, Trump's associates attempted to subvert the electoral college process [3], and we've seen on Jan 6th that it was not just Congress which was threatened by violent protesters but also other parliaments. Both of these scenarios are something that can serve as a trigger for massive outrage. Add on top of that the risk of unpredictable event chains like yet another school shooting with a dozen kids ending up dead or yet another instance of a police officer getting filmed executing someone on camera... I would not want to live in the US in these times. Please let me say one thing as a German here: Take care of your democracy and protect it. The history of my ancestors should be more than enough proof where a catastrophic loss of trust in democracy can end up. [1] https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/us-named-as-high-risk-country-in-new-civil-unrest-index---protests-jump-186/ https://www.maplecroft.com/insights/analysis/us-named-as-hig... [2] https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/ https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republ... [3] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-ex...
• leshow 4y ago
  I dunno about civil war, but I'm increasingly convinced the US is a failing state. Capital owners in a variety of sectors are siphoning off public money while paying next to no taxes. The introduction of unlimited money in political campaigns, the minoritarian rule by conservatives. Increasing theocracy and dissolution of church and state separation... Just to name a few things. As a Canadian all of these things are extremely concerning, I can't imagine how Americans are feeling.
  • xthrowawayxx 4y ago
    >Increasing theocracy and dissolution of church and state separation Can you give an example of this?
    • leshow 4y ago
      Recent decisions by the supreme court.
      • xthrowawayxx 4y ago
        I assume you're talking about abortion. How did their ruling infringe on the separation between church and state?
        • leshow 4y ago
          Overturning Roe was one of many decisions that they have made recently, you can easily google this information: "The Supreme Court Benches the Separation of Church and State | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union" https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/the-supreme-court-benches-the-separation-of-church-and-state https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/the-supreme-cour...
          • deleted 4y ago
            [deleted]
• thenerdhead 4y ago
  Any correlation to how much news, social media, internet they get in a day too? It seems those that are the most passionate about these topics are also constantly glued to a device.
• Mikeb85 4y ago
  It'll never happen, the US military is far too strong.
  • badcarbine 4y ago
    Physical force, yes. Computer tech, maybe. Had we created a cyber-force instead of a space force...
• nsxwolf 4y ago
  I don't see what problems a civil war or secession would solve. America is very purple - what would we do with, say, Illinois? Make Chicago its own country? Are we going to forcibly relocate people across one border or another? Who gets the nukes?
• Overtonwindow 4y ago
  If there is a conflict it will be short lived, but violent. There’s too much money, inteligencr, and infrastructure for a civil war to truly take shape.
• mercy_dude 4y ago
  Underneath of it all, American is facing a huge class divide. If a civil war erupts, it will be not because it’s right vs left or North vs south as it were before but most likely because there is a good chunk of the country who think there is a class of people who are banking on their back while at the same time being dismissive towards them and while they pay the price for the decisions they make. These people largely are evenly distributed across both right and left, so that clearly indicates why this is a different equivalence than say the last civil war we had where Democrats were for slavery for example.
• simonsarris 4y ago
  Social scientists are best understood as "content creators" for low-brow publications at this point. This survey is a good example of how you should think about most survey data. And crowdsourced predictions, for that matter. But not much more.
• user3939382 4y ago
  Judging by the Russian and French revolutions, civil war isn't happening unless and until a lot of people are having trouble accessing food. IMHO the factors that sparked the US Civil War (extreme state independence, regional economics) are no longer relevant.
  • watwut 4y ago
    Both happened because state was weak and decomposing. The revolutionary activities in Russia were long. Neither happened primary because of famine, both were in the making for years. In both countries, pleadership seen issues years and years before but was incapable to fix them.
    • user3939382 4y ago
      It's hard to separate these things but I've studied, especially the Russian revolution fairly in-depth, and the sense I get is that people were feeling extremely desperate because of the food situation, and when they saw how incompetent and aloof the government was, how unable to solve their problems, the resulting feeling of helplessness and hopelessness was the last straw. I believe if food had not been an issue it wouldn't have happened.
      • watwut 4y ago
        Tho, there was revolutionary activity going on long before in Russia. What reforms they were doing, it was a lot due to fear of revolution. Also, the way people talk about is as if hunger implied revolution. Most hungry places most of the time are just that - hungry and disordered. Organized revolution requires pre-existent groups, arms, competent leadership and especially weak state. When state is not weak, it will suppress the revolutionary activity with zero issues.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• decebalus1 4y ago
  I think a lot of the commenters on this thread who are skeptical or dismissive don't really understand what a 'civil war' actually is or would be in a country the size of the United States. I believe this stems from the assumption of an improbable repeat of the American Civil War of the 1860s, which I agree with. But a 'civil war' doesn't necessarily happen all at once, with a frontline, with conscription, etc.. It can happen slower, in separate places, with small skirmishes or only with 'occupying' a state legislature. It can also be fought with different weapons, for example electronic warfare and disinformation. With the latter in mind, some think it already started. You don't need North vs South or Left vs Right for a civil war. You need a group of 'rebels' vs the government and to some extent we kinda have this, considering that some of the 'rebels' are already part of the government and actively trying to topple it. If you look at things from a different angle, for example the rise in extremist violence, the well organized (and well armed) far right groups, the various instances of local government refusing to enforce federal regulations, the repeated increasing 'states rights' arguments thrown around during high level political discussion (by elected officials) and elephant-in-the-room sized January 6 and the widespread loss of trust in government due to disenfranchisement, the infiltration of the far right fringes in law enforcement/military and even elected officials, the repeated secession bills proposed by idiots in eastern WA or Texas just for the purpose of getting people riled up, increasing income inequality, it's easy to see how things are going in the absolute wrong direction. Couple all of that with loss of income and you're gonna have a really bad time keeping the plebs in check. It's all 'Bread and circuses' until the bread supply chain is disrupted or the money to buy it becomes worthless. But I'm optimistic because the people who actually run the country still want to make money and making money during something like a civil war is way harder. So something large scale will definitely not happen. I think we'll have a better chance to die in the 'water war' or just a heatwave than in any 'civil war' on US soil.
• slowhand09 4y ago
  For a publication named "Science"... this seems to be a pretty slanted article. It makes no distinction between types of violence, instead lumping them together. "Firearm deaths in the United States grew by nearly 43% between 2010 and 2020,[...]" conveniently omits the distinction between homicide, suicide, and accidental deaths. It also ignores any type of comparison between criminal gangs having a turf battle, mentally ill people shooting up schools, and Nazi/Antifa type disputes. It conveniently lumps all into a single "guns are bad" bag. Their assertions about conspiracy theories all conveniently target conservatives as well as ignoring the possibility of any truth in those perspectives. With a reproductive replacement number below 2.1, the US population is shrinking. Adding more than 1M who crossed the US southern border this year already and were processed, with an additional number nearly half that size who avoided he border patrol completely, most who have historically supported a single party... what would informed people think?
• mywittyname 4y ago
  This is a serious topic of discussion in our family. I personally think that the USA will collapse within the next 10 years. Specifically, I worry that the rumblings that the Independent Legislator Theory will be used to hand the next election to the right are true and that it's a viable strategy. And that this will lead to an Brexit-type situation where states vote to leave and the Federal government is happy to let (some of) them in order to solidify one-party control of the country.
• honkycat 4y ago
  The logistics of actually fighting a war would deep-fry your brain and serve it drizzled with chili crisp sauce. I don't see it happening. "Civil war"... oh please. The people flying their private jets to the capital have ZERO reason to upset that status quo. They're just a bunch of narcissists who want attention and to dominate others. Once it gets hard they will start apologizing. Frequent outbursts of fascist violence similar to "The Troubles"? I could see that happening.
• SubiculumCode 4y ago
  How many respondents were responding with their willingness to kill under the assumption that they were discussing a scenario in which a civil war was occurring i.e. "people with different political beliefs brought guns to your doorstep threatening you" as many people will be willing to defend themselves and those they love.
• kkielhofner 4y ago
  One of my very close friends is a retired Army Special Forces (Green Berets) veteran with a total of 11 combat tours. He's seen (read that as you will) a couple of actual civil wars. He was once at a very right-leaning event and someone suggested we need a civil war. He's very right leaning himself but he immediately shut them down essentially saying they have no idea what they're wishing for or even talking about. Needless to say everyone there was well aware of his experience and credentials so that immediately closed the discussion. I don't know that it changed any minds but they at least shut up about it... Whether this data is accurate or not, the fact that anyone is suggesting or frankly even mentioning a civil war in the US is so flippant, macabre, and ignorant it makes you question whether such a person lives in reality. Anything approaching an actual civil war in the US would be an absolute bloodbath.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• LgWoodenBadger 4y ago
  [flagged]
• dQw4w9WgXcQ 4y ago
  Whenever I read this trash I wonder who is pushing the narrative. Is this writer even an American? What does he have to gain by fomenting a narrative that Americans want to go to war? Who's in his back pocket? Americans need to wisen the fuck up that so much of this "America divisive, we disagree so much, civil war coming" is manufactured. Especially in the age of GPT-3 where it can be as simple as telling an AI bot to "make an article that Americans are divided" and then spreading it on various social channels. Even HN falls for this shit without any sort of discernment. Even if this article is genuine, ask yourself what benefit does it bring you or America to believe that we are more divided and want to go to war? Absolutely none. Time to start pushing back: [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/29/america-partisan-divide-political-violence/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/29/america-pa... [2] https://thecorrespondent.com/197/more-divided-than-ever-the-truth-is-we-agree-much-more-than-we-think-we-do/10680887294-bebcbac1 https://thecorrespondent.com/197/more-divided-than-ever-the-...
  • t_mann 4y ago
    Take off your tinfoil hat, Science is one of the most respected academic journals in the world, and it is a US-based publication (its twin is the British journal Nature, together they form the pinnacle of academic achievement). This specific article is about a preprint, not a Science publication yet, but do be aware that the organization behind that website has a lot of reputation to lose if they were to engage in the weird sort of propaganda that you are alleging.
    • akira2501 4y ago
      I'm not particularly clear.. was this article published in one of their journals? What is the relationship of "Science Insider" to these other publications?
      • dmarchand90 4y ago
        Yes it's just by "some guy", the journalism section is not the cream of the crop that we expect from the scientific articles. Frankly, I think they will spoil their reputations going into the newspaper game too far rather than sticking to science.
• icare_1er 4y ago
  Same in several European places. The fault lines are pretty strong.
• NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  9% of Americans say they believe werewolves exist, and 13% are not sure. Numbers are about the same for vampires too. 20% of Americans say they've actually met a ghost. https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2021/10/21/americans-say-ghosts-exist-seen-a-ghost https://today.yougov.com/topics/entertainment/articles-repor... 28% of Americans say they believe that seeing a shooting star brings good luck. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/jmh49rcs2g/toplines_Luck_and_Superstitions_20220426.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/jmh49rcs2g/toplines_Luck_and_Sup... 24% of American millennials say they have an actual plan for the zombie apocalypse. https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/d7rutytxs2/Zombie-Plans-Data.pdf https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/d7rutytxs2/Zombie-Plans-Data.pdf The message to take away from this, I hope, is that people who answer these surveys like to troll.
• FuzzyError 4y ago
  So, just from my own anecdotal experience from a liberal enclave in a mid size southern US city, I've noticed a sharp uptick in people arming themselves over the past few years. Specific examples given why are usually Jan 6 and Charlottesville and the fear of only the right being armed if things ever erupted into some kind of local conflict. Neighbors that I would have assumed to be very anti-gun based on their other political beliefs ended up owning ARs and a set of body armor plates.
• phtrivier 4y ago
  Waitbutwhy has a great series about some possible explanation for the division of USA (and, probably, the version of the same situation that exists in other "flawed" western democraties.) After many insightful chapters laying out the depressing state of the situation, Tim Urban was a on the brink of publishing the articles where he was going to suggest ways things could, maybe, be improved And I was foolish enough to actually _expect_ some great idea, some "out of the box" light bulb, some glimmer of hope. Instead, Tim, apparently, decided to never publish the end of the series, and instead package the first few chapters as a bone fide book. Which is all good for him, I suppose Patreon and speaking gigs can only go so far when trying to make rent. It's all on me for having unrealistic hope in the self professed king of procrastinators. But maybe we should be jerks and blame the coming Second Civil War on him (for not having blogged the solution sooner ?) Still, Tim, if you're wasting your time on HN, please publish _something_. (Also, is there a support group somewhere for people waiting for Tim Urban to publish something ? Asking for a friend.)
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• _moof 4y ago
  Half of Americans also believe in ghosts.[0] You'll forgive me if I don't take their predictions too seriously. 0. https://twitter.com/johenrich/status/1058820467723776000 https://twitter.com/johenrich/status/1058820467723776000
• cr4zy 4y ago
  Turchin's political stability indicator predicts this due to rising economic inequality, overproduction of grads with advanced degrees, and exploding public debt [0][1]. However, civil wars usually occur in poorer countries [1][2]. Also the proportion of the world in civil war is 1% and falling exponentially [2]. Finally, Metaculus gives a 5% chance of US civil war before 2031, where a recent July bump is discussed in the comments (Roe, Jan 6) [3]. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/463608a https://www.nature.com/articles/463608a [1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/political-violence-inequality-us-election https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/political-... [2] https://www.nber.org/reporter/2011number3/economic-shocks-weather-and-civil-war https://www.nber.org/reporter/2011number3/economic-shocks-we... [3] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/6179/second-us-civil-war-before-2031/ https://www.metaculus.com/questions/6179/second-us-civil-war... Notes: The Harvard December 2021 youth poll participants gave as 35% chance in their lifetime: https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/fall-2021-harvard-youth-poll https://iop.harvard.edu/youth-poll/fall-2021-harvard-youth-p... Rasmussen 2018 poll: 33% likely, 10% very likely before 2023 https://www.newsweek.com/second-civil-war-likely-one-third-americans-think-so-999254 https://www.newsweek.com/second-civil-war-likely-one-third-a... Does anyone have a graph of this probabilty over time from a consistent source like rasmussen? https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/questions/june_2018/questions_civil_war_june_21_and_24_2018 https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/que...
• _8j50 4y ago
  I don't want there to be one but I am at least 65% certain there will be a civil war between the states in 5ish years to the point it is affecting my future plans. IMO, it will come down to state national guards supporting a secesion or rebellion against the federal government. The packing of the supreme court and all levels of state and federal judges is a strategic move by an ethnonationlist movement in America. Look at a picture of republicans vs democrats in congress, it speaks volumes. The white supremacist "race war" thing is bullshit. The civil war I see coming is a deep division between mostly rural white americans and everyone else. There are things these people say in public and things they say in private. They have been brainwashed by the likes of steve bannon who believe a pure white and euro centric nation must be established. A lot of their supporters only support them because they worked hard to pack courts and get rid of abortion, gay marriage and other things. These are "single issue voters". And on the left, based on what I hear on CNN/MSNBC and the sentiment on sites like reddit and even a little bit on HN, the disconnect from reality couldn't be any worse. What I am saying is, sure the issues leftwingers care about are important but I am worried about is concentration camps and states firing nukes at each other. Let's look at religion for example, leftwingers are incredibly bigoted. Replace religion with race in the same context and you will see what I mean (not that the two are comparable but in America they are both protected groups, where religion is the second right of the people). The things people ask and answer about Christianity could not be more wrong, almost reads like made up fiction to me, this is important because of how important religion is to the other side. They literally believe relgion has no place in government, I mean sure religious orgs have no place in government but individuals have every right to represent the beliefs of their electorate religious or not. Look at TV, netflix, popular social media. They are all progressive friendly. They make the other side feel extremely excluded. And it was things like this russia and white supremacists have been exploiting. I expect them to slowly make things like interracial marriage, EEO, EPA regulations,etc... a states issue. And then democrats will try to reverse it but the states will refuse to comply and order their national guards to resist that order. Now, if cops have been inflitrated by white supremacists to the point where they maim white journalists in broad daylight on purpose at a blm protest and get away with it, how much of southern states' national guards (which have little diversity) do you think have been infiltrated? Even if you don't buy anything I said until this point, the sentiment and propaganda on the right is "white christian purity" and on the left is "anything but straight-white-male or Christian" if this was a marriage it would end in a divorce due to "irreconcilable differences". I don't even vote because I disagree with both sides strongly (I am not a centrist). But it comes down to Republicans accepting black and latino people are here to stay and "dillute" the "white race" by way of marriage (although "pure" "white" people will never be replaced by this, they will just be less percent of the population) and democrats need to accept you can't progress and change everything and exclude everyone who disagrees and use racial divisions for votes. Last take: The amount of people that believe joe biden is not the president of america is enough to start a civil war in america. The last civil war was between white americans over slavery, the demographics have changed. Now it will be an even deeper divide. To the majority it will feel like a large amount of crazy people took over a few state governments and started an insurrection but like a wildifire it will spread. I hope I am completely wrong on this but this is whay the right wing wants. Both sides think they are right and both sides are wrong. There couldn't be a better time for either party to risk losing am election cycle or two by splitting (e.g.: progressives splinter off from democrats or social conservatives split from GOP). Really last take: some states splitting is a good idea. Split texas in four, washington,oregon,vermont, colorado and florida in two and california in 3 and then admit Puerto Rico, Guam+American Samoa+USVI (three as one state),DC as states. Which gives each party close to equal additional states but also solves a lot of gridlocked issues and allows more swing states.
• czstar 4y ago
  The U.S. Constitution badly needs to be updated. It needs to spell out more clearly the role of the Supreme Court and how many justices it should have. It needs to more clearly state the manner in which the Senate gives advice and consent regarding appointees by the President and what should happen if the Senate refuses to vote on appointees. It needs to reform apportionment of Representatives. One Representative from California has a lot more constituents than the one from North Dakota. The list goes on. There is a power imbalance in the country and that imbalance can’t last long without some sort of backlash.
• lamontcg 4y ago
  The fact that so many Americans are thinking about Civil War and political violence probably does make it more likely that we could see atrocities like Kristallnacht.
• elforce002 4y ago
  Not soon but at the pace the country is going you'll see states with 99% of its people with identical views. After that, things will get sour really, I mean really quick. People don't want to discuss or make any compromise whatsoever. Either my way or the highway. Say whatever you want but this behavior is more in line with the left than the right.
• RickJWagner 4y ago
  I think in time we'll find that much of the bickering is due to online misinformation campaigns.
• drewcoo 4y ago
  > To reduce the threat of political violence, Braddock says, the first step is to call out the disinformation online and in right-wing media Well, that's some blatant bias. > Regulating social media to avoid “incendiary” misinformation from spreading could also help Widespread censorship? Liberals used to be against that. I guess we all just need to burn the "right" books.