10 ms·

Source is apparently a preprint (that is, not peer-reviewed) uploaded here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v1 https://www.medrxiv.or

Source is apparently a preprint (that is, not peer-reviewed) uploaded here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.15.22277693v...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.
- cafard 4y ago
  a. Germany had recently lost a long and bloody war. b. The managing classes of Germany hadn't really bought in to the republic.
Imnimo 4y ago
I guess it depends on what you count as "over politics" - I think a lot of people would be willing to engage in violent resistance to something like "the president declares the constitution suspended and all elections indefinitely postponed", but not to something like "the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell vs Hodges". I find the referenced numbers perfectly plausible if they interpret the question to mean something like the former.
- sorry_outta_gas 4y ago
  After the summer of 2020 I wouldn't be shocked things sprial out of control fast
  - sorry_outta_gas 4y ago
    I'm not sure on the downvotes, I'm speaking about the potential for social unrest and how easily it can be realized not the reasons behind them which everyone is free to agree or disagree with
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure that if a mob pressures the Senate into accepting a slate of "alternate electors", and that swings the Electoral College vote, there will be a very short period of time in which this could be shut down short of a civil war. For some lesser cause? Another murder of an unarmed black person, even by police, seems unlikely to cause it. Economic inequality? Doesn't look like it. Illegal aliens? Again, probably not. Climate change? Also no.
    - chasd00 4y ago
      > mob pressures the Senate into accepting a slate of "alternate electors" That would have to be one hell of a mob. How would they exert pressure? Unless their "pressure" is lawful then they'd just be arrested like the Jan 6 people.
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
humanistbot 4y ago
> Source is apparently a preprint (that is, not peer-reviewed) Virtually no political polling is. I know of no political polling agency/company that submits their polls to peer-reviewed journals.
jfzoid 4y ago
One thing that gives me comfort is that there is a difference between what they say on a poll, and what they actually do. Plenty of people are willing to say "I am willing to commit violence" on social media. My gut feeling is that if 4% say they will shoot someone, < 0.4% will actually do it.
- notch656a 4y ago
  A large fraction of people will shoot if someone they deem an authority figure says they have to and gives them a good reason to justify it.
  - nomel 4y ago
    Reference please?
    - buscoquadnary 4y ago
      I'm assuming they are referencing the somewhat contentious Milgram Experiment.
      - trinovantes 4y ago
        Stanford prisoner experiment is also applicable
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Can you lay out the conditions under which you'll accept references? I've had a lot of issues before where I provide this sort of evidence and the counterparty relentlessly and tediously explains why every single source is either wrong or doesn't meet their arbitrary standards, so I want to be sure this won't be turned into one of those situations.
      - nomel 4y ago
        I'm genuinely interested in how that perspective came to be since it is, to my world view, a shocking and hard to believe claim. But, my surprise isn't worth anything. I'm unable to find search term that gives something relevant, so anything would help. But, I think it's a bit unfair to make, what appears to be, a very bold assertion, without explaining it or allowing criticism. I have no interest (or qualification) to criticize your sources, but I would hope that someone would criticize mine.
findalex 4y ago
> 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. God help us. It's almost impressive how biased this sample is. I'm dying to know what else the "Ipsos KnowledgePanel" thinks. Will report back with any eye rollers.
- corrral 4y ago
  > 7.1% of respondents said they'd be willing to kill someone over politics. I can only assume it's that low because people tend not to think very hard about poll questions, so are considering only some narrower-than-the-actual-question version of it that they've replaced it with in their heads. Or else a whole lot of people are very honest and don't think they'd be able to actually do it—should, yes, but would? Doubtful enough that they'd answer "no" to the question. I suspect it's the former because I doubt that many people would be open and introspective enough to admit they don't think they'd have the stomach to do things they think they should do. Try another angle with some extreme but plausible hypothetical scenarios rather than such a general question, and I bet that number shoots way up.
hinkley 4y ago
Hasn't 60% of the population of Texas expected a civil war soon for the last 100 years? And what are those rebel flags all about? It's posturing. Just like all of those surveys that say 50% of tech workers anticipate quitting this year. Nearly all the places that talk about secession are the same states that generate less federal tax revenue than they spend. Which is both why it would be a terrible idea, and why people get upset about it. Few people who know they are getting a handout enjoy having everybody else know it, and it makes them bristly.
- malingo 4y ago
  Reliance on the federal government, by state: https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/ https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal...
  - hinkley 4y ago
    It's funny, I can find ten different charts of this. On some of them, Texas, Florida, and/or North Carolina are 'less dependent' and on others they are just as dependent as most of the rest. A few disagree about Tennessee, Missouri, and Georgia. But for the most part, they agree on just about every other state.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      It really depends on what those charts are based on, what they measure, how they scope dependency etc. but considering the scale of population and reliance on industrial processes there is practically no modern way of living that is reasonably locally sourced indefinitely. There are things that can be done with no dependency, but they themselves are not as useful without dependants. Take cobalt mining for example; it's not something you need anyone else for, but once you got all that cobalt, who's going to process it? Who is going to buy it? Same goes for more fundamental things like wheat and corn, either you do it at a small scale where you can't really live off of the returns, or you do it at a large scale but now you need dependants to buy it off of you. (in the concepts I wrote I assumed independence from an isolationists perspective which isn't realistic but somehow does seem to coincide with the not-very-well-thought-through independence wishers)
reaperducer 4y ago
Given how weird some of the internet surveys have been in the past year, I don't take singular polls all that seriously. While you're right that polling that has traditionally been spot-on, or very close in the past has occasionally been way off in the last five to ten years. However, isn't Ipsos a fairly well-respected organization in its field? The kind with enough experience and resources to account for any kind of biases? I'd like to see another big polling organization as the same questions and see if the results are the same. 4% of respondents were pretty sure they were going to kill someone soon So, if there's a 4% margin of error, it's could be either 8%, or 0%.
gmadsen 4y ago
10% also score too low on IQ tests to be accepted into the Army
nequo 4y ago
> 8,620 respondents, but I don't see how they were recruited This is from the PDF listed on the page that you linked: To establish a nationally representative panel, members are recruited on an ongoing basis through address-based probability sampling using data from the US Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. Recruited adults in households without internet access are provided a web-enabled device and free internet service. A probability-proportional-to-size procedure was used to select a study-specific sample. All panel members who were aged 18 years and older were eligible for selection. Invitations were sent by e-mail; automatic reminders were delivered to non-respondents by e-mail and telephone beginning 3 days later. A final survey weight variable provided by Ipsos adjusted for the initial probability of selection into KnowledgePanel and for survey-specific nonresponse and over- or under-coverage using design weights with post-stratification raking ratio adjustments. With weighting, the sample is designed to be statistically representative of the noninstitutionalized adult population of the US as reflected in the 2021 March supplement of the Current Population Survey.
antonymy 4y ago
The article itself espouses similar doubts from one of its subjects: >Barbara Walter, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, who was also not involved in the study, agrees. But she suspects the survey responses overrepresent the number of Americans who would be willing to turn to violence because, she says, surveys tend to overstate what people actually think. “The numbers always tend to be shocking, but in essence, are probably not true.” Hardly sensational to lead with "all this is probably BS" but that probably wouldn't get as many clicks. For sure the alarmist title got me to read it, only to wind up feeling I wasted my time.
pmyteh 4y ago
These panel surveys are reasonably good. The better pollsters (like Ipsos MORI) spend a decent amount of effort recruiting a broad sample of people for their panels, and results are statistically adjusted for non-response bias etc. That said, the usual problem with political polling (that you can only poll people willing to answer pollsters' questions) applies extra here, as all respondents have agreed to be part of a panel and be repeatedly surveyed. As most panels are done through the Internet, it's at least possible that the participants are more terminally online than the average American. That said, I don't think the results are crazy, on their face (though I don't myself expect a civil war). There are a number of groups openly proposing political violence, increased partisan polarisation, and a breakdown in the normal political processes (Congress has been essentially non-functional for a while, the Supreme Court have taken a decidedly activist turn, state legislatures are actively discussing subverting the next Presidential election, and trust in politicians of all parties is at historical lows). It's not clear how these will be resolved, and a further increase in political violence is certainly a possibility. Will that amount to civil war? Not close, in my view, but we live in unusual political times.
- the_optimist 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - phs318u 4y ago
    Thanks for pointing out the other person’s bias. The demonstration by example in your second paragraph was particularly illuminating.
  - czstar 4y ago
    One can find instances of corruption in any party that has sufficient power. Key members of the Republican Party tried to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021 so from my perspective the Republican Party is the one more deserving of ire. It is clear the Supreme Court is taking an activist stance. One member of the court has pretty much stated he is in favor of overturning previous rulings that granted sexual rights. The Court is now erring on the side of taking rights away rather than on increasing them or keeping the status quo in place.
russellbeattie 4y ago
In my opinion, the extreme right-wing is building themselves up to begin politicide. For the past year, we've seen daily news stories as Republican extremists don’t just say that Democrats are wrong, but that they are evil. This is a classic authoritarian method of vilifying your opponent both as corrupt and subhuman. Having just read about the Spanish Civil War, I can see how this will potentially play out. It will begin with a high profile assassination, then the extreme right will use the protests that will follow as justification for escalating violence, similar to the BLM protests. More violence. Maybe another high profile killing (on either side). Tit-for-tat murders begin, as they have in various government collapses around the world, especially in the 20th century. The extreme left will undoubtedly respond in various ways beyond protests as tensions grow and the right will use whatever happens as propaganda to enrage their already agitated base. Whacko conspiracy theories and disinformation will make Trump’s term seem like the golden age of truth. Moderate conservatives, moderate liberals and disengaged independents won't know what to believe. Meanwhile, in Congress, the conservatives who gain control in 2022 will grind the federal government to a halt with hearings and procedural moves. Then they’ll shut down the government with the budget. For months. While the federal government is incapacitated, there will be a huge right-wing rally in some red state with full-throated attacks on the left. The ramped up crowd will head off afterwards and destroy a bunch of businesses and homes of people they suspect as being “pedophiles”. There will be violence and killings, recorded and shared freely as conservatives celebrate, similar what happens with Kyle Rittenhouse's actions. The state’s governor and local law enforcement will make minimal effort to prevent it and results in no prosecutions, and the fed response will be slow, as usual, and ineffective despite presidential condemnation. This inspires other big events – full on Nuremberg style rallies – all over the country with similar results. Soon there will be skirmishes in the streets of major cities. The propaganda will be out of control, with front page stories, prime time videos and millions of social media posts filled with dead children and other atrocities, real or imagined. Then it will really hit the fan when a group of black or Latino protestors attack a group of random white people who they associate with the right-wing. This causes irrational fear among the white population, and seemingly overnight, every other white “liberal” across the country will become suspicious or outright fearful of anyone of color. Mothers will pull their children from schools, or insist on “temporary” segregation for their child’s safety. Who knows what those children of color might do. The violence ramps up as POC communities are targeted, with the justification of “proactive self-defense” Law enforcement does nothing beyond platitudes and Uvalde like responses to shootings. They may even be at the forefront of the effort. Fast forward and the 2024 election is fucking chaos. The entire right-wing will now accept nothing less than a win in literally every race, and it will be a presidential landslide anyways, because the Republicans are “pro law enforcement”, which, by this time means enforcement targeting mostly people of color and other “potentially dangerous leftists”. Americans have shown the memory of a goldfish and are easily scared. With violence spreading across the country, they’ll react by voting conservative, similar to after 9/11. Then the right will have full control of all branches of government and start to pass all the laws they want. In addition to their current agenda, they will pass laws which essentially allows legalized vigilantism and an Amendment which cancels presidential term limits and other restrictions. Trump is pardoned. California and other blue states respond, but the authoritarians in charge this time aren’t as stupid as Trump, learned the lessons he taught about the fragility of our laws, and use the power of the federal government to cripple the left through various voting restrictions intended to remove Democrats. It will all be “legal” and “constitutional” according to the right-wing SCOTUS. Eventually, the Democratic party will be officially declared an illegal organization because of its support for immoral lifestyles. The more the people rebel, the harder the states and feds crack down. Then, it’s all a matter of rounding up the remaining resistance and the country becomes a de facto authoritarian regime. That’s when politicide turns into policide. This is all a very probable future. We'll know it's starting with that first assassination. Look for it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
random-human 4y ago
>> 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. This says it all. The talk is there, social media (or any one who will listen) seems to be a popular public journal for people to vent feelings and use it as therapy. I even have friends that txt their anxiety about the political situation and when it reaches peek anxiety, the words civil war get thrown in there. But, it's clearly just a way to release the temporary anxiety they are feeling after having spent too much time consuming click-bait media - most people are too comfortable and self-serving in their lives to engage in long term life and death violence. People here really did not do well, mentally or physically, when they were told they could not gather at bars or restaurants for months. And they really didnt like the disruptions to the sports seasons. The majority are not the extremist (be its very definition) that would actually be willing to give up football on Sunday to cosplay civil war 2.0. Also, the logistics are not there - not that I can see anyway. Many people would defend their home and cities, but wont be motivated to march thousands of miles into unfamiliar neighborhoods to get shot at by g'ma and a 8 y/o. I think people, even other Americans, underestimate the actual patriotism of people in this country.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  If we look back to a “time traveler,” John Titor we can see that the war will be between cities and rural areas. I can see how that could become true. Whether you believe he was an actual time traveler (or more precisely, a multi-verse traveler), is a whole different story…
tmaly 4y ago
I would have to think some of this is just availability bias cause by the focus of news outlets on if it bleeds it leads
t0bia_s 4y ago
News are in crisis and try to make more and more sensation articles like this. If creating parallel world is new normal for journalists then loosing trust of public in news is natural. I hope that manipulation and government propaganda pushed in news will be naturally eliminated. The question is, how far they will go to keep our attention.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
4% is roughly "Lizardman's Constant", i.e. the percentage of people who will answer "Yes" to poll questions no matter how ridiculous the question is, so I would hope most of them don't actually believe that they will shoot someone soon. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...
slowhand09 4y ago
I recommend you start with the excerpted 1st chapter of "Enemies, Foreign and Domestic". http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/excerpts/contents.html http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/excerpts/contents.html

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.

cafard 4y ago
a. Germany had recently lost a long and bloody war. b. The managing classes of Germany hadn't really bought in to the republic.

Imnimo 4y ago

I guess it depends on what you count as "over politics" - I think a lot of people would be willing to engage in violent resistance to something like "the president declares the constitution suspended and all elections indefinitely postponed", but not to something like "the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell vs Hodges". I find the referenced numbers perfectly plausible if they interpret the question to mean something like the former.

sorry_outta_gas 4y ago
After the summer of 2020 I wouldn't be shocked things sprial out of control fast
- sorry_outta_gas 4y ago
  I'm not sure on the downvotes, I'm speaking about the potential for social unrest and how easily it can be realized not the reasons behind them which everyone is free to agree or disagree with
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure that if a mob pressures the Senate into accepting a slate of "alternate electors", and that swings the Electoral College vote, there will be a very short period of time in which this could be shut down short of a civil war. For some lesser cause? Another murder of an unarmed black person, even by police, seems unlikely to cause it. Economic inequality? Doesn't look like it. Illegal aliens? Again, probably not. Climate change? Also no.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    > mob pressures the Senate into accepting a slate of "alternate electors" That would have to be one hell of a mob. How would they exert pressure? Unless their "pressure" is lawful then they'd just be arrested like the Jan 6 people.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago

humanistbot 4y ago

> Source is apparently a preprint (that is, not peer-reviewed) Virtually no political polling is. I know of no political polling agency/company that submits their polls to peer-reviewed journals.

jfzoid 4y ago

One thing that gives me comfort is that there is a difference between what they say on a poll, and what they actually do. Plenty of people are willing to say "I am willing to commit violence" on social media. My gut feeling is that if 4% say they will shoot someone, < 0.4% will actually do it.

notch656a 4y ago
A large fraction of people will shoot if someone they deem an authority figure says they have to and gives them a good reason to justify it.
- nomel 4y ago
  Reference please?
  - buscoquadnary 4y ago
    I'm assuming they are referencing the somewhat contentious Milgram Experiment.
    - trinovantes 4y ago
      Stanford prisoner experiment is also applicable
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Can you lay out the conditions under which you'll accept references? I've had a lot of issues before where I provide this sort of evidence and the counterparty relentlessly and tediously explains why every single source is either wrong or doesn't meet their arbitrary standards, so I want to be sure this won't be turned into one of those situations.
    - nomel 4y ago
      I'm genuinely interested in how that perspective came to be since it is, to my world view, a shocking and hard to believe claim. But, my surprise isn't worth anything. I'm unable to find search term that gives something relevant, so anything would help. But, I think it's a bit unfair to make, what appears to be, a very bold assertion, without explaining it or allowing criticism. I have no interest (or qualification) to criticize your sources, but I would hope that someone would criticize mine.

findalex 4y ago

> 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. God help us. It's almost impressive how biased this sample is. I'm dying to know what else the "Ipsos KnowledgePanel" thinks. Will report back with any eye rollers.

corrral 4y ago
> 7.1% of respondents said they'd be willing to kill someone over politics. I can only assume it's that low because people tend not to think very hard about poll questions, so are considering only some narrower-than-the-actual-question version of it that they've replaced it with in their heads. Or else a whole lot of people are very honest and don't think they'd be able to actually do it—should, yes, but would? Doubtful enough that they'd answer "no" to the question. I suspect it's the former because I doubt that many people would be open and introspective enough to admit they don't think they'd have the stomach to do things they think they should do. Try another angle with some extreme but plausible hypothetical scenarios rather than such a general question, and I bet that number shoots way up.

hinkley 4y ago

Hasn't 60% of the population of Texas expected a civil war soon for the last 100 years? And what are those rebel flags all about? It's posturing. Just like all of those surveys that say 50% of tech workers anticipate quitting this year. Nearly all the places that talk about secession are the same states that generate less federal tax revenue than they spend. Which is both why it would be a terrible idea, and why people get upset about it. Few people who know they are getting a handout enjoy having everybody else know it, and it makes them bristly.

malingo 4y ago
Reliance on the federal government, by state: https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal-government/ https://www.moneygeek.com/living/states-most-reliant-federal...
- hinkley 4y ago
  It's funny, I can find ten different charts of this. On some of them, Texas, Florida, and/or North Carolina are 'less dependent' and on others they are just as dependent as most of the rest. A few disagree about Tennessee, Missouri, and Georgia. But for the most part, they agree on just about every other state.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    It really depends on what those charts are based on, what they measure, how they scope dependency etc. but considering the scale of population and reliance on industrial processes there is practically no modern way of living that is reasonably locally sourced indefinitely. There are things that can be done with no dependency, but they themselves are not as useful without dependants. Take cobalt mining for example; it's not something you need anyone else for, but once you got all that cobalt, who's going to process it? Who is going to buy it? Same goes for more fundamental things like wheat and corn, either you do it at a small scale where you can't really live off of the returns, or you do it at a large scale but now you need dependants to buy it off of you. (in the concepts I wrote I assumed independence from an isolationists perspective which isn't realistic but somehow does seem to coincide with the not-very-well-thought-through independence wishers)

reaperducer 4y ago

Given how weird some of the internet surveys have been in the past year, I don't take singular polls all that seriously. While you're right that polling that has traditionally been spot-on, or very close in the past has occasionally been way off in the last five to ten years. However, isn't Ipsos a fairly well-respected organization in its field? The kind with enough experience and resources to account for any kind of biases? I'd like to see another big polling organization as the same questions and see if the results are the same. 4% of respondents were pretty sure they were going to kill someone soon So, if there's a 4% margin of error, it's could be either 8%, or 0%.

gmadsen 4y ago

10% also score too low on IQ tests to be accepted into the Army

nequo 4y ago

> 8,620 respondents, but I don't see how they were recruited This is from the PDF listed on the page that you linked: To establish a nationally representative panel, members are recruited on an ongoing basis through address-based probability sampling using data from the US Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. Recruited adults in households without internet access are provided a web-enabled device and free internet service. A probability-proportional-to-size procedure was used to select a study-specific sample. All panel members who were aged 18 years and older were eligible for selection. Invitations were sent by e-mail; automatic reminders were delivered to non-respondents by e-mail and telephone beginning 3 days later. A final survey weight variable provided by Ipsos adjusted for the initial probability of selection into KnowledgePanel and for survey-specific nonresponse and over- or under-coverage using design weights with post-stratification raking ratio adjustments. With weighting, the sample is designed to be statistically representative of the noninstitutionalized adult population of the US as reflected in the 2021 March supplement of the Current Population Survey.

antonymy 4y ago

The article itself espouses similar doubts from one of its subjects: >Barbara Walter, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, who was also not involved in the study, agrees. But she suspects the survey responses overrepresent the number of Americans who would be willing to turn to violence because, she says, surveys tend to overstate what people actually think. “The numbers always tend to be shocking, but in essence, are probably not true.” Hardly sensational to lead with "all this is probably BS" but that probably wouldn't get as many clicks. For sure the alarmist title got me to read it, only to wind up feeling I wasted my time.

pmyteh 4y ago

These panel surveys are reasonably good. The better pollsters (like Ipsos MORI) spend a decent amount of effort recruiting a broad sample of people for their panels, and results are statistically adjusted for non-response bias etc. That said, the usual problem with political polling (that you can only poll people willing to answer pollsters' questions) applies extra here, as all respondents have agreed to be part of a panel and be repeatedly surveyed. As most panels are done through the Internet, it's at least possible that the participants are more terminally online than the average American. That said, I don't think the results are crazy, on their face (though I don't myself expect a civil war). There are a number of groups openly proposing political violence, increased partisan polarisation, and a breakdown in the normal political processes (Congress has been essentially non-functional for a while, the Supreme Court have taken a decidedly activist turn, state legislatures are actively discussing subverting the next Presidential election, and trust in politicians of all parties is at historical lows). It's not clear how these will be resolved, and a further increase in political violence is certainly a possibility. Will that amount to civil war? Not close, in my view, but we live in unusual political times.

the_optimist 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- phs318u 4y ago
  Thanks for pointing out the other person’s bias. The demonstration by example in your second paragraph was particularly illuminating.
- czstar 4y ago
  One can find instances of corruption in any party that has sufficient power. Key members of the Republican Party tried to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021 so from my perspective the Republican Party is the one more deserving of ire. It is clear the Supreme Court is taking an activist stance. One member of the court has pretty much stated he is in favor of overturning previous rulings that granted sexual rights. The Court is now erring on the side of taking rights away rather than on increasing them or keeping the status quo in place.

russellbeattie 4y ago

In my opinion, the extreme right-wing is building themselves up to begin politicide. For the past year, we've seen daily news stories as Republican extremists don’t just say that Democrats are wrong, but that they are evil. This is a classic authoritarian method of vilifying your opponent both as corrupt and subhuman. Having just read about the Spanish Civil War, I can see how this will potentially play out. It will begin with a high profile assassination, then the extreme right will use the protests that will follow as justification for escalating violence, similar to the BLM protests. More violence. Maybe another high profile killing (on either side). Tit-for-tat murders begin, as they have in various government collapses around the world, especially in the 20th century. The extreme left will undoubtedly respond in various ways beyond protests as tensions grow and the right will use whatever happens as propaganda to enrage their already agitated base. Whacko conspiracy theories and disinformation will make Trump’s term seem like the golden age of truth. Moderate conservatives, moderate liberals and disengaged independents won't know what to believe. Meanwhile, in Congress, the conservatives who gain control in 2022 will grind the federal government to a halt with hearings and procedural moves. Then they’ll shut down the government with the budget. For months. While the federal government is incapacitated, there will be a huge right-wing rally in some red state with full-throated attacks on the left. The ramped up crowd will head off afterwards and destroy a bunch of businesses and homes of people they suspect as being “pedophiles”. There will be violence and killings, recorded and shared freely as conservatives celebrate, similar what happens with Kyle Rittenhouse's actions. The state’s governor and local law enforcement will make minimal effort to prevent it and results in no prosecutions, and the fed response will be slow, as usual, and ineffective despite presidential condemnation. This inspires other big events – full on Nuremberg style rallies – all over the country with similar results. Soon there will be skirmishes in the streets of major cities. The propaganda will be out of control, with front page stories, prime time videos and millions of social media posts filled with dead children and other atrocities, real or imagined. Then it will really hit the fan when a group of black or Latino protestors attack a group of random white people who they associate with the right-wing. This causes irrational fear among the white population, and seemingly overnight, every other white “liberal” across the country will become suspicious or outright fearful of anyone of color. Mothers will pull their children from schools, or insist on “temporary” segregation for their child’s safety. Who knows what those children of color might do. The violence ramps up as POC communities are targeted, with the justification of “proactive self-defense” Law enforcement does nothing beyond platitudes and Uvalde like responses to shootings. They may even be at the forefront of the effort. Fast forward and the 2024 election is fucking chaos. The entire right-wing will now accept nothing less than a win in literally every race, and it will be a presidential landslide anyways, because the Republicans are “pro law enforcement”, which, by this time means enforcement targeting mostly people of color and other “potentially dangerous leftists”. Americans have shown the memory of a goldfish and are easily scared. With violence spreading across the country, they’ll react by voting conservative, similar to after 9/11. Then the right will have full control of all branches of government and start to pass all the laws they want. In addition to their current agenda, they will pass laws which essentially allows legalized vigilantism and an Amendment which cancels presidential term limits and other restrictions. Trump is pardoned. California and other blue states respond, but the authoritarians in charge this time aren’t as stupid as Trump, learned the lessons he taught about the fragility of our laws, and use the power of the federal government to cripple the left through various voting restrictions intended to remove Democrats. It will all be “legal” and “constitutional” according to the right-wing SCOTUS. Eventually, the Democratic party will be officially declared an illegal organization because of its support for immoral lifestyles. The more the people rebel, the harder the states and feds crack down. Then, it’s all a matter of rounding up the remaining resistance and the country becomes a de facto authoritarian regime. That’s when politicide turns into policide. This is all a very probable future. We'll know it's starting with that first assassination. Look for it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

random-human 4y ago

>> 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. This says it all. The talk is there, social media (or any one who will listen) seems to be a popular public journal for people to vent feelings and use it as therapy. I even have friends that txt their anxiety about the political situation and when it reaches peek anxiety, the words civil war get thrown in there. But, it's clearly just a way to release the temporary anxiety they are feeling after having spent too much time consuming click-bait media - most people are too comfortable and self-serving in their lives to engage in long term life and death violence. People here really did not do well, mentally or physically, when they were told they could not gather at bars or restaurants for months. And they really didnt like the disruptions to the sports seasons. The majority are not the extremist (be its very definition) that would actually be willing to give up football on Sunday to cosplay civil war 2.0. Also, the logistics are not there - not that I can see anyway. Many people would defend their home and cities, but wont be motivated to march thousands of miles into unfamiliar neighborhoods to get shot at by g'ma and a 8 y/o. I think people, even other Americans, underestimate the actual patriotism of people in this country.

withinboredom 4y ago
If we look back to a “time traveler,” John Titor we can see that the war will be between cities and rural areas. I can see how that could become true. Whether you believe he was an actual time traveler (or more precisely, a multi-verse traveler), is a whole different story…

tmaly 4y ago

I would have to think some of this is just availability bias cause by the focus of news outlets on if it bleeds it leads

t0bia_s 4y ago

News are in crisis and try to make more and more sensation articles like this. If creating parallel world is new normal for journalists then loosing trust of public in news is natural. I hope that manipulation and government propaganda pushed in news will be naturally eliminated. The question is, how far they will go to keep our attention.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago

4% is roughly "Lizardman's Constant", i.e. the percentage of people who will answer "Yes" to poll questions no matter how ridiculous the question is, so I would hope most of them don't actually believe that they will shoot someone soon. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and-reptilian-muslim-climatologists-from-mars/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/12/noisy-poll-results-and...

slowhand09 4y ago

I recommend you start with the excerpted 1st chapter of "Enemies, Foreign and Domestic". http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/excerpts/contents.html http://enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/excerpts/contents.html