Civil War coming ?

[Vas Deferens]

Honestly like contributions from both of you, but animus is so over-bearing…. I know you both feel it, but don’t think you take into account what it does to the greater board discussion.

Do with that as you wish. I’m going to break tradition and start an open ended question to PnR tomorrow which I hope you can both drop all past bs contribute the brain power I know you both have.

That is all.

[GMDino]

(07-14-2022, 01:57 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Honestly like contributions from both of you, but animus is so over-bearing…. I know you both feel it, but don’t think you take into account what it does to the greater board discussion.  

Do with that as you wish.   I’m going to break tradition and start an open ended question to PnR tomorrow which I hope you can both drop all past bs contribute the brain power I know you both have.  

That is all.

Thanks for the kind words.

[bengaloo]

Maybe there will be a civil war for some folks in America, but not for me. I will refuse to take part in it. That would mean that I was brainwashed and allowed a bunch of bumbling idiots in politics and media make me hate my fellow Americans so bad, I want to fight them. Just turn off the news, social media, and go outside. Go hang out with people who vote differently than you, and dont speak of politics at all, and you'll see that people get along just fine.

If anyone takes part in something like this, let them take each other out. What we will be left with are the level-headed people. Fine by me. Have at it, fools.

[Dill]

(07-17-2022, 09:04 AM)bengaloo Wrote: Maybe there will be a civil war for some folks in America, but not for me. I will refuse to take part in it. That would mean that I was brainwashed and allowed a bunch of bumbling idiots in politics and media make me hate my fellow Americans so bad, I want to fight them. Just turn off the news, social media, and go outside. Go hang out with people who vote differently than you, and dont speak of politics at all, and you'll see that people get along just fine.

If anyone takes part in something like this, let them take each other out. What we will be left with are the level-headed people. Fine by me. Have at it, fools.

You would not defend yourself or your family if attacked then? 

[Dill]

(07-13-2022, 05:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very fair to add them.  Let's look at just that time frame then.  10.3 deaths a year.  That's still an average week or two in Chicago.  So, again, it's definitely a problem that law enforcement should be concerned with.  But is it the grave threat it is frequently represented as?  

I've stated many times I'm not following the hearings.  Exactly what white supremacist are you referring to here?

The vast majority of the instances listed were lone wolf attacks.  There will certainly be copy cats, especially from people who share those views.  I've heard the replacement theory attack many times.  I've seen clips that Tucker has been accused of making that argument.  The replacement theory is that Jews are intentionally attempting to eliminate Caucasians through mass immigration and "race mixing" (their word not mine).  Carlson has argued that Dems do not stop illegal immigration because they benefit from it politically as new immigrants tend to vote Democrat.  Shockingly enough, this was a commonly stated position on this very board, well the old board at least, stated without a hint of racial animus.

I'm a little late getting back to this, as I am still driving around Montana with spotty wifi.

1. You are still missing my point about your focus on quantitative rather than qualitative assessment. Only one death in Charlottesville, so no biggie? 

2. White supremacistS. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/06/tarrio-proud-boys-seditious-conpiracy/

3. What you call "lone wolf" attacks are on the rise and connected by a shared and ever-widely disseminating ideology, not only in the U.S. but internationally. And the ones that are not "lone", like the Capitol insurrection, are especially concerning, because, as I said, of their linkages to major political and media actors in the U.S. Trump was not telling Chicago gangs to "stand by" during his debate with Biden. Roger Stone did not contract Crips or Bloods for personal protection while in CA in 2018. 

It appears you are compartmentalizing its acts and actors, disconnecting them from the field of social forces acting on them and with them. 
That makes it very difficult to assess potential threats accurately.

You have only seen videos in which Tucker was "accused" of disseminating the replacement theory, not videos of him actually doing it? 

Perhaps we can agree on the Britannica's definition of the replacement theory, which doesn't limit it to Jewish origin--
https://www.britannica.com/topic/replacement-theory

replacement theory, also called great replacement theory or great replacement, in the United States and certain other Western countries whose populations are mostly white, a far-right conspiracy theory alleging, in one of its versions, that left-leaning domestic or international elites, on their own initiative or under the direction of Jewish co-conspirators, are attempting to replace white citizens with nonwhite (i.e., Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Arab) immigrants. The immigrants’ increased presence in white countries, as the theory goes, in combination with their higher birth rates as compared with those of whites, will enable new nonwhite majorities in those countries to take control of national political and economic institutions, to dilute or destroy their host countries’ distinctive cultures and societies, and eventually to eliminate the host countries’ white populations. Some adherents of replacement theory have characterized these predicted changes as “white genocide.”

Perhaps we can also agree on Britannica's assessment of its broad hold on the Republican Party. Or do you still see this ascription as merely an "attack" and not also description?

...in part because of its endorsement by right-wing media and in part because Trump, in his own way, had signaled his support of racism toward people of colour (e.g., by indulging in racist slurs, by accepting the support of prominent avowed racists, and by refusing to condemn—or only reluctantly condemning—racist violence), key aspects of replacement theory came to be accepted by nearly half of Republicans and by a third of all Americans by 2022. Some Republican politicians endorsed the theory as a way of appealing to far-right members of their party and of demonstrating, to some degree, their continued loyalty to Trump.

[bengaloo]

(07-17-2022, 02:19 PM)Dill Wrote: You would not defend yourself or your family if attacked then? 

I wont have to. 

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2022, 09:04 AM)bengaloo Wrote: Maybe there will be a civil war for some folks in America, but not for me. I will refuse to take part in it. That would mean that I was brainwashed and allowed a bunch of bumbling idiots in politics and media make me hate my fellow Americans so bad, I want to fight them. Just turn off the news, social media, and go outside. Go hang out with people who vote differently than you, and dont speak of politics at all, and you'll see that people get along just fine.

If anyone takes part in something like this, let them take each other out. What we will be left with are the level-headed people. Fine by me. Have at it, fools.

Were a civil war to break out it wouldn't be because of disdain for our fellow citizens. The issue at hand would be over the government and the way in which is represents (or doesn't) the citizenry. It would happen because efforts at the ballot box fail. I think you don't quite understand the situation.

[bengaloo]

(07-17-2022, 02:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Were a civil war to break out it wouldn't be because of disdain for our fellow citizens. The issue at hand would be over the government and the way in which is represents (or doesn't) the citizenry. It would happen because efforts at the ballot box fail. I think you don't quite understand the situation.

I know that I've been hearing this for 30 years now. I know that where I live is pretty much impervious to it regardless. 

BUT if it comes down to citizens vs government, then its not a civil war. Its a revolution. Big difference. It would take both sides actually uniting to pull that off. So screw it, have at it. Remember in the first revolution, only 3% of the colonists fought though. It would likely take more now, with all of the advanced weapons and the stronghold the 3 letter agencies have on spying.

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2022, 03:24 PM)bengaloo Wrote: I know that I've been hearing this for 30 years now. I know that where I live is pretty much impervious to it regardless. 

BUT if it comes down to citizens vs government, then its not a civil war. Its a revolution. Big difference. It would take both sides actually uniting to pull that off. So screw it, have at it. Remember in the first revolution, only 3% of the colonists fought though. It would likely take more now, with all of the advanced weapons and the stronghold the 3 letter agencies have on spying.

Well, our first Civil War was citizens v. government, as well. We shall see.

[bengaloo]

(07-17-2022, 04:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, our first Civil War was citizens v. government, as well. We shall see.

Will we go 2-0 lol? 

Tbh, the revolutionary war was definitely citizens vs government. The civil war different, but the revolutionary war and bill of rights laid the groundwork for the civil war. The framers were going to end slavery when they were writing the documents, but the southern colonies didnt agree with it and refused to sign on if it meant they had to free their slaves. Honestly, most of the northern colonist free their slaves back then, which is how it became north vs south in the civil war. Thankfully, the language of the constitution and bill of rights allowed it all to happen and it was written that way for that purpose. I'm glad were were one of the first industrialized nations to end slavery.

But todays issues are much like the revolutionary war. Taxation without representation. An over-reaching out of control government that uses too much of our money for bad things that hurt us more than help. Both parties are guilty of it and have been for a long long time.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2022, 02:23 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm a little late getting back to this, as I am still driving around Montana with spotty wifi.

1. You are still missing my point about your focus on quantitative rather than qualitative assessment. Only one death in Charlottesville, so no biggie?

For the person killed and their family, absolutely.  Are you saying the one person killed there is more important the the multiple people murdered in Chicago on any given weekend?

Quote:2. White supremacistS. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/06/tarrio-proud-boys-seditious-conpiracy/

I don't recall anyone saying there was only one.

Quote:3. What you call "lone wolf" attacks are on the rise and connected by a shared and ever-widely disseminating ideology, not only in the U.S. but internationally. And the ones that are not "lone", like the Capitol insurrection, are especially concerning, because, as I said, of their linkages to major political and media actors in the U.S. Trump was not telling Chicago gangs to "stand by" during his debate with Biden. Roger Stone did not contract Crips or Bloods for personal protection while in CA in 2018. 

Islamic terrorism was certainly "on the rise" in the early 2000's.  That hasn't stopped you from claiming the US governments response to it to be heavy handed.  Perhaps you find something more threatening when it comes from the other end of the ideological spectrum?

Quote:It appears you are compartmentalizing its acts and actors, disconnecting them from the field of social forces acting on them and with them. 
That makes it very difficult to assess potential threats accurately.

That's a very interesting set of points.  Equally interesting is how it equally applies to actors that don't seem to bother you as much.

Quote:You have only seen videos in which Tucker was "accused" of disseminating the replacement theory, not videos of him actually doing it? 

That's not what I said.  Please kindly restrict yourself to accurate quotations.  The opposite is extremely tedious.

Quote:Perhaps we can agree on the Britannica's definition of the replacement theory, which doesn't limit it to Jewish origin--
https://www.britannica.com/topic/replacement-theory

replacement theory, also called great replacement theory or great replacement, in the United States and certain other Western countries whose populations are mostly white, a far-right conspiracy theory alleging, in one of its versions, that left-leaning domestic or international elites, on their own initiative or under the direction of Jewish co-conspirators, are attempting to replace white citizens with nonwhite (i.e., Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Arab) immigrants. The immigrants’ increased presence in white countries, as the theory goes, in combination with their higher birth rates as compared with those of whites, will enable new nonwhite majorities in those countries to take control of national political and economic institutions, to dilute or destroy their host countries’ distinctive cultures and societies, and eventually to eliminate the host countries’ white populations. Some adherents of replacement theory have characterized these predicted changes as “white genocide.”

Perhaps we can also agree on Britannica's assessment of its broad hold on the Republican Party. Or do you still see this ascription as merely an "attack" and not also description?

Fascinating.  You agree with my assessment of the conspiracy theory around 90-95%, but found a way to slightly separate it from the origins of being a Zionist led conspiracy.  I must say, you ability to latch on the slightest variance to attempt to prove a much larger point is endlessly interesting to me.  It's almost like you're terrified of ever conceding a point and are reduced to parsing hairs.

[Dill]

(07-17-2022, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't recall anyone saying there was only one.

I'll recall for you, from your post # 54: 

(07-13-2022, 05:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've stated many times I'm not following the hearings.  Exactly what white supremacist are you referring to here?

Plural or singular is not the issue. You asked "who?"; I answered. And the point was to show that white supremacists are not all isolated lone wolves, but "mainstreaming" into one of the two major parties.  If you want to keep the discussion on track, then respond to THAT point.

(07-13-2022, 05:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've heard the replacement theory attack many times.  I've seen clips that Tucker has been accused of making that argument.  The replacement theory is that Jews are intentionally attempting to eliminate Caucasians through mass immigration and "race mixing" (their word not mine).  Carlson has argued that Dems do not stop illegal immigration because they benefit from it politically as new immigrants tend to vote Democrat.  Shockingly enough, this was a commonly stated position on this very board, well the old board at least, stated without a hint of racial animus.

Dill: You have only seen videos in which Tucker was "accused" of disseminating the replacement theory, not videos of him actually doing it? 

(07-17-2022, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's not what I said.  Please kindly restrict yourself to accurate quotations.  The opposite is extremely tedious.

I asked you to clarify what you quoted, and restricted myself to "accurate quotations" by quoting exactly the passage which raised the question.

So there is no "inaccurate quotation," only a question you still have not answered. 
Have you seen videos of Tucker disseminating the replacement theory, or do you think he is only "accused" of that? 

If your answer is: "I plainly said that Tucker has argued elements of the replacement theory, as have others on the older board and without racial animus."  Then I won't digress on your use of the word "accused" but proceed to my next question--

Do you think that it possible to deploy the replacement theory in U.S. politics without racial animus?

And while we are on the subject of accurate quotation, I'd like to see a source for the first bolded below. I have no idea what you are referring to here--my opposition to government-sanctioned torture? to the Iraq War, to strategic errors in A-stan? Vague references to my "posting history" won't do. I need a thread titles and post #s. That or stop attributing false claims to me. 

(07-17-2022, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Islamic terrorism was certainly "on the rise" in the early 2000's.  That hasn't stopped you from claiming the US governments response to it to be heavy handed.  Perhaps you find something more threatening when it comes from the other end of the ideological spectrum?

To the final bolded, on which end of the ideological spectrum are you placing the "Islamic" terrorists you keep referencing as we discuss the threat of white supremacy? With the pro-choice, pro-feminist, pro-democracy, pro-science secular "left"? 

[Dill]

Dill 1.  You are still missing my point about your focus on quantitative rather than qualitative assessment. Only one death in Charlottesville, so no biggie? Wrote:For the person killed and their family, absolutely.  Are you saying the one person killed there is more important the the multiple people murdered in Chicago on any given weekend?

(07-17-2022, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's not what I said.  Please kindly restrict yourself to accurate quotations.  The opposite is extremely tedious.

I don't think you REALLY missed my point, but just in case--

When the DHS and others assess the threat of white supremacist terror, they don't just count bodies. They also consider numbers of believers, growth potential and quality of influence--access to power and what kind. That will determine whether, where and how resources are to be deployed. They are also assessing a defined and circumscribed kind of crime--terrorism--which is different from a gun suicide or a road rage shooting or a robbery victim--all of whom may be important to their respective families.

If DHS and FBI personnel are in a room actively assessing data to determine terrorist threats, the guy who walks in insisting "every person killed means something to their family; are you saying white supremacist victims are more important?" will signal he just doesn't follow what's going on. He'll just be in the way. But no one on the various teams actually making these assessments is going to spout such non starters.

Why can't we in this forum operate more systematically and professionally like the guys in that room?

[Dill]

(07-17-2022, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Perhaps we can agree on the Britannica's definition of the replacement theory, which doesn't limit it to Jewish origin--

https://www.britannica.com/topic/replacement-theory

replacement theory, also called great replacement theory or great replacement, in the United States and certain other Western countries whose populations are mostly white, a far-right conspiracy theory alleging, in one of its versions, that left-leaning domestic or international elites, on their own initiative or under the direction of Jewish co-conspirators, are attempting to replace white citizens with nonwhite (i.e., Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Arab) immigrants. The immigrants’ increased presence in white countries, as the theory goes, in combination with their higher birth rates as compared with those of whites, will enable new nonwhite majorities in those countries to take control of national political and economic institutions, to dilute or destroy their host countries’ distinctive cultures and societies, and eventually to eliminate the host countries’ white populations. Some adherents of replacement theory have characterized these predicted changes as “white genocide.”

Perhaps we can also agree on Britannica's assessment of its broad hold on the Republican Party. Or do you still see this ascription as merely an "attack" and not also description?

Fascinating.  You agree with my assessment of the conspiracy theory around 90-95%, but found a way to slightly separate it from the origins of being a Zionist led conspiracy.  I must say, you ability to latch on the slightest variance to attempt to prove a much larger point is endlessly interesting to me.  It's almost like you're terrified of ever conceding a point and are reduced to parsing hairs.

?? You mean the replacement theory, right? Why do you think I agree with your "assessment" of it? We are arguing right now because we do not agree on the threat level of white supremacist terrorism or on its "mainstreaming" into U.S. politics and the republican party.  I am still waiting to see if you think replacement theory can be separated from white supremacy. That separation would be useful to someone minimizing the threat of white supremacist terrorism, but not to someone like me who thinks white supremacy as serious threat to democracy, terrorist or not.

As for the rest, can you at all specify what point you think I am "terrified of ever conceding"? Or the "larger point" proved by the Britannica definition's "slightest variance" from yours? 

I asked if you could agree to the Britannica definition, and to its claim that half the Republican Party espouses it. Can you agree or disagree without red herrings? Is the Britannica wrong, if so why? If you think they are correct, or at least reflect a consensus view of political/social scientists, then perhaps our assessments do match 90-95%. If you cannot give me a direct answer, and support your answer with something more than bare assertion (what you call "opinion") then stop accusing me of being terrified to concede points.

[Dill]

(07-17-2022, 02:50 PM)bengaloo Wrote: I wont have to. 

??

So if armed groups are raging up and down the streets, sometimes in desperate need of food or ammo or gas or billeting, or one hides on your porch with a gang chasing him, you and your family are still good?

No armed gang will ever demand to know which side you are on and whether you are a traitor, or even if they do they'll be satisfied with your answers because 

... you told them to "have at it fools" or that you are not "brainwashed" like them? 

Has there ever been a civil war in which people could feel safe shopping or playing baseball in the park
while factions fight around them--by simply turning off the tv?

It sounds like you are saying you could. Have I understood you correctly?

[bengaloo]

(07-18-2022, 04:17 AM)Dill Wrote: ??

So if armed groups are raging up and down the streets, sometimes in desperate need of food or ammo or gas or billeting, or one hides on your porch with a gang chasing him, you and your family are still good?

No armed gang will ever demand to know which side you are on and whether you are a traitor, or even if they do they'll be satisfied with your answers because 

... you told them to "have at it fools" or that you are not "brainwashed" like them? 

Has there ever been a civil war in which people could feel safe shopping or playing baseball in the park
while factions fight around them--by simply turning off the tv?

It sounds like you are saying you could. Have I understood you correctly?

I dont live anywhere near those. It takes me at least 30 minutes to get to a place with streets lol. There are no gangs here, and none will ever be here. They would have to fight their way through some pretty die hard country rednecks to even get 5 miles from me. That is how far the nearest community is from me. But that wont happen, because the kind of folks who would do that arent looking for a scenic nature escape. None of them would make it in nature even if they did.

But of course I would defend myself if it came down to it. The few neighbors I do have would certainly help. We are a pretty close nit group of folks up on this mountain.

Personally, I think if all this were to happen, it would not be widespread. There would be hotspots and central locations where the action is. Especially if its citizens vs government. If its truly a revolution, then the people will go to where their perceived enemies are. It really wouldnt be a whole lot different in a civil war. The hot spots would be cities, and imo, not all of them would even be hot spots. The entire population would never take part in this. It would be 10% or less based on history, which is around 32-33 million people, which is around twice the size of China's entire army for example.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Not sure why people think there will be a civil war.
Extremist factions on the Left and Right won't exactly collaborate, as there is a ton of belief issues between them, and if one "was to win" they would instill a totalitarian style government in order to push their beliefs on to everyone else, which wouldn't even go over on the majority and would result with them getting thrown out.

With that said, any group that tries, will be taken out faster than a monkey flings poo.

So I'm not sure why some of you even think this is a remote possibility???

[samhain]

I have to wonder sometimes, as I sit here with my tinfoil hat on, whether the current political animus in this country is manufactured or organic.

I know and live/work with countless people that I disagree with politically, and yet it doesn't change my relationship with the vast majority of them. The only place that gets sideways is the internet, and that's likely because opinion is largely the only thing you know about people you meet there.

When it comes to impactful issues, most people in the US want similar outcomes. They want to be left alone, they want a good economy, and they want safety and security. It's strange to see people fighting over things that impact very few people and are largely private matters.

I think we've basically become a society of shiftless losers. People wear politics like uniforms. Their opinions define them. It's like they have no other accomplishment to really be proud of. When I see someone who's really passionate about politics and I can't see their path to grift, I assume that they don't have much else going for them.

I can't imagine a person with a job, 401k, kids and the ability to do something fun on occasion taking the time to plot violent revolution.

Then again, the farther we get from the American Dream, perhaps the closer we get to societal collapse. Has life here gotten so bad that it's time to tear it down? Idk. It would have to get a hell of a lot worse for me.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2022, 11:08 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Not sure why people think there will be a civil war.
Extremist factions on the Left and Right won't exactly collaborate, as there is a ton of belief issues between them, and if one "was to win" they would instill a totalitarian style government in order to push their beliefs on to everyone else, which wouldn't even go over on the majority and would result with them getting thrown out.

With that said, any group that tries, will be taken out faster than a monkey flings poo.

So I'm not sure why some of you even think this is a remote possibility???

(07-18-2022, 03:18 PM)samhain Wrote: I have to wonder sometimes, as I sit here with my tinfoil hat on, whether the current political animus in this country is manufactured or organic.  

I know and live/work with countless people that I disagree with politically, and yet it doesn't change my relationship with the vast majority of them.  The only place that gets sideways is the internet, and that's likely because opinion is largely the only thing you know about people you meet there.  

When it comes to impactful issues, most people in the US want similar outcomes.  They want to be left alone, they want a good economy, and they want safety and security.  It's strange to see people fighting over things that impact very few people and are largely private matters.  

I think we've basically become a society of shiftless losers.  People wear politics like uniforms.  Their opinions define them.  It's like they have no other accomplishment to really be proud of.  When I see someone who's really passionate about politics and I can't see their path to grift, I assume that they don't have much else going for them.  

I can't imagine a person with a job, 401k, kids and the ability to do something fun on occasion taking the time to plot violent revolution.  

Then again, the farther we get from the American Dream, perhaps the closer we get to societal collapse.  Has life here gotten so bad that it's time to tear it down?  Idk.  It would have to get a hell of a lot worse for me.

Combining these to give one answer:

Some people REALLY want a civil war.  They are completely brainwashed into thinking that "the government" is out to get them: their guns, their money, their land, etc.

Throw in some good old fashioned political trickery pushing the "them vs us" narrative: homosexual agenda, transgenders are groomers, they want your guns, they're indoctrinating your kids, etc.

But most people are too comfortable to want to fight.  We have 24 hour entertainment and general feeling that nothing we can do will help.

So I don't think we'll have a civil war either.  But I think we will always hear about the people who want one.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-18-2022, 04:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: Combining these to give one answer:

Some people REALLY want a civil war.  They are completely brainwashed into thinking that "the government" is out to get them: their guns, their money, their land, etc.

Throw in some good old fashioned political trickery pushing the "them vs us" narrative: homosexual agenda, transgenders are groomers, they want your guns, they're indoctrinating your kids, etc.

But most people are too comfortable to want to fight.  We have 24 hour entertainment and general feeling that nothing we can do will help.

So I don't think we'll have a civil war either.  But I think we will always hear about the people who want one.

I personally know a guy who is 100% on board with the second Civil War. Self proclaimed Boogalo Boy. A political vegan (that's what I call libertarians, btw).

He looks exactly how you think he does.