Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 am

barbarianhorde wrote:Families got divided by this war, where this isn't normally the case as much, not even in civil war.


Um, actually, it is a hallmark of all civil wars.

I hesitate to accept Germany's as a civil war, for similar reasons as the US's. Was there a Germany? If anything, that it split families makes the case that it was in fact.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:04 am

I remember my father, in a period where he became obsessed with the Spanish civil war, always highlighted that aspect most. How terrifyingly destructive civil war is, for that very reason.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:05 am

"Brothers turn against brothers," he would always say.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:13 am

I agree that things have changed in these last 3 years. We were expecting some resistance, but also perhaps were expecting the clear sanity of the ideas to eventually win over hearts. That the left only dug in, crazyfied, showed a disease we didn't realize was so progressed.

We, the defectors, the Trump lovers (for this includes defectors from the Republicans, lest you forget), felt like Obama betrayed us by using his good promises to expand the fascist state. We thought this would be made clear to all, or most, but it turns out most people wanted precisely that. It is precisely that which they loved about Obama.

We still haven't fully wrapped our heads around it.

But I want to be the dude that says it here, there is not even civil war on the horizon. The disease is real, but the "war" is already being fought. They want to destroy Trump politically, as you say. But they haven't yet. And I put the odds against them, for sanity gives a clear strategic advantage.

Just look. Take a cold look. We have suffered set-backs and disillusionments, but Trump has tectonically shifted the direction of things. He has established a new normal, still imperceptible to most, certainly to leftists. Also to the loonies on the right, who think it will be their time.

Negus.

What Trump is doing will not be fully felt until the earthquake is over and the plates have settled.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:21 am

Sorry, did some wikipediaing. Forgive the standard foreigner's indolence.

The 30 year's war does constitute civil war, for it was an inward one within the civil society, not between rival kingdoms per se, where ideas split members into bands. It's hard to describe why, but it is a civil war.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:25 am

In Venezuela there is a period, between the fall of the Great Colombia and about 1900, about 100 years give or take, that isn't even actually studied in school. It is just glossed over as the "Federal Wars," because the chaos was such that historiography is impossible. It was basically a 100 year civil war, of brothers against brothers. Until it was mostly mothers left. Some say that's why we are so matriarchal.

I know civil war. It is in my DNA. It is literally not possible to discern sides, much less choose them. There are ideas at the very beginning that split people, federalist vs centrist, conservative vs liberal, democrat vs autocrat. But in very short order it devolves into looting bands and vendettas. Like, fast.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:28 am

I'm actually counting from 1810, when the independence war started. That, too, was brothers against brothers. Literally.

Simon Bolivar's sister was a Spanish loyalist.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:45 am

I may have simplified some things, but the literature is out there. On the Spanish war, for example, volumes. From both sides.

In the past, with sabres and black powder rifles, it was easier for chaos to take hold. And in Venezuela, we never had the discipline to constitute an army, which was what gave the fascists in Spain the advantage needed to win. If left to the communists and anarchists, the sheer disorganization and lack of discipline would have ensured the state I described of bands and vendettas.

That is the actually only serious reason to avoid civil war. It is a no brainer win for the military. Some may defect, some always do, but the core always remains intact. And when the coins fall, the army is always on the army's side. See: Spain, Egypt, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, France.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat May 18, 2019 2:48 am

Fuck. Even in trying to describe it, civil war is an un-unomelletteable omellette.

Just a... fucking... mess.
Pedro I Rengel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1646
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Del Ivers » Sat May 18, 2019 4:20 am

barbarianhorde wrote: I see leftists as snakes with no loyalty.

Loyalty to whom? To what?

barbarianhorde wrote:Then you ought to come to the right.
Its the people on the left who prevent expression.

So you're saying that if I come to the Right I will find people that will allow me and others to express our right to be, for example, pro-choice? That what just happened in Alabama is nothing more than an bunch of good ol' boys just having a laugh on those Liberals? That I and others can express whatever religion we wish even if it isn't Christian? That we can even be atheists? That the Left, or even moderately Left, can have their own space with no worries about legislative incursions from the right? If you really believe that, then you're not on the same page as the Right. Different chapter maybe, but not on the same page.

barbarianhorde wrote:Oh my .... youve been been reading too many Facebook posts and newspapers.
What you think the right is is precisely what the right is not.
The left projects its own shadow.

I and many others don't need Facebook or other social media to inform our opinion, we've lived the actual history of many of these concerns before there was an internet.

And please inform me as to precisely what the Right is and how it doesn't project its own shadow.

barbarianhorde wrote:People could have just respected American democracy and worked with the president. But instead news networks threatened to kill him.

People on the Left do respect American democracy, if they didn't then the Right wouldn't encounter opposition. What they've learned not to respect is the Right's support of a president who cares nothing about democracy, who cares only about himself, his "brand", and his money. Who one moment said he was fine with transparency and whatever investigations reveal because he had nothing to hide, and then later turns around and obstructs all information from those investigations. What is that if not someone trying to suppress the facts? Or do you think like many others on the Right that they are 'fake' facts.

Did news networks try to 'kill' Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.? They certainly criticized them but at least the mentioned presidents had the guts to answer the media's questions directly and stood their ground without resorting to hiding behind the mommy-skirt of Twitter crying out petulant accusations of 'fake news', 'bad people', 'liars', 'witch-hunt', 'alternative facts', and a long list of other nonsense.

barbarianhorde wrote:The lefts seem to have no idea what they've done to us yet.

The Right seems oblivious as to what the current presidential administration has already done to them. And if you are as you say, an extension of the moderate right, then surely you know that many on the moderate right think said administration is an insult to moderate right principles.

barbarianhorde wrote:..condemn the fascistic FBI bureaucracy, the fascistic CNN machinery..

Yes, condemn anything and anyone that doesn't show you 'loyalty'. Reminds me of someone who had the same attitude around 86 years ago.

barbarianhorde wrote:this is something nature simply won't be able to support for very much longer.

Then extend nature to where sooner or later the ground will be shifting for the Right and its misnomer of a president. It already is in some ways but you won't hear that on Fox News.

By the way, Mr. Horde, you answered the first question: " If Id live there id be armed".. Does that mean you're an expat, or a citizen from another country, or what? It helps in the sense of from what vantage point you're defending the Right. Whether you would be committed to actual participation in a conflict here or if you're more armchairing it from there. If the latter, that's fine. But I'm sure you can see why it does matter.
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat May 18, 2019 6:44 am

Del Ivers wrote:"How would Trump's hardcore supporters react to the removal of their president for a high crime or misdemeanor that fell somewhat short of a triple ax murder? Not with equanimity, you can be assured. Does that matter? Maybe not. But the "civil war" cited in the New Yorker article was not of armies marching across fields, but of civil unrest — a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem.
Civil unrest is not a civil war. I asked because it seems assumed what this war would be. In the previous civil war the federal government did not have the kind of military might that can instantly reach many places. I have no idea what you are thinking of, what it would mena in the modern context. Who the groups fighting are.. Etc. And yet it is as if we could answer what we would be doing on the ground.

Many of your answers are about, "it depends". Yes, there are many variables to consider in such a scenario of conflict. But whatever they may be the overriding reality would be as the quote says, 'a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem'. If one happens to find themselves dealing with angry people and mayhem then 'it depends' would still be an element in your decisions but with very little of the ease which we can discuss it here on a forum in times where the center is still holding.
I've been through rioting periods and there have been widespread periods of rioting. That's not civil war. Adn most people were not directly affected.

If you see a tornado in the distance and it's coming in your direction your decisions have to be quick and underlying them there has to be a sense that you will succeed. The strength of that sense is the chance that you give yourself. Some will say 50/50, others will go more in one direction or the other. My bet is that those who keep it at 50/50 or higher in their favor are going to do better than others. If that is wild speculation, then that is what is needed to increase your chances of survival.
I don't think so. For reasons i don't need to go into I am very safe in the types of scenarios you are now raising which are not civil war. My answers to the questions if it was civil war are very relevent to making any kind of rational answer.

In this conflict the only [i]immediate framing would be to stabilize the situation.
No there would be media and government explanations of who the people causing unrest were - criminals, terrorists, rogue factions of the military, etc. Just as in previous unrests and in previous civial wars. All groups will be trying to get people to view the situaion as they frame it. And those who can do this well, especially in relation to the military and law enforcement stand to win. if they do this well fast, there will not be a civilar war. And civil unrest will be something they can put down without watching their backs the whole time. (not saying who is right or wrong here, just ppointing out that framing is important and always done and done in a hurry because it affects costs, outcomes, winning and more.

As to how much the military, and for that matter the National Guard and police, would follow the framing intended for stability is also of concern. Just because they're wearing uniforms and badges does not mean that some of them won't themselves be, "people causing a lot of mayhem." Look at history and you'll find numerous examples of the protectors becoming wolves.
Of course, but this is all just air. I hae no idea if this will be unrest, a coup, an actual large split involving military and law enforcement going to two or more sides, etc.

It's like asking what you would do if problems arise. Well, it depends.

One can armchair as much as they want about actions depending on this, that, or the other, but when the pilot light triggers the flames it's time to get up from the chair and act with the sole purpose of survival.
I can't get up from the chair in a response to a post in the thread. Of course we are armchairing, this is a philosophy discussion forum.

Here's an article about what might happen if Trump is defeated in 2020. Read it.

"Those who assume otherwise haven’t been paying attention."
Which also could lead to an incredibly wide range of scenarios.[/quote]

Look, it's fine to raise the issue of possible unrest to possible civil war, but you asked a bunch of questions where which particular set of scenarios affects radically what we would do, how we would think. The expectation that we could possibly answer a number of those questions makes me think there is some foundational confusion.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Sat May 18, 2019 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby barbarianhorde » Sat May 18, 2019 8:57 am

Karpel you show yourself to be utterly inhuman. You've taken in nothing about the lives Trump has saved abroad. You don't care. IM SICKENED.

Im leaving this site for good now.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat May 18, 2019 9:09 am

barbarianhorde wrote:Karpel you show yourself to be utterly inhuman. You've taken in nothing about the lives Trump has saved abroad. You don't care. IM SICKENED.

Im leaving this site for good now.
I don't know what you're talking about, man. I am responding to ideas about civil war. I have presented no compliments or critiques of Trump here.

I did mess up putting quotes around Ivers link, maybe that's causing the problem. But if my previous post was the last drop, you are close to fed up....
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby promethean75 » Sat May 18, 2019 2:38 pm

Im leaving this site for good now.


Yeah yeah. More empty promises. *sigh*
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Del Ivers » Sat May 18, 2019 5:15 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Civil unrest is not a civil war.

The expectation that we could possibly answer a number of those questions makes me think there is some foundational confusion.

Go to Google and input, "will there be a civil war in the united states 2019". It gives 664 million as results of the search. Even if it were only 664 the basic idea is that as put forth in the Merriam-Webster definition of civil war: 'A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.'

You can argue as much as you want about the semantics of it, how it depends which definition is used and which word applies best. But it's the optics, the actual, palpable scenario of it that will matter to those who would be experiencing the conflict. If a large number of civilians start to throw rocks, bottles, incendiary devices, or send bullets in each other's direction it won't matter what it's called, what will matter is how to survive it.

Let's look at the facts: I live in Nevada. In 2017 the ATF statistics noted that there were 76,888 registered guns in the state. Remember, that's only 'registered'. We don't have to put on our thinking caps to figure that the number of 'unregistered' guns would be enough for, as the article stated, "a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem". And here's an extra dash of salt: Nevada does not require the registration of firearms.

Now, take all of that and read this: "..those who see owning a gun as central to their overall identity are particularly committed to gun ownership. For example, 89% of gun owners who see owning a gun as very or somewhat important to their overall identity say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun, compared with 58% of those who say owning a gun is not too important or not at all important their sense of identity.

And while 85% of gun owners who say the right to own guns is essential to their sense of freedom say they can’t see themselves ever not owning a gun at some point, 41% of those who don’t see the right to own guns as essential say the same."
(source)

Take that identity-freedom stance, mix it in with all those whose garbanzo-size brains tell them that Trump is their savior, and you have a recipe for a potentially bitter scenario. Call it civil unrest, rioting, revolt, widespread urban conflict, call it a civil brawl if you like. But whatever you call it make sure it means a scenario where your very life could be on the line.

Do I personally want a scenario like that to happen? No, of course not. Something like, no matter what you call it, would set this country back decades and the damage done on different levels would take decades if not more to repair. In short, you won't have to worry about the semantics or any "foundational confusion" if any of that shit goes down.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I can't get up from the chair in a response to a post in the thread. Of course we are armchairing, this is a philosophy discussion forum.

Then let us hope, for Left, Right, and Center, that the scenario remains nothing more than a thread in a philosophy discussion forum. If someone reads this in the future and say to themselves, "Wow, that Del Ivers was so wrong". Then I will be a happy man. :)
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun May 19, 2019 7:03 am

Del Ivers wrote:Go to Google and input, "will there be a civil war in the united states 2019". It gives 664 million as results of the search.
If I google will ufos take over the us in 2019
I get 108,000,000 hits. I am not sure what this demonstrates.


Even if it were only 664 the basic idea is that as put forth in the Merriam-Webster definition of civil war: 'A war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.'
Right, a war. Civil unrest is not a war. 1968 had no civil war in the US, for example.

You can argue as much as you want about the semantics of it, how it depends which definition is used and which word applies best. But it's the optics, the actual, palpable scenario of it that will matter to those who would be experiencing the conflict. If a large number of civilians start to throw rocks, bottles, incendiary devices, or send bullets in each other's direction it won't matter what it's called, what will matter is how to survive it.
Sure, for those shot at. The difference, however between the civil war in the 1860s and what people, for example those living in the south towards the end of the war, and people in the late 60s, even those in cities during the most heated parts of the rioting/anti-Vietnam cultural and civil unrest, is radically different. Different strategies, orders of magnitude differences in the per capita death rates, different cultural and infrastructure changes, different smart strategies for survival and riding out the problems and so on.

Not difference in semantics, radical difference in the effects and good strategies. You are making it sound like I am quibbling over words.

NO. I am pointing out that the range of possible situations makes any answers ridiculous becase of the down to earth physical differences between the threats and scenarios. It's panic talk without any possible focus.

Yes, all the guns could lead to all sorts of different scenarios. For anyone to speak about what they will do, without knowing which of an incredibly wide range of different degrees on intensity or types of scenios, how local or regional or general, how much military involvement, how widespread, etc. is just to talk out of the ass.

Take that identity-freedom stance, mix it in with all those whose garbanzo-size brains tell them that Trump is their savior, and you have a recipe for a potentially bitter scenario. Call it civil unrest, rioting, revolt, widespread urban conflict, call it a civil brawl if you like. But whatever you call it make sure it means a scenario where your very life could be on the line.
So what might we do in all the various possible scenarios where our lives might be on the line, now without the words 'civil war' even on the list of options......Please.

Do I personally want a scenario like that to happen? No, of course not.
I don't think I suggested, or even thought you did.

Something like, no matter what you call it, would set this country back decades and the damage done on different levels would take decades if not more to repair. In short, you won't have to worry about the semantics or any "foundational confusion" if any of that shit goes down.
If what shit goes down? As if it doesn't matter what the scale or intensity it. Again, as if I saying, hey, let's get the words right. When I am saying, you are talking about such a wide range of possible scenarios, any of us telling you what we would do, is making shit up.

I think what you are doing is finding a way to make the people on the right seem like a core threat to everything. Fine. That's a position and one can enter polemics and arguments about that. But you are couching in the form of practical questions to us about what we will do, in a vast range of potential futures, so vast we cannot answer in any real way. We could respond to your concerns that something bad is coming or might come. But that's not the discussion, it's focused on how we are or would plan as if the vast range of possibilities have not the slightest influence on how we would need to react in those very different scenarios.

And paint me as if I am focused on words, when I am focused on the ludicousness of saying here's what I would do, when I don't even know the situation.

It's like asking a surgeon...how would you operated if a patient had an illness?

Well, it depends.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I can't get up from the chair in a response to a post in the thread. Of course we are armchairing, this is a philosophy discussion forum.

Then let us hope, for Left, Right, and Center, that the scenario remains nothing more than a thread in a philosophy discussion forum. If someone reads this in the future and say to themselves, "Wow, that Del Ivers was so wrong". Then I will be a happy man. :)


That answer is not understanding the point I was making. I was not arguing that no one should prepare or think practically about the issue. I was pointing out that how else can we answer? This is a philosphy discussion forum, you raise an issue for discussion, and we are going to discuss it.

that
must
be
armchair
like
discussion

You want to invite us to your place to start drawing up plans for self-defense, choosing areas of nature to retreat to, and other physical planning and preparation, and we came over and started doing that stuff, well, that wouldn't be armchair.

But, jeez, you raise and issue in a philosophy forum and then complain that we are, basically, discussing the issue, that's a confusion about what you are doing yourself.

Then you end with, you being glad if it turns out you are wrong. Which confirms for me that the issue is you see a threat, and you want a discussion of that threat. You are asserting there is a likelihood of something very bad coming down the pike.

That issue can be discussed and we can weigh in on our sense of the liklihood and what likely scopes of that threat are, etc. That is a discussion one could have.

To say what we as individuals will do, w hen we do not know which of the various possible outcomes you have suggested might come to happen, is a discussion that leads to a bunch of meaningless prat and people presenting themselves in lights their egos are happy with. But it is a discussion with no substrance.

It's a rhetorical trick and I think a poor one. Get us to imagine we are in some catastrophic scenario and babble about what we would do.. The horrible thing about that is not that it leads to a bunch of wasted speculation, but it feeds the us them hatred, gets more people into a panic without anything concrete. Rigth wing people and left wing people will posture about how they will be ready to be violent and there will be more paranoia, because they are being asked about how violent and with what weapons and strategies they will deal with their hated enemies.

To talk about a threat you see does not make everyone posture and threaten. It would be a discussion of a possible threat. That's a potentially useful discussion.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun May 19, 2019 1:49 pm

promethean75 wrote:
Im leaving this site for good now.


Yeah yeah. More empty promises. *sigh*

Just to piss you off :character-megaman:
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun May 19, 2019 1:52 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:Karpel you show yourself to be utterly inhuman. You've taken in nothing about the lives Trump has saved abroad. You don't care. IM SICKENED.

Im leaving this site for good now.
I don't know what you're talking about, man. I am responding to ideas about civil war. I have presented no compliments or critiques of Trump here.

I did mess up putting quotes around Ivers link, maybe that's causing the problem. But if my previous post was the last drop, you are close to fed up....

Which I shouldnt cause my guy is in the WH.
They've banned heartbeat abortions.
they've kicked "isis".
they've prevented war with Russia
they've installed hundreds of conservative judges
they've moved the Embassy to Jerusalem

what the fuck am I angry for??
I can't have everything at once, this is already more than Id ever have dared to ask.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun May 19, 2019 1:55 pm

Aliens are something I believe in but choose not to "believe in" like I basically don't believe in anything I can't indicate to another person with some seriousness.

If they exist I bet they are time travellers. Well they have to be, to get here from any other solar system, they have to beat the speed of light or be very old and very bored.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2037
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Del Ivers » Sun May 19, 2019 6:30 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You are making it sound like I am quibbling over words.

You are quibbling over words.

There's been so much written about this scenario both by the Left and Right, and long before the OP, that it doesn't take much brain power for anyone to figure what it's referring to especially when it's qualified by a date in the search of it or in the current political/social context. Go up to anyone on the street and ask them if they think a civil war could happen, 99% of the time they'll answer with their own opinion on it whichever side they're on because more than likely they've already heard, read, or even already discussed it with others. In short, I'm not bringing up some radical viewpoint that they've never heard of before.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It's panic talk without any possible focus.

I didn't hear from any of the other posters who answered the questionnaire anything about panic, they already knew what I was referring to, a possible situation and possible actions that they felt might need to be taken. Look at the answers from the poster, 'surreptitious75'. It was yes, no, and then numbers indicating a range and he only answered 6 out of the 12. I didn't answer that with, what do you really mean by yes? What do you really mean by no? Could you elaborate on the numbers? I asked why he only answered 6 but got no reply and that's fine. Those were his answers. Period. You want panic talk? Go to 4chan, Stormfront, Infowars, and some of the many other online forums here and abroad. Compared to them, my topic is like it came from a Cabbage Patch Kid on Valium.

You yourself understood the questionnaire enough to answer all 12 of the questions even if to you many of them depended on some aspect or another. In response to your answers I replied: "Many of your answers are about, "it depends". Yes, there are many variables to consider in such a scenario of conflict. But whatever they may be the overriding reality would be as the quote says, "a lot of angry people causing a lot of mayhem". Sometimes it's just one person causing the mayhem as in the case of a terrorist. When that happens afterward there could be all manner of talk and reporting as to what it means, but when it happens and the result is death and the maiming of innocents, then no one gives a shit about the semantics, all that is registered is that IT HAPPENED and there were consequences.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:You want to invite us to your place to start drawing up plans for self-defense, choosing areas of nature to retreat to, and other physical planning and preparation, and we came over and started doing that stuff, well, that wouldn't be armchair.

It is all armchair. 99.9% of opinions expressed on this forum and other philosophy, political, and other types of forums are all armchair exercises. Opinions, interpretations, characterizations, agreements, ad hominems, and yes, 'rhetorical tricks', are all presented with no requirement of actual, real, responsibility from the poster or the respondents. You responding to an email from your doctor's office about something you didn't want to hear, that is NOT armchairing. Looking at it another way, imagine if the Admin of this forum, Clearas, put up an announcement to the effect that from now on the only people who can participate in ILP discussions are those who send their real name and address and some form of valid ID. How many people do you think would stay on at ILP? Run that through the anonymous/responsible filter.

Examine the contents overall of a philosophy forum and regardless of the subject matter and the couching of it in traditional philosophical materials you'll see that the majority of it deals with the members questioning each other's 'realism'. If that were not the case there would be no pivot for the exchanges since as a definition of philosophy that I stated elsewhere is: "Philosophy is a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and society. It works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them." All of that revolves around an individuals particular realism. Your very questions about this topic are about the realism of it, even after I have repeatedly stated the hypothetical premise of it.

If you want to frame the OP as panic and 'ass-talk', then go right ahead. But your insistence on this point seems more the framing of the messenger than that of the message (something, by the way, that Fox News couldn't do without). Maybe you don't personally have that particular bias of the Right, for all I know you may be in the Green Party. But it sure sounds like it when characterizing the presentation - and a hypothetical one at that - that many others understand in the simplest of terms from the get-go. If that were not the case, then every poster who responded to this in one way or another would have been criticizing the semantics of the OP. Thus far you're the only one.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It would be a discussion of a possible threat. That's a potentially useful discussion.

How many times do I have to repeat, Hypothetical? And in some ways it's already been a useful discussion otherwise would it have, at latest count, racked-up over 6200 views in the span of 7 days since the OP went up? Personally, the numbers don't matter much to me, I could have an exchange with someone about something and while the number of views may not be high I still learned something about whatever. Still, the numbers show that many are finding something interesting about the discussion.

Show me what title you would have used to make the topic useful, while still retaining its premise.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: but it feeds the us them hatred, gets more people into a panic without anything concrete. Rigth wing people and left wing people will posture about how they will be ready to be violent and there will be more paranoia, because they are being asked about how violent and with what weapons and strategies they will deal with their hated enemies.

If you want to really address that, then write to the big-fish-in-the-pond about your complaints. Me, I'm just a leaf on the surface hoping the currents get me to shore.
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Gloominary » Tue May 21, 2019 2:18 am

I'm not an American, but civil war could break out in Canada between the left and the right, altho I would say it's less likely, given how much more polarized and volatile Americans are.

1. If a civil war broke out in the United States would you arm yourself?

Yes

2. Do you think you have the psychological determination to pull the trigger on another human being in such a conflict?

Yes

3. What chance of survival do you give yourself in an all-out urban warfare scenario?

Low

4. Which side would the military be on? Or would they be against both sides?

Who knows, maybe the military would split into two (a left and a right) or more warring factions.

5. If you're on the Right, to what extent would you trust others on the Right?

Not very much.

6. If you're on the Left, to what extent would you trust others on the Left?

Not very much.

7. If you have a family, how would you defend those who wouldn't be able to defend themselves such as children and the elderly?

N/A

8. If during the conflict you learned of groups (civilian) of both Left and Right who joined together to bring about peace even if it meant fighting the hard-core of either side, would you:

a. Join them?
b. Regard those from your side who joined as traitors?
c. And if you did join them, would you fear retaliation from those of your side who did not join?

Rather than joining the left, right or center, I'd join a group seeking the complete annihilation of both sides once and for all, a group well outside the left, right and libertarian paradigm, and if no such group came along, I would try to form one myself.
The left and right have been around for much too long.
Far from advancing sociopolitical thought they've oversimplified and stifled it.
On the one hand there's things I like about the left, things I like about the right and things I don't like about either of them, and on the other the two concepts are rather nebulous and chimeric, a lot of very different and even diametrically opposed ideas have been arbitrarily and artificially lumped together for convenience, and their meanings have changed numerous times throughout history.
If humanity wants to survive, we need to start thinking 3 dimensionally socio-politically.

9. If the other side won and assumed authority, would you fear that instead of unification in the interest of all (even if under new laws) that some of them would feel they have license to continue their violence upon those of your side?

Of course I would fear that.

10. If such a war happened, do you think a foreign country or countries would take advantage of it for their own assault on the U.S.?

I'm sure the US would intervene in a Canadian civil war, probably pre-emptively before it even fully broke out.

11. Whether single or with a family, would you leave the country if you knew of other countries that offered sanctuary?

Difficult to say, but I think I would just go with the momentum and see the conflict through to the end.
Radical changes have to be made to Canada and indeed all western countries sooner or later if we're to survive the ecological, economic, political, racial and social challenges ahead.

12. Do you think that a civil war could happen? If you do, why? If you don't, why?

Anything could happen, but barring an ecological or economic catastrophe, I seriously doubt one will happen in Canada anytime soon this century.

I think it's much more likely to happen in the US, for as I said, people are more divided there, not just ideologically but along economic (there's more income inequality in the US and its growing), racial and religious lines as well.
Statistically it's the country is only becoming more divided with the passing of each generation.
The center is shrinking and extremists on both sides are expanding.

The fact that millions of hispancs continue to pour into the country illegally, don't assimilate, many bringing drugs and crime, are concentrated in Southwest, and almost always vote left when they become citizens, the fact that millions of mulattos are still pissed off rightly or wrongly at both the whites over slavery as well as existing conditions, and Hispanics taking over their ghettos and their jobs, the fact that the US is torn over Israel, with dems increasingly supporting Palestinians and republicans the Jews, the fact that the US can't stop bombing countries in West Asia, while at the same time importing millions of Muslims, makes it appear increasingly likely civil war will breakout sometime before this century is over between said groups.

I mean when half the country sees the other half as fascists and Nazis, that does not bode well for civility and stability at all, your democracy is being torn asunder.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1427
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Dislocated

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Del Ivers » Wed May 22, 2019 4:33 pm

Gloominary wrote:Radical changes have to be made to Canada and indeed all western countries sooner or later if we're to survive the ecological, economic, political, racial and social challenges ahead.

Apart from your cliché statements on immigrants, the quote is a good, general statement on the matter.
____

Changes will have to be made, the question will be, which changes? The Left have their ideas about change, the Right have their ideas about change. But as it has been so many times before, the Center ultimately prevails. The Center is not about ideology though you will hear Centrist ideas here and there. The Center is about the long run. I will address this at the end of the post. Now I want to answer the remaining questions since my Centrist-Left intuition tells me that it's time for me to leave this thread.

7. "If you have a family, how would you defend those who wouldn't be able to defend themselves such as children and the elderly?"

The best defense would be to get them out of harm's way if the situation became widespread. But in this instance I think there would be many with families that will unite, even those moderately Left and Right, and will act accordingly not out of any ideology but for the survival of those whom they love. That's a very strong force and there would be many in those numbers. In short, roving individuals or groups whether extreme Left or Right would encounter very determined opponents. And of course, if for the army and those in enforcement it's a choice between protecting families or pop-and-drop self-styled 'sovereigns', well, that's a no-brainer.

8. "If during the conflict you learned of groups (civilian) of both Left and Right who joined together to bring about peace even if it meant fighting the hard-core of either side. . ."

I would join them. Strength in numbers. But I would scan the group as thoroughly as possible to see who's real and who is, 'playing along'.

9. "If the other side won and assumed authority, would you fear that instead of unification in the interest of all (even if under new laws) that some of them would feel they have license to continue their violence upon those of your side?"

That's a given (and I would expect that more from the Right than the Left). But unless those in command of the Right adopted a, 'final solution' attitude, then I think they themselves would deal with their loose cannons. Prolonged conflict would not be in their interest especially in the aftermath when the majority of the population would want a return to some normalcy. The more likely scenario is not that any side would prevail, that it would be a very energized centrist attitude. And that the 'loose cannons' from both sides would be hunting each other down with vengeful justice.

10. "If such a war happened, do you think a foreign country or countries would take advantage of it for their own assault on the U.S.?"

Yes. That's the real danger above anything else on the home front. As I've said at times, if there is confusion and chaos in the house, predators use the back door.

11. "Whether single or with a family, would you leave the country if you knew of other countries that offered sanctuary?"

The situation would have to be really bad for that to happen. Mexico? Canada? They'd be having their own problems. The former would be dicey considering it's record of lawlessness, i.e., 'cartels'. The latter would be dealing with Americans attempting to infiltrate its borders. But with Canada it's the climate. Come winter for many Americans it would be like escaping to Siberia.

12. "Do you think that a civil war could happen? If you do, why? If you don't, why?"

As already stated in earlier posts by myself and others, it would not approach the levels of the Civil War of 1861-1865. Things are much too different nowadays in terms of what has been established across many different areas in the civic life of the US.

There are basically two aspects to any country: its economy, and its ideology. One cannot do without the other. This is already evident in that the countries with the largest economies are the, 'super-powers'. One might add that a military force is an aspect but it depends entirely on the first two being in place. Without those there would be no objective.

The powers that be - whichever side you want to characterize them as - not only cannot afford but will not allow a situation that collapses its economic standing in the world. Money makes the world go round, no money and you're off the merry-go-round. In a focuseconomics.com article it is noted: "At the top of the list is the United States of America, which according to Investopedia, has been at the head of the table going all the way back to 1871. However, as has been the case for a good few years now, China is gaining on the U.S., with some even claiming that China has already overtaken the U.S. as the world’s Number 1 economy." Does anyone whether Left or Right think the powers are going to allow the US to fall down the list and especially when the majority of the population want normalcy restored? The economy is the lifeblood of the country and if you're perceived as a harm to that then regardless of your ideology you will be removed; to what extent the removal will be your call.

In many discussions apart from this one here at ILP I've noted that many say that the truth of the matter is that the population will not have the stomach nor tolerance for a conflict of such proportions. To me that seems obvious when you consider that many, "internet warriors", if they had to deal with the stark reality of deadly mayhem would bail even before they hit the streets. It's one thing to rant and rail about a revolution but if they found themselves in a situation where there's no keyboard or cell phone and they see just one of their friends being felled by a bullet or maimed, well, reality will bite hard at that point and they will turn on each other if necessary to get away from a madness that they are in no way able to deal with. And it will be just about the same for all those who fancy themselves leaders of the revolution. As example, have you ever seen the video with Alex Jones and Ted Nugent out on a firing range range discussing guns? A couple of clowns acting all macho and patriotic. But the fact is that if the shit really hit the fan those two would not be going into the trenches, they'd be as far away from the action or even hightailing it somewhere else. In short, their talk is bullshit and their walk won't put up with the expensiveness of the reality. But they're not the only ones, many of the self-styled 'patriots' will avoid putting their asses on the line when the talk turns into deadly action.

This coming 4th of July the US will be 243 years in existence. Do you think the powers that be are going to allow the country to collapse? Do you think they're going to allow a sociopathic clown like Donald Trump destroy all that has been struggled for, for what many died for in those nearly two and half centuries? No, they won't. They know that the US is like a ship at sea. There can be all manner of disagreements, accusations, criticisms, whatever suits your vitriolic fancy, but the ship has to stay afloat. They know that if the ship sinks, then it's the end for all sides.

Thanks to all those who contributed and may yet contribute to this topic.

D.
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Meno_ » Wed May 22, 2019 6:14 pm

Given that opportunity, would it be fair to extend the boundaries between national and international interests?
And incrementally , but incidentally augment the topic toward civil war on a planetary scale, notwithstanding a coming collusion brought on by an onset of mad superimposition between nationalistic identifiable variables ?

My opinion is , the assertion that boundaries will continue to bleed into each other, including identifiable regional . and global presumptive tactics of dealing with them, case at hand, the reemergence of centrist and authoritarian applications of power through control.

Can this process be all conclusively integrated within aspiration on both levels, without bringing social reality toward a more probable outcome then the other? Or , could more of an exculpatory position better serve
serve as a model of likely outcome?

Without feigning presumption sparked by a singular sense of intuitive identifiable source, where such is usually suspect, can the extension be , both: interior and exterior within a larger scope , where cause and effect may presumptively both- verify and negate one another?

Hoping not to bind you, or place you in that position, your reply, if you decide to do so, may be voluntary, and non committal.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4642
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Hard Questions: Civil War Between The Left and The Right

Postby Del Ivers » Thu May 23, 2019 4:45 pm

Meno_ wrote:Given that opportunity, would it be fair to extend the boundaries between national and international interests?
And incrementally , but incidentally augment the topic toward civil war on a planetary scale, notwithstanding a coming collusion brought on by an onset of mad superimposition between nationalistic identifiable variables ?

I would first ask you what you mean by, "Given that opportunity..". Which opportunity are you referring to? Or do you mean, given the opportunity to extend the boundaries, etc.?

If the latter, I gather what you mean by, "..would it be fair..", is if the premise lends itself to a universal character rather than local. Yes, anything 'local', and specifically relating to human concerns is already, planetary. Consider Venezuela, the Arab Spring, the Yemeni Civil War, etc. Any and all of them add up to the same theme of people wanting something better for their lives. But as you know, something better for the people is not always something better for those who want to stay in positions of power and control.

As for nationalistic identifiable variables, labeling the variables is to be expected and it's a complicated task, e.g., Greece dealing with Syrian refugees landing on its shores, Mediterranean countries like Italy and Spain dealing with immigrants from Northern Africa, the U.S. dealing with Mexican immigrants, and so on. In short, it's a global, cultural problem exacerbated by the problems that a particular culture has in their country of origin. I'm not going to go into all the reasons for this, anyone with even basic awareness of history, populations, and the maintaining of control by those in governments, can connect the dots for him or herself.

Now ask yourself this question: To what extent will a culture go to protect its sense of culture from being destabilized by other cultures? At one time in the U.S. other cultures (around 12 million immigrants) were invited to land on its shores with the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island welcoming them. But that was then, when the influx was welcomed with the moral ideology of liberty, and of course, with the mostly unspoken and ever-vacillating ideology of workers for the industrial establishment of, 'America'. Nowadays, both the statue and the island are run by the National Park Service as 'historical' monuments. Does that mean the ideology is historical too, that it no longer serves but rather is creating a disservice? Now there's a discussion on ontological pluralism you could have with someone; you go ahead and do that, I'll be a few yards away feeding the pigeons.

Meno_ wrote:..the reemergence of centrist and authoritarian applications of power through control.

Yes, of course. And if the situation of the civil conflict we've been discussing became a reality, in the aftermath the majority of the population would be as eager for it as the studio audience of the 'Price Is Right'. Come on down! But that would be the old way, wouldn't it? The new way would be a centrism acknowledged by the population and the government. And for that you would need, shall we say, EQUALITY with no disclaimers or fine print. But again, we all know, equality for some is just not profitable and would bleach good ol' American competition and make the holy grail of that top 1% ownership a fading memory. "Senator Sanders, please pick up the nearest white courtesy telephone."

In the aftermath of the possible conflict scenario and the rush to reestablish normalcy, the center will enforce the hold. As for those on the extreme Left and Right who are scattered about, they will be allowed to voice their opinions but acting on them will more than likely result in someone wearing a uniform asking them for some form of ID. Yeah, I can hear the Right exclaiming: "That's exactly what we must fight!" But if the Right prevailed, they'd be as quiet as church mice if their own uniforms were asking for identification.

Meno_ wrote:..both: interior and exterior within a larger scope , where cause and effect may presumptively both- verify and negate one another?

That the larger scope affords a mechanism where reasons and results both verify and negate the values of one another? Initially, but there will have to be an overriding value. Otherwise there would be no compass for progress.

That's it for me. Won't be making any other comments but looking forward to reading the comments of others, if any, on this topic. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a uniformed park officer telling me that feeding the pigeons is permitted only on weekends. She's being pleasant enough and smiling about it. And I think the, "I LOVE CENTRISM", button on my lapel may have something to do with that. :-)

Cheers
Del Ivers
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:09 pm
Location: Nevada

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users