That’s comforting.
The problem with the idea of Revolution From Within is that once you take over the system you lose your motivation to overthrow it.
Right. So what’s your point? I specified something low-level (and thank God for it) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t important. Also, movie-theater killings are without political purpose, whereas abortion clinic attacks have a very specific political purpose.
I’m not making mountains out of molehills: I’m wondering how much it would take for the molehill to grow, of its own accord, into a mountain. More specifically, I’m observing that waves of violent, politically-motivated crime can arise that are lower in level that all-out shooting wars.
(I’m also afraid we may see more “retaliation” killings of policemen by people who are unhappy with police shootings of suspects.)
Scalia is dead. Maybe you didn’t notice. Let me rephrase it in case I was unclear:
*The gains of the 60s were largely due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The SCOTUS is not going to declare that legislation unconstitutional.
*
When you have widespread strikes (including the police and transport workers), students out in the streets throwing anything they can get their hands on, and the Army refuses to take part; that’s when you have a revolution.
Pretty much everything. In the eyes of TPTB, “law and order” means everybody who isn’t white, rich or connected can fuck off. I object to this interpretation.
I agree, so that’s two of us … 324,999,998 to go …
I am not bumping this thread solely because of protests or rioting, or even because of the reported uptick in hate crimes since the thing happened a couple of weeks ago.
I’m bumping it to ask again, in light of all that’s going on, how does this end? By this I mean the ever-increasing polarization. People were saying for months that both parties have a floor of support that’s way larger than it was in the seventies, eighties and nineties. The trend is not toward accommodation of others’ points of view, it’s toward taking sides and boosting your own team no matter what.
And I’m not saying “Let’s stop doing that!” because I don’t know how that would even work. I’m thinking now that the trend is irreversible.
Why? Because now, what’s good for half of the country is bad for the other half. Socially, economically, and morally. Whatever increases freedom for those on one side restricts freedom for those on the other.
“That’s not true!” you say? I’m afraid it is. For example, you can show all the numbers you like “proving” that Obama’s policies have actually been good for the white Americans who blame him for everything bad that has ever happened to them. Or a conservative poster can provide a counterexample that “proves” some Republican policy would actually be good for the poor, or for members of marginalized populations that consistently vote against them. I won’t argue the point.
And in either case, the numbers mean nothing. The facts mean nothing. I agreed with what Minjin said in this post; we’ve entered a post-fact era. Everyone is entitled to his or her own facts, and they choose the facts that favor their own tribe.
For the people who have not yet taken a side, the tribes are competing for their allegiance by appealing to culture, ethnicity, and religion rather than ideas about what would be good for the country. And they (the tribes) don’t have a choice! They can’t use facts to persuade people, because there are no such things anymore. Facts are a quaint relic of the past; it’s all about loyalty to your tribe now.
I’m not saying “Let’s turn back the clock to a time when it wasn’t this way,” because I don’t know that it’s possible. I also don’t know that it hasn’t always been this way and I’m just noticing it now.
You may not believe we’re heading for a future where neither side can suffer the other to exist. I’m not sure I believe it myself. But if you can imagine a scenario where this conflict is resolved peacefully, I’d like to hear about it. Because I’m having a lot of trouble imagining it right now. It may not come in the next four years, or the next twenty years, or even the next hundred years. But whenever the resolution comes, can we at least admit there’s a possibility it will involve something more tragic than voting and peaceful marching? Even if only to better prepare for it?
I’m pretty sure that the age gap on these issues is pretty massive, such that if nothing else solves it, time likely will. Once the baby boomers are mostly dead, it’s not close to 50-50, I don’t believe.
You still think “demographics are destiny”?
Yes, the possibility exists. I think it’s a very slim possibility, but it could happen. How does one prepare for that? I don’t know, do you want some recommendations on which assault weapon to buy?
Not with certainty, but I’m at least optimistic that younger Americans are less tolerant of bigotry than older Americans.
The American electorate in 2016 wasn’t any younger than it was in 2008, when Obama won by a substantial margin.
Because we have elections.
On what issues? The issues are what my tribe says they are, and the things the other tribe thinks are important are not issues. And vice versa if you’re in the other tribe.
It’s not hereditary, like actual tribalism. But if the “issues” are framed in the right way, then in theory, they can keep it 50/50 forever. A new voter could be as likely to affiliate with one tribe as the other. Or if not, then if one tribe manages a greater share of the younger voters, the other tribe’s only shot is to turn the elders against them. And they absolutely can find a way to do that. People do switch tribes occasionally.
…
I think #CalExit is the most likely thing to lead to a shooting war in the near future, and the possibility is extremely remote, and the war would be very brief.
There won’t be any shooting as long as the right wing has control. After all, outside of the government it’s that tribe that has most of the guns. Since the other tribe is nearly everyone in the cities, if they start anything they will soon find out how much they depend on their “enemies” for things like food. I think the people outside of cities can survive a lot longer on what they have around them than the people in the cities can. Maybe they’ll take the Pol Pot approach and make all the city folk go out and be starving farm laborers.
OK, seriously. Nobody wants to have actual fighting. That’s part of the whole point of civilization, that we can hate each other without actually firing guns.
Wait, you are suggesting that the “right wing Trump supporters” which currently control most of the states, the congress, the presidency, and soon the Supreme Court are going to be the ones to initiate a civil war by shooting cops? That makes 0 sense.
It’s partly urban versus rural. But you’re right that there are no clear “battle lines.” It’s not rich versus poor: black urban poor won’t join the white rednecks. There’s a religious component to the polarization, but unlike Arab countries — where one can often distinguish Sunnis and Shi’ites simply by their names — the religious and irreligious are mixed together.
And the American people, despite their complaints, are much too well-fed to make serious armed rebellion likely.
In short: where could battle-lines be drawn? Not at the California-Arizona border: Phoenix voted Hillary and Central California largely for Trump. There was a sharp geographic split in the Civil War of 1861-1865 yet that war still saw brother fighting against brother.
What we may see are increasing protests, and police actions against protesters. But what will the issues of the protesters even be (other than police brutality itself)?