It's time for the USA to balkanize. How can that happen peacefully?

[jhkim]

A lot of posters here complain about the fear-mongering from mainstream media -- and while I tend to agree with that, I'm often surprised at how much fear-mongering there is here. While I don't discount that the U.S. could break up, I don't see that as the trend. People gets amped up because of social media, but in concrete terms, I think we've had less political violence than in prior eras -- and it seems to me that political violence is a key signal to secession or civil war.

For example, I'm not exactly sure about the body count in the recent race riots -- but in the 1992 Rodney King riots, 63 people were killed and 2383 people were injured. While the George Floyd demonstrations were more widespread geographically, my impression is that they had a lower body count (or at least not significantly higher).

People talk more stridently on social media about anti-Republican or anti-Democrat, but they don't go out and shoot people as much. In any case, civil war is bad for business, so the mainstream Democratic and Republican parties would be against it.

There has been increasing partisanship over the past 3 decades, but geographically, the populations are pretty thoroughly intertwined - and their economies and populations are as well. Liberal states still have conservative areas (i.e. central California) while conservative states still have liberal areas (i.e. Austin). Among other things, the liberal exodus would get around 15% more women - which would be a problem for the conservative half.

[oggsmash]

A lot of posters here complain about the fear-mongering from mainstream media -- and while I tend to agree with that, I'm often surprised at how much fear-mongering there is here. While I don't discount that the U.S. could break up, I don't see that as the trend. People gets amped up because of social media, but in concrete terms, I think we've had less political violence than in prior eras -- and it seems to me that political violence is a key signal to secession or civil war.

For example, I'm not exactly sure about the body count in the recent race riots -- but in the 1992 Rodney King riots, 63 people were killed and 2383 people were injured. While the George Floyd demonstrations were more widespread geographically, my impression is that they had a lower body count (or at least not significantly higher).

People talk more stridently on social media about anti-Republican or anti-Democrat, but they don't go out and shoot people as much. In any case, civil war is bad for business, so the mainstream Democratic and Republican parties would be against it.

There has been increasing partisanship over the past 3 decades, but geographically, the populations are pretty thoroughly intertwined - and their economies and populations are as well. Liberal states still have conservative areas (i.e. central California) while conservative states still have liberal areas (i.e. Austin). Among other things, the liberal exodus would get around 15% more women - which would be a problem for the conservative half.

    18 people died in Chicago in 24 hours,and 85 shot and wounded last weekend.   I think body count is less a signal than large cities deciding law and order do not mean a thing, and rule of law only matters when it is something you want to enforce.  That is a bigger signal than violence.  As for a liberal exodus getting 15 percent more women, so be it.  Texas can probably trace a whole bunch of that liberal strong hold presence to california.

[ffilz]

18 people died in Chicago in 24 hours,and 85 shot and wounded last weekend.   I think body count is less a signal than large cities deciding law and order do not mean a thing, and rule of law only matters when it is something you want to enforce.  That is a bigger signal than violence.  As for a liberal exodus getting 15 percent more women, so be it.  Texas can probably trace a whole bunch of that liberal strong hold presence to california.

Are all of those shootings actually tied to the protest/riots? I know here in Portland OR, we have had at least one police shooting during this time that seemed to have nothing to do with the protests/riots.

[oggsmash]

Are all of those shootings actually tied to the protest/riots? I know here in Portland OR, we have had at least one police shooting during this time that seemed to have nothing to do with the protests/riots.

    How many of the over 100 shootings in a day do we need to have tied directly to the peaceful protests?  I have no idea, the mayor and alderman seemed to feel the protests had an effect, but who knows?  18 dead and 85 shot is impressive even for chiraq.  Since my point was there seems to be a complete breakdown of law and order....I also fail to see how it matters.

[jhkim]

How many of the over 100 shootings in a day do we need to have tied directly to the peaceful protests?  I have no idea, the mayor and alderman seemed to feel the protests had an effect, but who knows?  18 dead and 85 shot is impressive even for chiraq.  Since my point was there seems to be a complete breakdown of law and order....I also fail to see how it matters.

It's a question of what level of violence indicates a lead in to actual civil war. Again, the Rodney King riots had 63 people killed and 2383 people injured -- which is considerably larger than 18 and 85. The Rodney King riots were also quite reasonably described as a breakdown of law and order.

Those are small compared to actual civil wars, though. My father was in the Korean War - where millions upon millions died. Heck, the province of Chihuahua has about one-third the population of Chicago, and it averaged over 17 murders every day last year.

The question is the *trend* of violence and disorder. It's horrible that these murders have happened, but the overall trend has been decreased violent crime since the 1990s.

[Ratman_tf]

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/1/gun-sales-surge-80-may-research-firm/

I never imagined a bunch of nitwit commies would stake out a section of Capitol Hill and oust the police, so I'm not going to scoff at people who think a Boogaloo is on the horizon. Hell, considering how things have gone, when (not if) Trump is re-elected, I'm expecting some serious escalation.

[Steven Mitchell]

A lot of posters here complain about the fear-mongering from mainstream media -- and while I tend to agree with that, I'm often surprised at how much fear-mongering there is here. While I don't discount that the U.S. could break up, I don't see that as the trend. People gets amped up because of social media, but in concrete terms, I think we've had less political violence than in prior eras -- and it seems to me that political violence is a key signal to secession or civil war.

For example, I'm not exactly sure about the body count in the recent race riots -- but in the 1992 Rodney King riots, 63 people were killed and 2383 people were injured. While the George Floyd demonstrations were more widespread geographically, my impression is that they had a lower body count (or at least not significantly higher)...

It's not so much degree and scope of the actions (so far) as the attitudes about them, that makes me see this going nowhere good.  I'm not a historian, but I have read deeply in a lot of history.  This period reminds me on the surface of the 1968 riots, but underlying it all the attitudes remind me more of the Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan administrations.  Not as a direct analogy, of course, since the powerful leaders and organizations with influence are considerably different.  Rather, it is a sense of irreconcilable differences coming to no good end.  It's not as if the people of that day didn't know that issue of slavery was causing an increasing divide.  A lot of smart and sometimes even wise people worked really hard in an attempt to head off what they saw coming.

Another similarity is that I think we've got a lot of people playing with fire that don't truly appreciate how bad this could get, quick.  Like oggsmash, I don't see it ending well for me and mine, either.  I'm not really physically equipped to survive in a barbaric situation.

[Alathon]

Another similarity is that I think we've got a lot of people playing with fire that don't truly appreciate how bad this could get, quick.  Like oggsmash, I don't see it ending well for me and mine, either.  I'm not really physically equipped to survive in a barbaric situation.

There are more than a few men in the United States who perceive that they have no prospects worth pursuing, or who tried and had the rug pulled out from under them after years of good faith effort.  To have vengeance on those who have maligned them, and also have the possibility of light at the end of the tunnel, whether it's victory or dying for something worth fighting for?  It gives them hope.

[Shrieking Banshee]

It gives them hope.

That same rational also powers SJWs. You can argue about who is 'right' to take it, but vengance indeed does cloud the mind into self destructive paths.

The Emperor of Russia was indeed a bastard, and all the rightous vengance against him and his family brought the truly wronged peasants nothing in the end but an even worse master.

[Alathon]

That same rational also powers SJWs. You can argue about who is 'right' to take it, but vengance indeed does cloud the mind into self destructive paths.

The Emperor of Russia was indeed a bastard, and all the rightous vengance against him and his family brought the truly wronged peasants nothing in the end but an even worse master.

Yup.  Winning with violence traditionally gets bad results.  After Robespierre comes Napoleon, after Lenin comes Stalin.  After all... if the method of violent conquest is successful, it becomes normalized and whoever is best at it (conquerors and psychopaths) is likely to take the scepter from the corpse of whatever silly ideologue thought she deserved it for leading the revolution.

Edit:  But, the SJW cannot claim the same motivation.  They have lots of feelings, and they seem really important because they're dumb animals who don't have much else, but they cannot claim to have ever been denied opportunity the way working class whites have.

[jeff37923]

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/1/gun-sales-surge-80-may-research-firm/

I never imagined a bunch of nitwit commies would stake out a section of Capitol Hill and oust the police, so I'm not going to scoff at people who think a Boogaloo is on the horizon. Hell, considering how things have gone, when (not if) Trump is re-elected, I'm expecting some serious escalation.

I am following this story with a great deal of amusement.

[Shrieking Banshee]

But, the SJW cannot claim the same motivation.

Another SJW type argument. 'X Group of People can't claim to TRULY have been wronged as Y' group of people.
Im not desiring one angry entitled mob be replaced with another type entitled angry mob.

[Alathon]

Another SJW type argument. 'X Group of People can't claim to TRULY have been wronged as Y' group of people.
Im not desiring one angry entitled mob be replaced with another type entitled angry mob.

Your desires will not be taken into account, nor should you expect them to be.

SJW populations are drawn heavily from the privileged children of the upper-middle class, and pampered minorities, whereas those whom they attack most, working class white males, have spent the last fifty years being systematically beggared by those SJWs parents as they transferred wealth out of middle America and to themselves and other nations.  The young men talking about 'boogaloo' and all that have legitimate grievances.  The SJWs generally do not.

[Shrieking Banshee]

Your desires will not be taken into account, nor should you expect them to be.

Oddly defensive. Whatever, I made my statements clear, I find your argumentation bitter and mixed in with psuedo-inteligencia. Again the same sort of stuff I would expect of SJWs. Which to be clear Im comparing you to SJWs because it might make you re-examine your thought process, not because I think this type of thought is inherently SJW-ish.

SJWs argue on behalf of and for disenfranchised individuals as well. To me It doesn't matter how sucky your history is. Being a shithead in the present and using loops and layers of double standards is weak regardless of who spouts it.

[Alathon]

Oddly defensive. Whatever, I made my statements clear, I find your argumentation bitter and mixed in with psuedo-inteligencia. Again the same sort of stuff I would expect of SJWs. Which to be clear Im comparing you to SJWs because it might make you re-examine your thought process, not because I think this type of thought is inherently SJW-ish.

SJWs argue on behalf of and for disenfranchised individuals as well. To me It doesn't matter how sucky your history is. Being a shithead in the present and using loops and layers of double standards is weak regardless of who spouts it.

How real a motivation is matters because it determines, in part, how much a person or group will persist when they face resistance and tribulation.  Privileged SJWs are generally soft creatures who lived lives with minimal hardship.  The opposite is true of Redneck Boogaloo Brigade.  A consequence of this difference is that SJWs fold rapidly in physical conflict (see: every fight where they don't have overwhelming numbers), but if the RBB starts fighting, they might (not will, but might) decide to keep fighting through real opposition.  Another consequence is that the RBB has been prepping and talking themselves up to something for years, whereas the SJWs tend to be reactive  --  they panic buy.  Would these be decisive differences?  Only time can tell, but these real differences in experience and habit do not constitute a "double standard".