What are the odds for a 2nd civil war?

[marshwiggle]

I read a good article on this issue today:
https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/warnings-of-civil-war-risk-harming-efforts-against-political-violence/

Short version: no risk of civil war, but there is a risk of political violence. The more precise we are in our language and analysis, the more likely we can address it and turn away from the path of violence.

If that's the case, society is pretty much doomed. The broadening of language; "phobias", "hate" "-isms", etc. has been going on for a long time, and shows no sign of abating. Exaggerating language for dramatic effect is condoned and encouraged by politicians, media, and even academics-(particulary those who call themselves "activists"). There is no large institution in society advocating for, let alone practicing, clarity and nuance.

[Parasaurolophus]

If that's the case, society is pretty much doomed. The broadening of language; "phobias", "hate" "-isms", etc. has been going on for a long time, and shows no sign of abating. Exaggerating language for dramatic effect is condoned and encouraged by politicians, media, and even academics-(particulary those who call themselves "activists"). There is no large institution in society advocating for, let alone practicing, clarity and nuance.

*Ignores the irony.*

*Looks at his entire discipline's contemporary scholarly output, which is laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity.*

[marshwiggle]

If that's the case, society is pretty much doomed. The broadening of language; "phobias", "hate" "-isms", etc. has been going on for a long time, and shows no sign of abating. Exaggerating language for dramatic effect is condoned and encouraged by politicians, media, and even academics-(particulary those who call themselves "activists"). There is no large institution in society advocating for, let alone practicing, clarity and nuance.

*Ignores the irony.*

*Looks at his entire discipline's contemporary scholarly output, which is laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity.*

So is your discipline "laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity" exclusively for terms within the discipline? If so, that's not the issue. If it's for those terms like the examples of those above, please elaborate.

[Parasaurolophus]

So is your discipline "laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity" exclusively for terms within the discipline? If so, that's not the issue. If it's for those terms like the examples of those above, please elaborate.

No?

We talk about all kinds of things. What does freedom of speech mean and entail? What is pornography? What is art? What is fiction? How do you define individual genres? What is propaganda? What is justice? What is hate speech? What is morality? What is cultural appropriation?

And on and on. We're also a key source of 'isms'.

[marshwiggle]

So is your discipline "laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity" exclusively for terms within the discipline? If so, that's not the issue. If it's for those terms like the examples of those above, please elaborate.

No?

We talk about all kinds of things. What does freedom of speech mean and entail? What is pornography? What is art? What is fiction? How do you define individual genres? What is propaganda? What is justice? What is hate speech? What is morality? What is cultural appropriation?

And on and on. We're also a key source of 'isms'.

So what is "hate speech"? And what are examples of things which people might erroneously label as such? Are there media organizations, politicians, etc. improperly using the term? If so, what terms should they be using for things that are incorrectly identified as such?

[Parasaurolophus]

So is your discipline "laser-focused on teasing out precise nuances for the sake of conceptual clarity" exclusively for terms within the discipline? If so, that's not the issue. If it's for those terms like the examples of those above, please elaborate.

No?

We talk about all kinds of things. What does freedom of speech mean and entail? What is pornography? What is art? What is fiction? How do you define individual genres? What is propaganda? What is justice? What is hate speech? What is morality? What is cultural appropriation?

And on and on. We're also a key source of 'isms'.

So what is "hate speech"? And what are examples of things which people might erroneously label as such? Are there media organizations, politicians, etc. improperly using the term? If so, what terms should they be using for things that are incorrectly identified as such?

I don't have the time to teach a whole class on the topic, but here are 1000+ articles and books on the sibject.

And here is the entry in our disciplinary encyclopedia.

[jimbogumbo]

David French on MAGA Christian nationalism: https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-seeds-of-political-violence-are

[Kron3007]

I think some of this also depends on what happens globally and how the US leadership responds.  I see China eclipsing the US economically in the near future, and potentially unseating or at least threatening it as the global superpower.  This alone will fuel the fire.  If the world moves away from the US dollar as the global reserve currency, I envision domestic chaos.  I dont think this is coming by 2024, but there are other more immediate tensions that could also polarize the US further (ie Ukraine).

So, while I see the odds of civil war as low, I dont see thinks calming down.  As a Canadian, what concerns me at least as much is that I see it bleeding north.   

[mamselle]

In the US or on TheFora?

M.

[mahagonny]

Dr. Glenn Loury predicts that the SCOTUS will overturn affirmative action and there will be rioting in the streets, instigated by the Left. I can't think of anything he's been wrong about to date.
So far, Biden has called the voting in Georgia the return of Jim Crow, has said the greatest terrorist threat is the USA is white supremacist groups, neither of which the public believes, but a subset of them who are very excitable and active, are prone to believing.
So if/when that ruling happens, another attempt by Biden to divide the country (pander to his base, which is now something like 15% of the voters, and they're not even staunch fans) could be quite serious.

https://unherd.com/2022/02/americas-racial-torment-must-end/

'If it happens, I assure you, there will be mobs in the streets of this country. No progressive activist is going to take the Supreme Court's ruling as an opportunity to turn within and consider: "if we want to be at Harvard or the University of North Carolina in larger numbers, why don't we get busy preparing our youngsters from the cradle to be competitive in this great country that we live in where competition is the coin of the realm?" No, they're not going to do that. They're going to interpret that as an anti-black move by a racist Supreme Court. I assure you that it is a disaster and I think we're headed toward it.'

[Parasaurolophus]

It will be overturned, yes. I'm not at all confident there will be protests, let alone rioting, in response. I expect a whimper.

[mahagonny]

Ask yourself this: how hard will people fight for the right to be given opportunities they have not earned through hard work?

ETA: Academics will make a lot of noise, of course, and then drive home to their cozy safe white neighborhoods, pour wine and have their evening game of  Wordle.

[Kron3007]

Ask yourself this: how hard will people fight for the right to be given opportunities they have not earned through hard work?

ETA: Academics will make a lot of noise, of course, and then drive home to their cozy safe white neighborhoods, pour wine and have their evening game of  Wordle.

You mean opportunities from growing up in a rich, well connected households that opens up doors not available to others?

And here I thought you were against trying to address social inequalities...

[mahagonny]

Ask yourself this: how hard will people fight for the right to be given opportunities they have not earned through hard work?

ETA: Academics will make a lot of noise, of course, and then drive home to their cozy safe white neighborhoods, pour wine and have their evening game of  Wordle.

You mean opportunities from growing up in a rich, well connected households that opens up doors not available to others?

And here I thought you were against trying to address social inequalities...

Hmm...can I actually influence a trend, here with my coffee and keypad?

I'm just saying, if you look at the people who would likely start a civil war they are  the left. They consist of primarily two groups:

1. Black and white academics, media hucksters and other elites who use the tired theme of racial grievance as a screen to hide their winning status in the class struggle, which is really all they were interested in;
2. Unprepossessing folks who've been lied to and bribed for votes by the democratic party for years and are in such a state of confusion they believe that good things happen automatically and bad things happen because people are plotting against you as opposed to reality, which is good things happen because people are planning and working and saving and maintaining solid family life and health and avoidance of drugs crime and bad habits, and bad things happen all the time to everyone, because that's life.

Group (1) is not looking for actual fighting with the intent to win, and involves risk, because they already have their tenure or the cushy life
Group (2) is not going to fight hard either because they are surrounded by neighbors who are tired of them acting like idiots instead of trying to improve their lives, and will push back when group (2) starts being ignorant self dramatizing pests who just want to loot stores and claim they've been mistreated by police. They do not have the fortitude to stand up to the pushback because they have no clear idea what they're after.

[Parasaurolophus]

And yet it was the right that actually attempted a coup.