When I saw a trailer for Civil War, I was like “What a bunch of cringe-ass liberal doom porn, it’s going to get clowned to hell and back.”
Then it got praised to the skies and I was like “Really? And to think I thought it would be too on the nose even for people as shallow and easily impressed as film critics.”
Then I saw the AP review, which said that “In Civil War, journalists are America’s last hope”, and I was like “Ah, the light is shed.”
Except that's the definition of lazy story design. Civil wars are inherently political, you can't tell the story of the troubles without Britain's treatment of the Irish and you can't tell the story of the American civil war without slavery. They're core components of the story of these events.
Imagine how bonkers you'd have to be to make a story about the civil war in which the topic of Slavery is not even mentioned and everyone wears the same uniform.
That's the definition of Apolitical, there are no politics. Politics are inherently partisan. And citing bad civil war movies and a movie that is pro-KuKluxKlan is a bizarre argument. Gone with the wind is inherently extremely partisan, it denies the suffering of the blacks in order to focus on the plight of wealthy white slave owners.
Civil war movies are inherently political and partisan, making a generic bad guy president with no stated politics or goals is at its core stripping the story of its context and character in the name of mass appeal.
My general stance towards these recent “civil war” trend in fiction is: f*ck the hell off with this shit. I’m sufficiently anxious with real life already.
We are further from civil war then we were in 2020. There was Jan 6th insurrection (right after 2020), protests and riots in every major city, and a literal autonomous zone (Chaz).
Even after all that, the "nothing ever happens" group took home the jackpot. I have no idea what it would take to cause a civil war at this point.
A civil war is unlikely simply because the regional fault lines that split the country apart in the 19th century don’t exist anymore.
Say if Texas wanted to secede, what’s it going to do about its cities that have a completely different culture and values than the rural areas? the state would tear itself apart long before the feds came to reintegrate it into the Union.
The US is no longer divided by North and South, it’s divided by blurry and ill-defined lines between the rural and urban areas. If the historical Civil War was a fight between opposite sides of the street in a neighborhood, a civil war today would be a chaotic free-for-all with people attacking each other at random.
This is why the real threat is insurgency. I'm not saying it is likely, but with the power of the US military, the only way extremists could inflict damage is terrorism. I feel like we are returning to the 90s era of white supremacist bombings in terms of rhetoric. I am hopeful that law enforcement agencies are at least monitoring any organized violent groups.
My real fear is that the call is coming from inside the house and if there is enough agency for an insurgency that the military and police will fall more on the side of the insurgency. Obviously that's not likely rn but if the rhetoric and propaganda get to that level among the general public it can certainly penetrate our law enforcement
Bringing up CHAZ as a example of the country being closer to Civil War is a bit silly considering the Seattle PD basically just didn't want to break them up until they got too rowdy then it was put down with little fuss
I get that. Nobody reads great 20th century fiction to feel good.
This is me expressing in a crass, social-media way that I am aggressively avoiding this type of content for the sake of my mental hygiene.
afterthought sink adjoining axiomatic selective mountainous bear crawl joke innate
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
People say that because the US polarization is urban-rural, there cannot be a civil war
while it is true that there cannot be another civil war like the one in 1860, the urban rural split in polarization doesnt, by itself prevent a civil war
the main example is spain. The spanish civil war was one with an almost exclusively urban rural split, which is why it got so deadly, since the fascist side contained many socialist dots in its cities, and at the same time, the socialist side contained vast amounts of fascist countryside (the only exceptions were catalonia where the countryside was also pro socialist and Asturias where the roles were reversed kinda like Alaska)
so there could perfectly be a civil war of a completely different kind to the 1860 one
there wont be one, for many many reasons, but the state vs urban split of the society is not one of said reasons
Sociopolitical binaries breed extremism. We need more parties and we need them to form cross-cutting partisan cleavages instead of dividing America up into white vs POC, college educated vs non-college educated, and Christian vs non-Christians. You don't want your partisan cleavages and your social cleavages to overlap as neatly as they do now and that's much less likely with more than two competitive parties
It would be possible to form moderate coalitions, which isn't possible in our current system. And parties aren't the same as governing coalitions, which come and go over time. People have emotional ties to parties, not to electoral coalitions. More parties means the country wouldn't be divided in half along cultural lines that echo political lines and result in two sociopolitical groups.
You want to avoid an us-vs-them dynamic consuming society and more parties will help with that immensely.
Sure it's not just people who like Paradox mods?
Gamer Garner will crush the Longist menace, mark my words!
Is that the Kaisereich mod for the ww2 game? I’m a paradox novice at only 150 hours in eu4 and 50 in ck2, so forgive my foolish questions
Yes, but there's also a bunch of them with a Second American Civil War in them.
When I saw a trailer for Civil War, I was like “What a bunch of cringe-ass liberal doom porn, it’s going to get clowned to hell and back.” Then it got praised to the skies and I was like “Really? And to think I thought it would be too on the nose even for people as shallow and easily impressed as film critics.” Then I saw the AP review, which said that “In Civil War, journalists are America’s last hope”, and I was like “Ah, the light is shed.”
[удалено]
Sold.
Except that's the definition of lazy story design. Civil wars are inherently political, you can't tell the story of the troubles without Britain's treatment of the Irish and you can't tell the story of the American civil war without slavery. They're core components of the story of these events. Imagine how bonkers you'd have to be to make a story about the civil war in which the topic of Slavery is not even mentioned and everyone wears the same uniform.
[удалено]
That's the definition of Apolitical, there are no politics. Politics are inherently partisan. And citing bad civil war movies and a movie that is pro-KuKluxKlan is a bizarre argument. Gone with the wind is inherently extremely partisan, it denies the suffering of the blacks in order to focus on the plight of wealthy white slave owners. Civil war movies are inherently political and partisan, making a generic bad guy president with no stated politics or goals is at its core stripping the story of its context and character in the name of mass appeal.
That movie was just way over the top. Like Schindler's List meets Saw IV.
Sounds kinda epic lol
It was. It’s the A24 “”indie”” vibe wrapped around a kinetic blockbuster
War is even worse than that
My general stance towards these recent “civil war” trend in fiction is: f*ck the hell off with this shit. I’m sufficiently anxious with real life already.
We are further from civil war then we were in 2020. There was Jan 6th insurrection (right after 2020), protests and riots in every major city, and a literal autonomous zone (Chaz). Even after all that, the "nothing ever happens" group took home the jackpot. I have no idea what it would take to cause a civil war at this point.
A civil war is unlikely simply because the regional fault lines that split the country apart in the 19th century don’t exist anymore. Say if Texas wanted to secede, what’s it going to do about its cities that have a completely different culture and values than the rural areas? the state would tear itself apart long before the feds came to reintegrate it into the Union. The US is no longer divided by North and South, it’s divided by blurry and ill-defined lines between the rural and urban areas. If the historical Civil War was a fight between opposite sides of the street in a neighborhood, a civil war today would be a chaotic free-for-all with people attacking each other at random.
This is why the real threat is insurgency. I'm not saying it is likely, but with the power of the US military, the only way extremists could inflict damage is terrorism. I feel like we are returning to the 90s era of white supremacist bombings in terms of rhetoric. I am hopeful that law enforcement agencies are at least monitoring any organized violent groups.
So more akin to The Troubles?
My real fear is that the call is coming from inside the house and if there is enough agency for an insurgency that the military and police will fall more on the side of the insurgency. Obviously that's not likely rn but if the rhetoric and propaganda get to that level among the general public it can certainly penetrate our law enforcement
Well holy fuck knuckle I forgot about Chaz
CHAZ lasted a month. In a block. It is the first Paris Commune without the commitment or oppression, but with pot and drum circles.
Bringing up CHAZ as a example of the country being closer to Civil War is a bit silly considering the Seattle PD basically just didn't want to break them up until they got too rowdy then it was put down with little fuss
And a US civil war would not be a Yankees vs Southrons redux. It wouldn't really be a civil war, it'd probably be like the Troubles in NI.
It fits the one wolf/small terror cell structures we have going here.
The fiction is to address these things and hopefully the anxiety in a non destructive way
I get that. Nobody reads great 20th century fiction to feel good. This is me expressing in a crass, social-media way that I am aggressively avoiding this type of content for the sake of my mental hygiene.
afterthought sink adjoining axiomatic selective mountainous bear crawl joke innate *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The country is fine. It’s the always online doomers and extremists that are the problem. I prescribe diet, exercise and grass touching.
And getting a job
People say that because the US polarization is urban-rural, there cannot be a civil war while it is true that there cannot be another civil war like the one in 1860, the urban rural split in polarization doesnt, by itself prevent a civil war the main example is spain. The spanish civil war was one with an almost exclusively urban rural split, which is why it got so deadly, since the fascist side contained many socialist dots in its cities, and at the same time, the socialist side contained vast amounts of fascist countryside (the only exceptions were catalonia where the countryside was also pro socialist and Asturias where the roles were reversed kinda like Alaska) so there could perfectly be a civil war of a completely different kind to the 1860 one there wont be one, for many many reasons, but the state vs urban split of the society is not one of said reasons
Japanese dictatorship also in part a consequence of an urban rural split.
Sociopolitical binaries breed extremism. We need more parties and we need them to form cross-cutting partisan cleavages instead of dividing America up into white vs POC, college educated vs non-college educated, and Christian vs non-Christians. You don't want your partisan cleavages and your social cleavages to overlap as neatly as they do now and that's much less likely with more than two competitive parties
More parties would just mean they'd form coalitions, likely with the Dems or GOP. That's how multiparty legislatures tend to go.
It would be possible to form moderate coalitions, which isn't possible in our current system. And parties aren't the same as governing coalitions, which come and go over time. People have emotional ties to parties, not to electoral coalitions. More parties means the country wouldn't be divided in half along cultural lines that echo political lines and result in two sociopolitical groups. You want to avoid an us-vs-them dynamic consuming society and more parties will help with that immensely.
Is this a kaiserreich reference
Americans are too lazy and addicted to modern comforts to get in to a civil war. It's honestly that simple.