1 in 5 Americans think violence may solve U.S. divisions, poll finds
1 in 5 Americans think violence may solve U.S. divisions, poll finds
www.pbs.org
1 in 5 Americans think violence may solve U.S. divisions, poll finds
148 comments
-
-
What a stupid question.
Undoubtedly, violence would solve America's divisions- but is it the best way to do so? The real questions are, how long would that take, who would ultimately be the losers, and would it even be "America" when it all ends?
-
violence
The favorite action of the, Make America Go Away, crowd.
-
Spreading Managed Democracy, one liberation round at a time!
-
-
The Congressional Republicans and their Fox News swallowing ilk, who have all decided they love Russia so much, should simply move there.
-
How would it solve divisions? Wouldn't it just heighten them?
-
It worked during the French Revolution, and now they have some of the strongest labor rights in the world.
-
Basically, one side believes that they should be allowed to kill anyone who disagrees with them, and the other side believes in the "excise the tumor" approach (use force now to remove the militant extremists and fascists to prevent their proganda from radicalizing more people and making the problem worse).
Both would technically be correct just by reducing the population of one side or the other, I guess. Can't disagree if you're dead.
-
-
That's not the question, the question was "Would you agree that force may be needed to course-correct" rather than "could it solve division".
-
-
The only battle we are currently fighting is rich vs poor and we are loosing badly. All the other culture war issues are a farce.
-
Republicans trying to ruin the lives of half the population is not a "farce" and I'm insulted you'd simplify your argument to this level. There can be multiple things happening at once.
-
It's a farce they put on specifically to distract their base from the war on the poor.
-
You're missing the fact that all those people are beholden to the rich and powerful and have only done their bidding for the last 80 years.
Sure, Republicans are fuckin horrible. But they're this way by the design of the rich who really run things.
-
-
-
Unironically yes, sufficient levels of violence will solve US divisions.
Anyone that thinks that they genuinely want this though has never lived in a country going through a civil war.
-
If anything happens it won't be a civil war. There is no good geological line to use as a point to start. It will be much more akin to the Troubles of Northern Ireland. Which may be honestly worse.
-
The biggest difference would be that there isn't an outside country that could or would step in. The US military would probably end up being divided, as many of the upper officers take oaths of loyalty to the country and constitution seriously, while a number of the enlisted people are much more partisan.
We're already seeing the beginnings of low-level terrorism, with threats of assassination against judges and other gov't officials. Mostly--almost exclusively--from the political right. It's not much of a step from there to actual violence.
-
-
Or they lack a shred of empathy and/or imagination.
I've never lived in a country going through civil war, but I don't have to do that to tell you that it's not something I want ever.
-
-
I agree. "Sufficient" is a lot more than people would ever want to see
-
Ah yes, we can see in Libya how well this worked out
-
-
-
There are multiple justices taking bribes and telling us they have the legal right to do so
is this true?
-
Very much so. They just call them "gifts" from "friends" and that's the end of it.
-
https://jacobin.com/2023/06/supreme-court-justices-thomas-alito-corruption-wsj
Technically there is not a law stating that what they're doing is illegal but the laws in place to prevent SCJs from taking bribes were written vaguely purposely because they wanted to leave it open for future interpretations for future crimes. When writing a law you never know what could happen in 5,10 or 20 years and how crimes are committed evolves. The current laws are basically, you'll know a crime when you see it. The argument is being made that since it's not clear it's not a crime but most other judges could never get away with this kind of behavior. This would be concerning coming from any public official but these are the views of the highest court in the land. Congress has the power to impeach SCJs but unfortunately relying on Congress to do anything has been an ongoing joke for 20+ years.
-
Yep
-
-
Advocating violence against the Supreme Court is still advocating violence. Removed.
-
-
That figure is probably higher if we talk about gutting rich people. We might even get unity on that instead of divisiveness. I get a MAGA republican in the same room as a democrat and we start talking about wasting rich people, they often start acting like friends.
I'm hoping we can realize who our common enemies are so that we don't get into a civil war.
-
I feel bad for conservatives. In the, odds are stacked against you, kind of way.
They Would rather hand over their country to billionaires than share it.
They Would rather vote to give socialism and more hand overs to those billionaires, while destroying the middle class which actually made america great. They are Destroying the American Dream they claim to be Saving.
Actually fuck them conservatives. Easy to fool idiots helping Russia and China and Saudi Arabia.
-
Which conservatives are these again? The fascists that want to have no government or the fascists that want control ceded to foreigners?
-
-
-
12% of dems and 28% of republicans… that says something
-
To be fair, the question was "do you think violence is necessary for the US to get back on track"
Make America Great Again is the Republican line, so of course the poll is going to lean this way.
-
So if the questions had been “do you think violence is necessary for hope and change” more dems would have said 'yes'?
lol
Pretty clear the operative phrase was do you think violence is necessary.
-
It's built into the slogan. "The grass is always greener" doesn't have the same ring to it.
-
Congrats. That's probably the dumbest attempt to grasp at straws I've seen all day.
-
-
-
Every one of those people imagines the violence happening to groups they don’t like, and not to them and the groups they like. Always remember, both sides thought the civil war would be over in one battle.
-
Yup, they also think their handguns are a match for the US military.
Someone should ask them how fighting an advanced military is working out for Hamas right now.
-
I mean the Afghani and Vietnamese probably have a different answer. Also Hamas is still alive.
-
"Guerilla warfare is ineffective and governments have never fallen to their own people ever". You. That's what you sound like.
-
You making any assumptions on which side the military will choose, or that it won’t have an internal rift?
-
Which is why the violence won't be conducted with handguns, but with guillotines.
-
-
-
Fascists fundamentally support political violence as a method for "solving division". Anyone who is not a fascist and supports such violence at this moment needs to understand that political violence is going to backfire and play into the fascist's hands unless you can first build alternative systems of power and support outside of the government.
If you start violence without that network of support in place, you will disrupt people's lives, and the only support structure that can help will be the current Government. The military will be the ones providing food, medicine, and shelter. If you don't have a strategy to get regular people affected by the disruption food, water, healthcare and shelter, you're going to make the government the hero.
If you're not a fascist, and believe political violence is necessary, your first step isn't violence, your first step is to take a page from The Black Panthers and starting a community breakfast program.
-
That analysis is true only if the base is the target of the violence. Targeting the base is a big mess. But if the targets are the prime beneficiaries of the status quo, just the 0.01%, there is no mess. But that requires discipline, research, patience. Not just anyone can pull that off.
-
-
They’re going to force us to fight them again, aren’t they.
-
I've been saying it for years, war is coming. Best get prepared
-
-
Violence meaning guillotines
-
-
you are correct, that would be an immeasurable stat. That is in fact true.
-
Removed, advocating violence.
-
Uhh... Haha?
-
-
Oh no, the country founded by 1%ers who don't want to pat taxes, and built on I disk burial grounds, is full of crazy violent assholes?
I'm shocked!
We aren't Russia (yet), so we must keep trying to facilitate the change we so desperately need.
Imo. That would be switching away from first past the post voting in favor of an alternative voting system like Ranked Choice.
-
If we mean the 1%ers? Yeah violence would start solving that issue.
-
I think those numbers are low. I think people were confused. While everyone knows them as indispensable vehicles of egalitarian social progress, guillotines are technically tools of violence.
-
Of that 1 in 5... How many are MAGots
-
Of the total surveyed 20% said "strongly agree" that violence might be needed for course correction, for Republicans specifically it was 28% and for Democrats it was 12%.
-
-
Anyone who believes this should be put in a thunderdome and the rest of us can pay to watch
-
The Jacobins believed it.
-
-
Yeah, turns out people cant disagree with you, if you kill them.
-
I mean... If you got rid of one side of a division, there's no more division so they're not wrong. It's just not a cool way to solve the problem.
-
That's OK, I look good in Blue.
-
Red vs Blue
Funny how life keeps coming back to this...
-
-
I think some low level violence would make people more polite. Workers should be able to slap crazy customers and such.
-
i mean, that's one way of putting it.
-
Violence is a problem and a division, but once certain folks try it I can imagine how it would solve itself.
-
That's about how much of the population of the USA voted for Trump.
-
That one in five are violent radical fascists, and the other four are weak leftist pussies waiting to be slaughtered.
You had better fucking arm up and train.
148 comments
The only violence I condone is eating the rich.
And here I thought I'd come in and struggle to convince people it wasn't just conservatives itching for a new civil war.
If the blue collar conservatives would only figure out the rich do not have there best interests at heart there wouldn’t be a war. This is class warfare but most just don’t realize it yet.
Conservatives are itching to commit violence against women, minorities, and political opposition.
Leftists recognize that medical debt, unaffordable food and rent, climate change, etc. are already forms of violence we're being subjected to as part of permanent class warfare.
They are not the same.
Semantics but the user above you didn't want a civil war, just the vast majority killing like 800 Billionaires and maybe a few thousand millionaires (not all of them). Personally I don't think it's all that feasible, I'd rather just vote blue and tax them out of existence.