1 in 5 Americans think violence may solve U.S. divisions, poll finds
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/1-in-5-americans-think-violence-may-solve-u-s-divisions-poll-findsOpen linkView original on lemmy.worldSyndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.
View original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/1-in-5-americans-think-violence-may-solve-u-s-divisions-poll-findsOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
155 replies
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.
Two of the two most effective ways to control a large group is to give a group (or group) to fear, then convince them that the group/s is coming to take what they have.
Throw getting them to feel superior to said group/s as a bonus. And bam you have total control...
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.
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?
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.
That's because commoners were united against elites. Roughly half of us are convinced the elites would love to give the rest of us more of their wealth if only big daddy government would relax those pesky taxes and regulations. Oh, and that every bad thing that happens is because we don't pray in schools.
i think it's more like roughly 10% believe that because they're stupid. Roughly 15-20% believe that they will be rich:tm: and the rest don't care or agree.
There has been quite some history between the revolution and the current labor rights... specifically five changes in political system including four republics and two empires. The first republic was probably less ideal than you imagine.
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.
You kill all of “them” and that leaves just “us”.
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.
For some republicans in positions of power? Sure. But not for their voter base.
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.
Republicans are horrible because of their core beliefs. That there is not good and bad, but strong and weak. That (paraphrasing a wise internet man here) "there are in-groups that the law must protect but not bind, and out-groups that the law must bind but not protect." That they're always right, and that others are always wrong. Rich people use this, but they cannot create it alone.
When you say "Republicans", are you referring to politicians or to the roughly half of the country that votes Republican? Because I kind of agree with your take if it's regarding politicians, but even then it should apply to all of them. If you are referring to everyone who votes Republican, then you are so far off base that I don't even know where to start.
I'm referring to a large number of both politicians and voters who hold these sentiments, whether consciously or unconsciously. People who vote republican because of habit or whatever instead of ideology don't count although I do think that's shortsighted, and there are some republicans who genuinely believe in the fiscal or deregulation sides of things etc.
If they vote Republican, they condone the violence associated with it. There is no separation between the two.
Exactly what violence are you referring to?
All of it. State violence against the poor and minority groups; corporate violence against the wage-earner; radicalized lone wolf violence against the public.
The rich don't just use it, they finance it and manage it.
Right, but I feel like you're not getting my point here. They couldn't do that if their supporters didn't already believe in hurting people.
I get that the billionaires can't do it alone, but my point is, without the elites the fascist/capitalist base by itself isn't sufficiently organized or motivated to run an oligarchy.
The billionaires are the brain of that organism.
Dude, it's because your point is stupid and ignorant.
My point is informed by hundreds of hours of discussion with republican individuals. If you think it's stupid and ignorant then tell me with a straight face that republicans aren't more hateful than democrats.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, the ammo box is literally the fourth box of democracy after the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box, but it's only to be used when the other three have failed
At the end of the day, might makes right, so we better make damn well sure the side we believe in has more of it
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
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.
I would have said yes to "is violence necessary" because in some situations it is, but I would have not even been able to answer the question as asked, or I would have said no, because I don't agree with what they are saying violence is necessary for. The context is important, and flavored how people answered the question.
My comment was for people who understand that polling can be biased based on how you word the question.
"Do you think violence is necessary" is how the poll is being reported on, but that is not what was asked.
You think this phrasing was biased against republicans. I offered an equivalent phrasing that would be similarly biased against dems.
Do you think more dems would have responded positively to political violence if it was just phrased a little differently?
Who knows! Maybe?
lol- I think you know.
Lol, why even make a poll? next time we have a question we can ask you
Cool!
Unironically yeah it changes the answers a LOT. There are entire sections of sociology dealing with much smaller polling biases.
What’s another phrasing that you think would be equivalently biased against dems?
I’m genuinely unsure of what you mean by “against” here-- are you implying the original phrasing biased Republican answers towards or against violence, and do you consider that to be a good or bad thing?
To answer your question though, I believe phrases that could influence Democrats to vote yes could be “Do you think violence is necessary to combat hatred” or as was suggested earlier “Do you think violence is necessary for hope and change”. Basically anything that ties violence to their desired values or outcomes.
Maybe read back up the chain if you're this lost.
I'd love to see that poll ;)
Fuck off
If I make one I'll send it in this community and you'll get to see me proven right. Unfortunately you'll be blocked so I won't see your response.
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.
I'm looking at what the polling question actually is. Liberals, kinda by definition, don't want the country to "get back on track" or return to a period of former greatness.
I would agree we're pretty far off the track. Remember when the biggest scandals were presidential blowies and tan suits?
How about Watergate? There have always been scandals.
Or on another note, how about when presidential blowies were a scandal, gay people couldn't even get married? The appeal to an idealized past is a conservative thing.
I'm not saying turn back the clock, I just want politics to stop being so... I mean marjorie taylor greene exists, for fucks sake.
Also let's be real, Watergate is tame in 2024. Hell, PRISM wasn't even as big as Watergate and it was 100x worse.
The liberals I know think it’s pretty off track. Specifically, it fell off the rails when Trump got elected.
The track switch probably was thrown back in the 2000 election. We all hoped President Obama was gonna get us back on track.
MAGA wants to revert the us to some racist 1950s version. Violence is basically required to achieve that vision.
Liberals want to put the US back on track to equality, human rights and a secure future (see SCOTUS, for example of how off track the US is). We just don’t think violence is a good way to do take.
I guess I wasn't thinking about it that way, that "on track" could be that Democrats are imagining there was a time when liberal ideals were being actively worked towards. I don't think that's really true, but I now see that someone could think that way.
So, are you a foreign operative, fascist or tankie?
There's no way educated native English speakers could be as far off in either reading comprehension, or understanding of US politics, as you are.
Half these comments read like the Reddit PsyOps campaigns of 2016, and the vote counts indicate the same.
lmao you're the one who doesn't understand how language is used to manipulate polling and headlines
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.
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.
"Guerilla warfare is ineffective and governments have never fallen to their own people ever". You. That's what you sound like.
When is the last time a modern advanced country fell to a group of it's own population?
I'll wait..
Anything is possible, its just EXTREMELY unlikely. Just look at WWI and WWII, Resistance groups. Closest would be maybe IRA but they never got close.
And the US government has unprecedented spying powers now. The power disparity orders of magnitudes too great. But you keep spouting your "armed insurrection" nonsense to make yourself feel better.
If the US falls it'll be to Trump or someone like him gaining power. Read up on how Hitler took over Germany. History repeats itself...
It's easy to be smug when you have the memory of a fly i guess.
Good bye smooth brain
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
When somebody tells you who they are it's best you believe them.
They've been telling us who they are for decades, and who they are is the unburied remnant of the Confederacy coming back for round 2, because Grant didn't let Sherman finish the job.
And they already have all the guns they need. This is why gun ownership is growing fastest among Black people, Latinos, and Trans people. I remember this when any gun control ideas come up, because anything you're trying to ban is already in the hands of most of the fascists. I'm fine with gun control, but not poorly implimented restrictions that mostly effect the populations trying to defend themselves. The most dangerous people bought their guns decades ago. They'll pass them down to their kids too.
I tell all of my liberal friends that it doesn't matter whether they approve of the practice or not. Own guns or don't, idc, but you better take some classes in how to use them.
In a country with more guns that people refusing to learn how they work is irresponsible. Knowing how they work and gun safety, and how to make a gun safe, is necessery otherwise in any situation with guns you have all the context that deer has on an interstate. We can do better we can learn and give ourselves the information necessary to make the best available decisions.
absolutely, now if only a certain sect of the population, who has a significant distaste towards liberals, would actually fucking educate them about this shit, because it's literally a right governed by our fucking constitution, and i better not catch you parroting this shit as a constitutional right, while ACTIVELY BREAKING IT.
I'm not against liberals picking up a few guns and gun related skills, but the wars of the present and near future will be fought with drones.
Perhaps, but there is no replacement for boots on the ground.
since when did gun loving republicans get war drones? I don't remember this part of british history.
I thought they were just going to roleplay as the british military after we said "yo we out dawg"
For some, the war already started.
Violence meaning guillotines
you are correct, that would be an immeasurable stat. That is in fact true.
Uhh... Haha?
Removed, advocating violence.
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.
You STILL think voting and working within the system will fix this problem?
a wise man once said the only solution more dignified than war, is communication.
That doesn't work against a highly organized system of oppression. That wise man never got a seat of power to abdicate itself through reason or begging.
which is why it's the first thing you do. And why war is the last thing you do.
So here we are. 40 years later.
you forgot the part where it doesnt work.
Every step forward has been through violence. It has worked every time. All of our rights came through acts of violence. Asking for them has never, ever , ever worked.
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.
Yeah, turns out people cant disagree with you, if you kill them.
Anyone who believes this should be put in a thunderdome and the rest of us can pay to watch
The Jacobins believed it.
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.
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%.
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 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.