This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There are a non-zero number of offramps: sufficiently-decisive political victory that one side or the other capitulates, abrupt prosperity due to AI or robotics sufficient that everyone is too busy being insanely rich to care about politics any more, maybe two or three others. Potentially, Christ might return on a cloud to judge the Quick and the Dead.
The odds of you and those you know and love (and to be crystal clear here, this is a fully-general you, red, blue, grey, every human in the continental US) dying screaming increased significantly this week, and the action most likely to significantly counter that likelihood is to leave the country. What you see happening around you is happening because many millions of people want it to happen, and are willing to work to make it happen. Momentum and a good many other things are on their side.
This is a good time for the regular reminder to consult the chudjak's "things happening" charts. I predict that within two months, this incident will be out of the news and as forgotten as Luigi Mangione is now. Dedicated activist right-wingers will have added it to their long list of grievances against the left, but it will no longer feel fresh and visceral and pale against the volume and weight of other grievances like COVID and BLM.
When you are online and seething among the like-minded, it is easy to imagine that the rest of the people out there have just not caught up yet and once they do (let it sink in and come to share your feeling of outrage) surely the sentiment will boil over. In reality, the normies have already caught up and are actively in the process of getting over it and moving on. If the rage was not enough to cause riots on day 1, there will certainly not be enough on day 2, or 3, or thereafter; it's not like the US right has the wordcel or activist base to nurture mass secondary indignation in excess of the peak of primary indignation in response to the event.
The argument is not that "Billions Must Die" because some brainrotted person shot Charlie Kirk. The argument is that society is a complex machine, and keeping it running requires a degree of base-level values-coherence. Kirk's murder, and the left's extremely public reaction to that murder, are demonstrations that the minimum level of values-coherence no longer exists.
I think you are wrong that this incident will be forgotten; for that matter, I think you are wrong that Luigi has been forgotten. But it scarcely matters. This murder was not a fluke, but rather a stochastically-predictable result of many millions of people trying to live together with many millions of other people whose values and worldview are mutually exclusive. Events like this are going to keep happening, and they are going to keep generating common knowledge, which will in turn drive further action.
It's fairly probable that at some point in the next few years, Blues are going to gain significant political power. When they do, they are going to exercise that power in predictable ways: they will escalate. Reds will react to that exercise in predictable ways: they will escalate back. This murder will shape the backlash to the backlash to the backlash, and it will shape it for the worse. Reds are by no means prepared to be ruled the way Trump is currently ruling Blues. Blues are not prepared to have murder of their champions treated the way they are treating Kirk's murder. Both are very likely to be forced to react to such treatment in the relatively-near future, and neither is likely to do so in a way that we might, from a detached and nonpartisan perspective, consider "pro-social".
How do you figure you are not just hearing a Shepard tone of things escalating all the time? It seems to me that your argument is essentially that things have to get worse because the set of grievances can only monotonically grow, but culture war material also has a certain half-life. People are still alive in the US nowadays that experienced far worse political violence than Charlie Kirk getting shot, but events from the '70s and '80s hardly count for anything because their political valence becomes more and more inscrutable as the past grows foreign. Did the Unabomber attack Red consumerism on behalf of Blue degrowth, or Blue academia on behalf of Red RETVRNerism? Was Waco Red police brutality or Blue oppression of religious conservatives? Some fringe groups of course still have categorical answers to these, but even two fringe groups that everyone agrees belong on the same side of the spectrum now will not necessarily agree on the answers.
(Coming up soon: were anti-Vietnam college students Blue commie sympathisers, or the forerunners to Red Putinbots sabotaging our heroic defense of Ukraine?)
(This is also a sort-of response to @Amadan below.)
With difficulty and a considerable degree of imprecision.
There is pretty obviously no way to prove it, beyond comparing the predictions I've made and the reasoning underlying them with events as they unfold. @Chrisprattalpharaptr is confident I'm wrong, and has called out what he considers my predictive failures in two previous posts, one immediately preceding Luigi killing the CEO and the other immediately preceding Kirk's murder. And it's fair game; I predicted that the violence would get worse during the rioting, and I predicted that the rioting, compromise of policing, and attendant spike in crime would be lasting. Instead, the rioting finally wound down, "abolish the police" was largely sidelined, and the crime spike declined back to around the previous trend after only four years and a few dozen-thousand additional deaths rather than continuing on for the rest of the decade. I was too pessimistic; in hindsight, I think the "Blue Tribe ran out of mana" explanation is clearly more accurate.
And yet, we have had hundreds of attacks on churches, yearly, for multiple years now; mostly vandalism and harassment, but a notable number of arsons and shootings; my church has a permanent armed security team now, which is novel. We had a nation-wide vandalism and arson campaign against Tesla, with Tim Waltz among others winking and nodding along to in public appearances. We've had a worrying spate of trans school shooters which seem to me to be directly motivated by the tenants of trans ideology. We've had the attempted assassination of Trump missing by the slimmest of chances amid, charitably, criminal incompetence on the part of the Secret Service, and then the very obvious and quite public disappointment in that failure through Blue Tribe, top to bottom. Since then we've seen the rise of assassination culture in Blue Tribe, "who will kill Elon", national polling showing large portions of Blue Tribe endorsing the murder of Trump and Musk. We saw what that looked like in practice with Luigi: widespread, open support for lawless murder throughout blue tribe, again top-to-bottom, with unrestrained glazing from major media organizations and blue-state legislation being named after him. We've seen it again with Kirk: appalling murder met with undeniable, widespread, population-representative-scale gleeful support.
Multi-city riots against ICE have been limited because Trump established punishing escalation dominance from the very start, removing much of their political cover and aggressively prosecuted as many rioters as possible. And even with that federal hammer pounding away, we've seen facilities mobbed and destroyed by rioters, we've seen numerous serious attacks on federal agents, murder of federal agents, and at least one coordinated paramilitary ambush. In the background we're still seeing what appears to me to be clear support from democrat officials to assist all of the above by doxxing ICE agents and releasing the information to the public.
And to CPAR's point, this is a better outcome than I expected; in 2018-2020, I did not expect Trump to escape jail, much less win the 2020 election. The above is what it looks like after the Democratic party imploded itself in one of the most humiliating and catastrophic electoral defeats in modern political history, when their voters have fled and their donors have shut their wallets. This the mayhem Blue Tribe can inflict when at the weakest it's ever been in my entire life. Barring unprecedented measures or outcomes, it will most likely recover and will once again find itself wielding federal power. It almost certainly will exercise that power with a furious vengeance, unconstrained by the norms and structures that are currently being trampled by Trump in the meantime; Blue politicians are already running on a policy of "drive it like you stole it", and their base does not seem inclined to moderation. And why would they be? They're as desperate and policy-starved as my side is.
And even knowing that, I still think this is probably the best possible path forward; maybe Trump can deliver enough obvious improvement in living conditions that we win the midterms and maybe 2028 as well, and maybe enough political defeats in succession can force capitulation from Progressive ideologues and the demolition of their centers of economic, social and political power, and we can actually wind the culture war down. Maybe. Otherwise, it will be the Blue turn to prosecute culture war escalations through federal law, and my side's turn to prosecute escalations outside it. And there's still hope there too! There's a possibility that the struggle over federal power will have done enough damage to federal institutions that those institutions will simply lack the capacity to prosecute the culture war further, and both sides sag back in exhaustion to simply running their own states and communities as best they can. Society pillarizes, sorts, segregates, and good fences make good neighbors. It could happen!
Maybe.
I still remember that Blue Tribe terrorists and murderers got institutional protection and tenure. But sure, last time it died down, it might die down again. This is true.
Last time it died down because, on the balance, the Blues of the time capitulated.
Let's take a concrete example. I do not think the views this person expresses are fringe within Blue Tribe. I think that, prior to the ongoing backlash sparked by Kirk's murder, I would have been fired from most jobs in my industry for disagreeing with this person about Kirk or objecting to their statements. In order for the Culture War to de-escalate, this person's views have to become fringe, or Kirks views, and mine, have to become fringe. This person is pretty clearly willing to endorse extralegal killing to stave off capitulation. So, as it happens, am I, even if my choice of acceptable targets is considerably stricter. One of us has to lose, and neither of us is willing to accept that loss, and until that changes it seems obvious that the escalations will proceed on their current trajectory. Ozy described the core drive and Zunger did the math more than a decade ago, and everything since then has been fractal iteration.
...Having deleted answers to both questions, I will accept that I may be fringe (Ted was much closer to Red, Waco was very, very definitely blue and I would be very surprised to see an existence proof of arguments to the contrary, I can't help myself), but it seems to me that better examples might have been Prohibition and Eugenics. Even there, the answer does not seem like some deep enigma lost to the sands of time; I think most answers from people here would be fairly uniform. It seems to me that the Culture War and the split we currently label red vs blue has been a coherent force for well over a century, and possibly three centuries. In this country, it is easy to see how that split has, over the last hundred years or so, steadily eroded our social and political structures and norms, and how the present unpleasantness is simply the long, slow trend going exponential as the last of our social cohesion burns away.
In any case, it is indeed possible for time to unwind the Culture War. But it is also possible to escalate faster than time alone can unwind, and it seems pretty clear to me that we are now doing that.
Again, the person linked above. Is that person crazy? Is their ideology meaningfully fringe? It's certainly not fringe enough that many millions of people felt uncomfortable expressing similar sentiments privately or publicly over the last two days. It's certainly not fringe enough that I'm confident I could disagree with it publicly and keep my job, even now. I'd give roughly 50% odds that the views they presented, together with views of similar extremity on a variety of other issues, are going to secure federal power in 2028. What do you expect to happen then?
....And all of this is based on the consensus understanding of what we might call the "math" of irreconcilable cultural conflict, which seems to me to give a high probability of things getting very bad. But I think it's actually much worse than that, because the consensus model is badly mistaken in ways that dramatically underestimate how bad things are likely to get, in a similar way and for similar reasons that people underestimated the impact of the iPhone on human interaction before its release.
You may disagree, and if so I'd be interested in hearing where I'm wrong.
To clarify, Ted was a Red attack on Blue academia, Waco was Blue oppression of religious conservatives? That's more or less my understanding of the two incidents.
Correct. Judging by his manifesto, Ted was what you get when you have someone with the temperment and general values of a Tolkein or a C.S. Lewis and subtract the Christianity. He did not appear to believe in Progress; his moral worldview was materialistic and pessimistic. He rejected Leftism and leftists outright and quite explicitly, IIRC.
Waco was aimed primarily at gun owners; my assessment of the evidence is that it was an attempt by ATF leadership to prove their indispensability to the incoming Clinton administration, given that the agency had a large number of skeletons in their closet, including a bunch of lawsuits alleging and documenting some fairly shocking racism throughout the organization, that might lead Clinton to attempt significant reform. They found a bunch of gun-owning (first priority) religious weirdoes (second priority), and essentially tried to frame them for federal gun crimes. It's a pattern of behavior the agency has recapitulated quite a few times over the years, unfortunately. If everything had gone according to plan, they'd railroad these weirdoes in a big show trial, get tons of good press, make themselves look good to the boss, and it would be beers all around. Unfortunately, their complete incompetence turned the raid into a total disaster, and then they and the FBI killed everyone to cover it up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for your lengthy response. I'm not sure if I'll have time to answer in a way that does it justice today, but I'll at least drop a few bullet points addressing some aspects now while I can:
Here's an article giving a feds-were-being-Red interpretation of Waco. I'm fairly sure I saw at least one other version of this argument during BLM.
There's a big asymmetry between the Right and the Left in that the Left has overwhelming control of the media, and I don't mean to call this asymmetry cosmetic or unimportant to questions that ultimately pertain to the Left's capability for coordinating escalation at all, but we should also try to decouple this from the sentiment of the actual masses if we are to get a handle on whether things are actually getting escalated. Take away the top-down approval, and a lot more symmetry can be seen: for example, the widespread approval among the Right for lawless killings such as the Zimmerman/Martin case (whatever you think about whether it was justified, there is little to dispute about it being lawless).
...and either way, the "Shepard tone" model does not even depend on it being "both sides", nor does it even require any particular metric to give comparable readings now and in the past! After all, a Shepard tone is made up of many separate frequency peaks that all fade in, drift in the same direction, and then eventually fade out. You may be right that, in all the ways you have described, the Left's misdeeds have only been getting worse in volume; but what about the ways you didn't touch upon? Is anything happening right now as bad as the assorted actual race riots of the past, or Weather Underground, or a coalition of blue college kids providing what should be a true Dolchstoßlegende for America's first and most iconic foreign military defeat if it didn't have so many dollar bills to wipe its tears with, or Blue spies delivering the actual crown jewels of American military secrets to the communists?
(edited in) I think you may be underestimating the degree to which "smart money"/the forces that actually steer society have taken as a lesson from WWII that maintaining normality and proving chudjak right over and over again is the winning strategy for all conflicts, and how good they have gotten at it. Russia and Ukraine are currently locked into an actual hot existential war that reduces cities to rubble and then mans cavities in the rubble with men who would rather take a few more enemies with them than surrender, and yet 50 kilometres from the front they are, with reasonable degrees of success, taking pains to keep the cute cafés and nightclubs open and running. This, if nothing else, convinces me that there are really, in some sense, still "adults at the wheel". They may be psychopathic adults with a worrying lack of concern for the well-being of their charges, but the extent of their power to delay their own gratification, control impulses and keep the machine running under the most adverse of circumstances has been proven.
I wrote a far-too-long reply, and then lost it to an internet outage. hopefully this one will work better.
....Existence proven. That is quite the article; I haven't made it through the whole thing, and it took a while to get further than the subheader. @gattsuru, you might get a kick out of this. I might try and do a writeup for it.
The last several years are best modelled as a massive, distributed search for ways to hurt the outgroup as badly as possible without getting in too much trouble. It is not this way because someone commissioned a search of how to maximize evil, it is this way because the search is simply the sum of our collective desires. We want it to be this way more than we want it to be some other way. We are, at the end of the day, only human.
Over the last two years in particular, I think we have an abundance of solid evidence that both sides of the culture war are headless, and that no one is to any meaningful extent "in control" of the mechanisms driving the conflict. It's all paths of least resistance, incentive gradients, water flowing to the sea. Ukraine and Russia can keep cute cafes and nightclubs running fifty klicks behind the front because they are two cohesive cultures fighting an actual war centrally-directed between them, not the corpse of a formerly-cohesive culture undergoing increasingly rapid decay. We are sewn up together inside this corpse, and will likely claw each others' guts out trying to escape it. We have no front to hide behind and so everywhere is the front, and the fight is exponentially more chaotic.
The people publicly cheering Kirk's death appear to be core Progressive cadre: lots of teachers, health-care professionals, intellectuals and academics. I'm skeptical that the Democratic party or Blue Tribe more generally can actually sideline these people, much less change their minds. What can and likely will be done is to try to get them to shut up and stop scaring the hos; I think additional five-minutes-hates like this are unlikely, because the lesson learned here will be that this permutation gets you in too much trouble, so keep the murder but more plausible deniability is needed. I think this will mostly be accomplished through vibe transmission, largely subconscious, maybe through a couple essays or think-pieces crystalizing things for the slower among us.
I get that. What you seem to be arguing is that a couple years ago, support for riots increased and then decreased, and this time it's support for assassins that's increasing and then will decrease, but overall the total level of violence stays roughly equal, right?
I don't buy it. The floyd riots represented a huge increase in violence, far beyond the baseline of the post-70s decades. They were unsustainable, and so they were not sustained, and now that increased tribal appetite for violence finds new channels to flow down... but it seems to me that it is concentrating and accellerating. In the Floyd years, even in CHAZ, political killings were mostly opportunistic or impulsive, and support for them was mainly drawn from support for the riots as a whole, or from after-the-fact damage control rationalizations. Now we're seeing targeted ambush murders, with broad-based incitement and encouragement beforehand and explicit celebration afterward. That seems like a change that should worry us.
If I understand it correctly, your further argument is that in the 60s-70s, there were a bunch of other forms of conflict that were much more worrying, and we don't have those now. That's true; the Russian Collusion hoax aside, there's no hostile foreign power either tribe can ally with, and most of our foreign entanglements have been bipartisan. On the other hand we aren't the America that went into the 60s and 70s either. We're short many institutions and norms and a shedload of social cohesion, and the violence, again, is not actually coming from the fringes in any meaningful sense any more. My model is that an outright majority of Blues would be happy to see Trump murdered. That model is, I think, shared by most of Red Tribe, and we form our plans and actions based on that understanding.
Zimmerman did recieve significant Red Tribe support (although notably I don't remember anyone celebrating Martin's death), but he claimed lawful self-defense and was acquitted of his charges in court. I'm willing to agree that some verdicts are wrong; I strongly object to Angela Davis' acquittal, for example, but I would not agree that the killing was clearly lawless.
By contrast, I would agree that Drejka's shooting of McGlockton and the McMichaels' shooting of Arbery were pretty clearly lawless killings. Both cases were attempts at self-defense, but in both cases the shooter made errors in judgement that compromised the validity of their self-defense claim. Drejka recieved no support that I'm aware of; the McMichaels recieved some minimal support.
Compare these three cases to Karmelo Anthony, Luigi, and now Robinson. That's one apparent impulse murder and two premeditated ambush murders, none with even a shred of a claim to self-defense or any lawful basis for the killing. All three have received appalling levels of support from Blue Tribe broadly.
I am not seeing an equivalence here. Red Tribe supported Zimmerman and Rittenhouse also because we thought they were legitimately innocent and had acted in self-defense, and Drejka and the McMichaels we wrote off because they broke the rules, even if only in marginal and technical ways. No one cheering Robinson or Luigi or donating to Anthony is under the impression that what they did was justifiable legally, or that the illegality of the acts derives from the legal fine-print. They are celebrating the fact that their tribe can collectively flout the law, as they did in the riots as well.
Do not confuse this for an argument that we Reds are not entirely willing and capable of coordinating similar violence; the difference is who we've generally aimed it at ("Are those Level Four plates?", "I didn't lose shit", "belt-feds are the only good feds", "the tree of liberty", etc), and the fact that we have drawn and enforced lines that keeps such lawless killing almost entirely (and, arguably, comically) theoretical.
To be fair, you yourself did have to fight against a few chuckleheads here, and more people who were willing to But Arbery Might Have Stolen Something Before. But, yeah, even among pretty extreme parts of the right-wing, the McMichaels were nowhere near the cause celebre that people imagine.
Interesting, but I'll note that it doesn't actually call the fed actions Red tribe. Renfo says, instead:
And the book agrees :
While there's a lot of lurid reviews of Cook's work as talking about the Red Tribe's devolution into 'conspiracy theorists' -- and Cook does spend nearly a third of the book on that -- the other two thirds of the book are split between talking about Koresh and the Davidians were fuckups (not always fairly) and how the feds fucked everything up. Which makes the contrast pretty awkward, given the extent the theorists were sometimes right, even in his telling.
That's far from an unbiased or neutral telling, especially if you're familiar with the finer details. Cook takes every Democratic party deflection at face value (and literally mentions Freeh once in the entire book, not merely believes that the Davidians lit the fire but so certain he quotes someone calling any other possibility barmy) to pretend the FBI was manipulating everyone around them, but he does at least mention some of the multitude of lies (no flammable CS gas until oops there was) and destroyed or lost evidence (the steel door and three disappearing cameras are mentioned, though not some other records), and the absolute atrocity of a show trial the surviving Davidians received.
But for all my criticisms, it's also not saying they were Red Tribe behaviors. Cook's story is that they're just The Feds.
I want to say someone making a more dedicated argument specifically about the raid 'really' starting with local Red-Tribe-On-Red-Tribe fighting, though I can't find it in my records and I'm pretty sure it was long enough ago it couldn't have been this specific article or book. The weakman is just that the investigations started under Bush I's ATF (just as Ruby happened before the 1992 election even happened), but that struggles with the extent these orgs were clearly trying to support major policies among the then-ascendant left side of the aisle. Steelman was something about the intra-Davidian battles getting pushed up to the state, and the state indirectly pushing them to the feds, and the feds were stuck holding the bill... but that still runs into the problem of how the feds actually handled things.
I'd quibble that this is a moderately recent development: there were some parts of the early anti-abortion movement and anti- that were similarly bloodthirsty and tolerated, and it took a pretty sizable effort by both the more moderate bits of the religious right and some lawfare by leftists to shove it into a box. The Days of Rage did also have the MOOVE bombing and some amount of tolerated targeted violence that direction, even if it's often overstated by Zinnian tellings.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have long been in disagreement with @FCfromSSC about this, and I tend to agree with your rebuttal in general. However, we really do seem to be moving apart in ways that at least could eventually end in the sort of worst-case scenario he is predicting. Your argument that "This will be forgotten in a few months, this incident is not actually going to set anything off" is the sort of thing that's true until it's not. This incident probably won't be the one that triggers a civil war. The next one probably won't be. The US is stable enough that we can have many, many such incidents accumulate and fade into the news cycle. But no one can predict the exact confluence of circumstances that will make that one time be the one that does it. How confident are you, really, that the Next Big Thing has a zero percent chance of being the torch that lights everything on fire?
I still don't think we're going to see a violent Red/Blue civil war in my lifetime. Or more accurately, I hope we don't, but I actually don't think it's likely. But I admit my priors have updated to it being less unlikely than I once thought.
Seeing you of all people say this is a real indicator of what time it is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I dunno, man. It's not that you're even wrong here, per se, it's just that there's a certain "we're done here" quality about it. But who knows, maybe we'll just loop right back to the same old, same old.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, it isn't. If civil war breaks out Blue vs. Red in the US, it's going to be an excuse for every other [Blue-aligned] province of the American empire to descend into the despotism whose agenda they are even today ahead of the US in implementing.
The US is, and due to demographics is likely to remain, the least authoritarian Western nation (and any assertions to the contrary are made by Blues, who intentionally mislabel authoritarianism as freedom).
There are people who would say that living under Red* despotism is better than dying due to civil war.
*In the West other than the USA, red = left as a holdover from Communist red.
More options
Context Copy link
Looking at how things are going across the water, I'm not sure that will work any better for them than it will for local blues. The scenario I can see where we actually get durable blue totalitarianism is one where AI goes FOOM, it's alignable and they align it. Short of that, I do not think that future is going to go the way you are thinking it will go, for reasons that boil down to society being a lot more fragile than people appreciate.
All that said, the advice is not "go to Europe". Australia or new zealand, possibly japan, maybe some of the quieter parts of Asia would be my uneducated guess.
Unlike every other part of the Empire you actually managed to put reformers in office (and the reaction to that has resulted in at least one hard-Blue government being elected in another nation- one whose Blue-aligned voters have also been cheering this murder). Across the water, increasingly blue (as in, establishment/conservative) candidates are elected and potential reformers are jailed.
They have other things they need to deal with, too; I think it will be worse for European countries in particular due to their having imported a ton of foreign fighting-age males over the last 10 years. Not that these are the most violent specimens (those ones stayed home), but the capability is likely there for more mayhem.
Those places are under more Blue control than the US is (concentration camps for the uncommon cold, etc.). Singapore's probably the best option mostly due to their monarchy and being outside of the traditional first-world orbit while still being vital to its operations in Asia.
Ok, I'm a bit lost here. Which country successfully put reformers in office, and which other country elected a hard-Blue government as a result?
US. (Rs are Reform, Ds are Conservative, since about 2020.)
Canada. Technically across the water too, though nobody generally thinks about that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Something that is constantly invoked in heated political signalling competitions, but who actually does it? How many people have actually emigrated from the US following the elections of President Trump, for both of which I remember widespread threats of emigration? Yes, to be sure, a few high-profile media personnages have gone to Britain for a spell and given interviews about it, but that's hardly the exodus.
I know one family quite well that has just done so (at significant cost), explicitly for the reason of trans stuff vis a vis Trump. (sad story around the son/daughter)
I question their judgement in that regard, but it might turn out to be a good decision for other reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
I think nowadays people who would claim to move to Canada just get off Twitter and onto Bluesky. It's a lot less commitment, but at least they actually DO it.
More options
Context Copy link
I did it, once upon a time, and somewhat foolishly. Maybe I'm wrong this time too, but I don't think I am. If our society ruptures, it is going to get bad beyond the wildest imagination of even the people who've actually gone out of their way to imagine it.
Emigrate, or publicly announce intention to emigrate?
I actually moved to Canada for a couple years under Bush, and seriously considered renouncing my US citizenship.
Oh my, talk about dodging bullets.
Lessons were learned.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link