Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It’s wishcasting. Some people just want to see dead Americans.




On the contrary. The ones that want to see dead Americans are currently sitting in the Whitehouse. Mostly because it won't be them on the receiving end of it and they get to plunder the country. Smaller cake, but more for me seems to be their motto.

I think perhaps multiple people can want to see dead Americans. There is definitely a subtext of glee in this discussion of modern American civil war imo.

Not with the Europeans that I know, they are all absolutely aghast at every single murder. It is one of the reasons EU countries are reluctant about participating in any war, they always hope to avoid it (and as a result sometimes get much larger ones...).

Hard for me to see anyone who says an American civil war is a best case scenario as not cheering for American deaths and I'm skeptical that this was written by an American as it sounds far too out of touch and 'wishcasty' as someone else said.

I don't know exactly who you are referring to, which article/comment/?? do you refer to?

You are skeptical that it was written by an American, but you have no proof that it was not?

Do you know who did write it?

Those guys in the Whitehouse, are they not American?

They are the ones steering you straight off a cliff and quite literally anything - including civil war - could happen as a result of that.


I'm referring to the initial comment I replied to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46693230 ie. the comment this entire thread has been about.

> you have no proof that it was not?

In other comments on their profile, they refer to Americans as if they are someone other than themselves. Also, the belief that a civil war splitting up the US is likely within the next 5 years seems like a pretty big giveaway.

> Those guys in the Whitehouse, are they not American?

As I said, multiple people can want bad things. I'm painfully aware of what the current admin is doing to our global reputation and what they are risking with their current games - and there are still 3 years on the clock.

Take care.


Whether it is likely or not has no bearing on whether they want that to happen. I don't want it to happen. I still think it is not entirely unlikely. But that's not on the observers.

It's going to be a very long three years. Or a very short one. That choice is not up to the rest of the world but up to the USA.


America has threatened to invade allies.

From the perspective of these allies it is better that American descends into a small civil war and sorts this shit out now rather than it keep simmering and escalting into a global conflict where more people including more Americans die.


Imperial boomerang after decades of adventurism in the middle east.

Nobody wants to see dead Americans. Put away your grievance politics.

We're responding to someone describing a civil war as a best case scenario. I have no grievance politics.

The problem is that alternative seems to be America starting WWIII or America violently occupying Europe. That means even more death.

you're really going to have egg on your face when none of these three paths happen

It's also stupid. A US civil war which went far enough to fragment the country would in actuality be a global WWIII and lead to billions of deaths.

Why? The US is only 5% of the world population. If others successfully disentangle themselves before the civil war begins they can take steps to isolate themselves. Yes it won't be as peaceful of a world but I don't see how it is certain to end up in a WWIII scenario.

Do you think the newly minted American Balkans are going to be peaceful and well governed? And won't, say, try to annex parts of canada, mexico, greenland, central american or island nations, etc? Do you think they will be lead by well reasoned and insightful peoples that won't escalate to a nuclear civil war and that no foreign power will try to intervene, take sides, or try to grab some real estate as well?

You think the most well funded and capable military in the world would sit idle and please itself with keeping conflict contained?


Who are you referring to? Citizens doing this? 70% of the country is fat (large portion of that is also dangerously obese)

If your scenario plays out they will also be broke so that military may not be able to be funded. I wouldnt say its impossible but a civil war would break the country such that a lot of the aspects that make you fearful also cease to exist.


And a new global leader, likely in the form of China. Which I'm sure everyone would see as an improvement. Right?

You have to ask yourself, compared to current US leadership, is China actually all that bad?

US is being driven by the personal whims of a deteriorating tyrant, Congress is allowing it and the courts are only doing a tiny amount of checking his power.

You can't just say "despite everything happening we're still the good guys and China and Russia are the bad guys!"

Osama bin Ladin won. The goals he had when he attacked America have been entirely achieved. Americans got stupid and became susceptible to the society changing effects of terrorism. He got us to destroy ourselves.


Call me a traditionalist but I do think having free/fair elections is a massive distinguishing factor.

Is that why Texas is gerrymandering their maps again? Is it to have "fair" elections?

Or why GOP legislatures in states like Wisconsin or North Carolina remove powers from Governor, AG and other elected positions only when Democrats win but not when Republicans do?

Why doesn't China gerrymander their maps?

Changing topics I see

Because they have the most fair elections. Duh.

Having free elections doesn't make you the good guys if you elect a tryant to be a tyrant. Republicans are getting what they voted for and they STILL want what's happening. I've heard them say it.

This leftist idea that everything will just be ok and we don't need to do anything because it'll all be fixed in the next election needs to stop.

Right now the only people actually protecting the republic are the people in the streets because NOBODY else is accomplishing anything.


> Republicans are getting what they voted for and they STILL want what’s happening.

Trump was elected as a specific reaction to the previous administration’s immigration policies. You’re right that voters supported that, but they didn't sign up for the rest. If you look at the polling, the tariffs and the Greenland push are explicitly unpopular.

> having free elections doesn’t make you the good guys if you elect a tyrant.

it does. The point of democracy is that voters make mistakes. Even European countries have elected tyrants in the past. The difference is that a free system allows you to survive a bad leader and vote them out; an authoritarian one doesn't.


This excessive faith in democracy is problematic. The founders of the United States, the Romans, and the Athenian philosophers who came up with democracy all openly talked about one of the risks of democracy in mob rule. Sometimes the most popular idea is in fact not nice. Good things don't just automatically come from adding a little democracy to the mix.

Sometimes (it's not so rare) the majority of people WANT horrible things to be perpetuated by their government. It isn't just "mistakes" or being tricked or some sort of scam, governments act with the consent of the people and a ruling majority voting for atrocities is not uncommon.

I'm not saying democracy is bad, but I am saying it's delusional to think that just having democracy cures all ills.

---

I have heard first hand people I know, seen people in videos online, and seen plenty of comments online to the tune of "ICE is doing EXACTLY what we want, keep going". A lot of people want exactly what has happened and while I think either the majority is eroding or already lost in support for these things, it is by no means a landslide in public opinion against the rising fascist politics in America. Sitting by and expecting to win the next election and just gritting your teeth until then is not the right response.

A huge portion of why this has happened is democratic "knowledge" that they deserve to win so they will, and making really bad political decisions based on this attitude.


> Osama bin Ladin won. The goals he had when he attacked America have been entirely achieved. Americans got stupid and became susceptible to the society changing effects of terrorism. He got us to destroy ourselves.

I think one of the effects of American narcissism and stupidity is not understanding that Osama bin Laden's primary goal was to replace the Saudi royal family with a Caliphate of his design, and no, he never actually accomplished that. He wasn't about us.


> US is being driven by the personal whims of a deteriorating tyrant

Why does Hacker News make Trump sound so much more interesting than he really is?


He's sent his personal police force to my city to rip people out of their cars and arrest them for being brown, not to mention murdering a lady who seconds before was smiling and waving officers to go around. In no way is this an exaggeration.

He's trying to use economic warfare to annex Greenland.

The most powerful man in the world is a delusional dementia patient and egomaniac being allowed to do literally anything he wants.


Because real evil is boring.

China is buying 50% of Russian gas and supplying them with drone parts and gunpowder which is directly used to kill Europeans and destabilize Europe.

They are also exporting their surveillance state technology to dictatorships in Pakistan, Iran, and Venezuela. Look at Iran, 16000 protestors are dead in two weeks. That is the Chinese model of stability.

Bad leaders exist everywhere, Europe included. But in the US, they leave. Trump is gone in two years. Good luck aligning your economies and value systems with China. I’m firmly on the side of liberal democracy.


The US just kidnapped the leader of Venezuela, Iran got into this theocratic regime situation in the first place because of US interference, and our closest NATO allies are legitimately preparing for war with the US and decrying the new world order. Not to mention the previous decades of destabilizing, arming, overthrowing, etc. many many countries to serve our own self interest.

You're a European leader looking at this situation frankly trying to decide whose atrocities and foreign policy is worse, it's not exactly obvious and choosing China because at least China isn't trying to annex your neighbors and is behaving rationally even if it's not nice things it's predictable.

There's a big difference between "We're the good guys, we stopped the bad things happening in our country before they started" and "I know we're doing awful things but I bet it'll stop soon with our next election".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: