• came_apart_at_Kmart [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    27 days ago

    i think "civil war" has become a placeholder for violent destabilization. if there's some other word for it when trust in institutions is so low that the default response to "another guy walked into a building and opened fire on everybody" is being unfazed, americans don't know it. everybody who isn't angry is at least on edge, brittle. and the political system that was meant to diffuse revolutionary energy into the ballotbox has only surgically removed the revolutionary focus, leaving us with a rising tide of energy, occasionally foaming and bubbling over into violence in the workplace, at the school, at the club, in the home, and on the streets.

    and the elections create swells of this unfocused agitation, which no longer ebb after the election as aggrieved factions now claim "the system is rigged!" because of course it is rigged, not that either faction wants to reform this. they want to manage the rigging and they are bothered by the other faction fiddling with the controller, because its our turn and mom said this was a two player game.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.ml
      hexagon
      ·
      27 days ago

      That's my impression as well. People tend to think of two organized armies fighting each other, but really it would just be mass civil unrest and social collapse.