[Kephael]

> I learned early in my life that the worst democracy is infinitely better than the best-performing tyranny. So I’m happy to make a leap of faith and say that liberal democracy will still be with us, but with new and interesting permutations, at the turn of the 22nd century.

This is absolutely false, would you rather live in Haiti or China? Also, what makes "Democracy" isn't really clear, you don't necessarily have a say in what you'd like in Democracy. It's just a vehicle to give government legitimacy, even if the votes don't actually matter or are even real.

> We can't even have a civil war, as it's impossible to draw the lines.

This is more false hope, it's very easy to have a civil war even without clear lines. Aggrieved parties just need to pick up a rifle and attack their enemies. You don't need uniforms and flags to have an insurgency.

[DubiousPusher]

Yeah, that second one is such an absurd point. I would be willing to bet money that more civil wars have followed the model of spiralling, multilateral chaotic violence than one like the U.S. which had clear sides geographically and politically as well as symmetrical structures.

[NateEag]

I think he'd argue that "spiraling, multilateral violence" is not a civil war.

I could be wrong.

I think he's right, though, that mostly you need young men hopped up on testosterone for a conflict like a civil war to happen.

I think if you're over twenty-five, you're unlikely to volunteer for things that are likely to kill you, and that actually forms strong backpressure against large-scale violence in the US.

[DubiousPusher]

Yeah but you don't just get to decide what words mean to suit your argument. The Spanish civil war and Syria are perfect examples of something that is widely considered a civil war and were multilateral.

Most civil wars start as multilateral conflicts. But once groups start getting picked off, the others begin combining into larger structure to preserve themselves and increase their chances of having a stake in victory. Just because you can't see the lines now does not mean they can't emerge after the conflict begins.

I do think the point about age is relevant. It's well know that things like crime decrease significantly with age. We also don't have much historical precedent for the kind of aged populations post industrial countries have.

[PopsiclePete]

Or maybe the definition of "Civil War" is more fluid than we think? I don't expect large-scale devastation and cities in ruins like in Syria, no.

But let's do some fun math. Roughly 70 million voted for Trump. Take away the housewives, the boomers, the Latinos in Florida and the less fanatical, more old-school Republicans that delivered Texas.

So let's say "only" a million are left out of the 70 and let's say that "only" a third of those - so 300k are willing to go to war for "their" President.

That's still huge trouble for this country. No, we won't be a failed state but a never-ending far-right insurgency that right-wing and foreign media constantly encourage and feed while the GOP publicly disavow is not something that we know how to deal with either.

The Left will be on the receiving end of it all by its very nature it will be reluctant to confront it beyond "let's talk about it".

[DubiousPusher]

> Or maybe the definition of "Civil War" is more fluid than we think?

Exactly this. Retroactively, we combine groups and intentions to simplify the narrative of most conflicts. With good reason, following the dizzying array of groups and actions involved in any conflict is impossible for all but the most determined and specialized scholars. The popular story has to be simplified.