How willing would you be to commit violence against your political rivals?

How willing would you be to commit violence against your political rivals? We keep hearing talk about the upcoming "civil war" in America. How close are you to accepting that, and would you be willing to participate in order to remove those you deem as undesirable from your country?

 

In the polarization in the United States one can see the fault lines building for a civil war. I think a civil war can be avoided. Nevertheless, if some states want to secede, I think they should be allowed to. There is no moral issue as important as ending slavery that would justify keeping states in the United States by force.

 

We are not at civil war level yet. I would only fight if I thought I would be seriously threatened, or fundamental rights were threatened. I would never fight over simple politics, or losing elections, etc etc.

 

I would defend myself if need be, but I would prefer the need not arise and try to avoid it if possible

 

Which option for 'absolutely, but only defensively in response to a violent attack, otherwise no, never'?

 

Missing good options.

Can I answer on behalf of the standard BLM protestor instead?

 

What sort of question is that? Besides a civil war would be pretty short, all the conservatives with their AR-15s and all the lefties with...."No micro aggression!" printed on the side of their recyclable vegan latte cups?

 

Instead of evading the poll question for not providing somewhat more focused choices, I went ahead and voted, "Maybe, I am on the edge - I am a conservative".

I detest the whole idea of violence involving one American citizen against another for ANY reason. That said, if some violent mob of rioters, looters, arsonists, and America-hating subversives commit acts of assault and murder on other people, they should be arrested and jailed -- period! And, if they can't be arrested and jailed, and they are a clear and present danger to everyone else, they should be TAKEN DOWN by any means necessary!

Nothing like that should be done without provocation, but when some dangerous pack of rampaging idiots are running amok, trying to hurt or kill people, the only logical and effective reaction becomes instinctive....

 

I'm hoping to make it to a natural death without having to kill or maim again.

But killing is a natural reality of life.

 

I refuse to do harm to another human over an issue of politics.

 

As long as you do it to yerself.

 

This just strikes me as one of those questions that, at least for forum purposes, does not translate well. It's sort of like asking how would you react if you were a passenger on the Titanic, or the more bar-like stupid pondering of if you could ever kill someone -- which is basically what you are asking. What makes this such an irrelevant question is that you're only capturing people's momentary off-handed response. The reality is usually far different because it all comes down to individual circumstances at a given moment with variables that cannot be pre-determined.

 

I agree with you. IT doesnt translate well. Im trying to find a way to gage where people generally are at on the civil war path.

Myself personally, I think civil war is inevitable, and will be within my life time. I believe that america will collapse and become a failed state within the next 15-20 years.

 

We are already in a civil war, it's just not a bloody one yet, nor does it need to be really.

So maybe the question might be more like, are you willing to fight for your version of the United States?

Because the reality is only a small segment of the population is willing to succumb to the violence rhetoric.

 

Only if they posed an immediate existential threat to my family.

And even then only if they could be completely removed.

There is presently no such threat in the US or Western Europe.

 

Only in self defense or defense of my family and friends.

 

Self defense is not only a right. For those with a family it is a responsibility.

Note to liberals. If you people do take over think twice before you confiscate people's retirement accounts.

 

The USA has been in a non-violent Civil War since its founding. That's its whole way of functioning, that's what a Republic does.

 

This entire thread is designed to entice both sides of the current the political debate to frame their differences on terms of their willingness to commit violence against one-another simply on the basis that their personal political beliefs are different . In other words we all simply disagree from time to time. Think about that for a moment.

IMO its total B.S. and 'Turin' should be ashamed of him or herself for even raising it as a point of discussion.

Everyone on this Forum should/must hold themselves to a higher standard that that. Otherwise what is the point of even having forum like this where we come to debate and discuss politics and other issues.

P.S. sorry, I'm not trying to claim some kind of moral high ground here (I can get as riled up as the next poster) but this touched a nerve.

 

Unless government actions pose an existential threat toward my family or myself, I oppose violence by all means necessary to oppose violence. But if they do I’m willing to do what is necessary.

 

I am not ashamed in the slightest btw.



I think its a legit question. Violence is spiking in this country. Political violence is spiking in this country in particular. Many people are talking about a new civil war in America. I am trying to gage where people on this forum are on that front. I see it as a legit question. It makes me sad that I even have to ask it.

 

Except its starting to turn violent.

I have a deep fear of what Trump supporters will do when he looses in Nov.

 

People are ALWAYS talking about a new civil war in the U.S. I think it is a bit of wishful thinking. They look back and see the actual American Civil War as such an interesting event (it is studied by more Americans than all the rest of our history combined) and think to themselves "wouldn't it be something to live in times like that?"

But I have no interest in violence over political beliefs (and I'm a Trump supporter). Just as I can't see why people commit violence because of their jobs being taken away from them. I'll save whatever violence I might commit for defending those I love and possessions of great value (like my dog)

 

I might toss a shoe or the butter knife in their direction

 

Your entire 'survey' posits the question - how prepared is anyone to commit violence against another person solely on the basis that they disagree with one-another. Nothing more, nothing less. All that is required is political disagreement. And if they do - bang!

No reference to self defense or defense of another in a situation where hypothetically that political opponent happens to be engaged in a violent confrontation. No reference to said opponent engaging in conduct that prevents you or others from expressing a contrary political opinion e.g. an authoritarian regime or attempted coup. Just publicly stated disagreement.

You could might as well be asking how prepared are to kill someone of a difference race, gender or religion for all the merit your question has.

ALL you have done in effect is ask people to ponder when not if violence is necessary based on one single metric - disagreement.

If you really want to make a valid contribution on the rising level of violence in political disputes (which is certainly a valid debating point) then the question should have been framed along the lines of 'under what circumstances is violence against a political opponent ' WITH EXAMPLES. Then grade the choice of responses along a linen from 'never' to 'often' or similar. And what you certainly don't do is grade it on the basis of left or right. Why didn't you just ask 'When is ok to kill a democrat or a republican? FGS!