Could the culture war become civil war?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter SOS2008
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Civil
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential for societal unrest in response to perceived governmental corruption and the role of taxation as a form of protest. Participants explore the implications of mass tax refusal and the involvement of authorities in such actions, considering historical contexts and the possibility of escalating tensions leading to civil conflict.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration with governmental actions and the manipulation of public perception through propaganda, particularly regarding issues like science and democracy.
  • There is a suggestion that withdrawing from the system, such as refusing to pay taxes, could be a form of protest, though this raises concerns about personal consequences and systemic repercussions.
  • Some argue that if a significant number of people, including authorities, refuse to pay taxes, it could lead to a situation resembling civil war, particularly if the government responds with force.
  • Others question the likelihood of civil war, suggesting that organized tax evasion does not equate to organized rebellion and that the government may not ignore widespread protests.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for protests to escalate if the government remains unresponsive, with some participants suggesting that the absence of authority could lead to civil unrest.
  • There is a discussion about the differences in law enforcement between Canada and the United States, with some asserting that Canada has a more lenient approach to tax-related protests.
  • Participants explore the idea that a large-scale refusal to pay taxes could lead to a breakdown in governmental authority, questioning how the government would respond if it lost control over tax collection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether mass tax refusal would lead to civil war or if it would simply result in governmental enforcement actions. There are competing views on the effectiveness and consequences of such protests, indicating ongoing disagreement.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about governmental responses and the nature of civil unrest, with some suggesting that the involvement of authorities complicates the situation. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on the implications of tax refusal as a protest tool.

  • #91
BobG said:
I really don't care to care to defend James Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization. If they stayed out of politics, I probably wouldn't care one way or the other about them. But your comment does make me curious.

What is the criteria is for being labeled a hate group?

I assume you're being facetitious when you're labelling the Democratic party as a hate group.

As for criteria of what makes something a hate group, I'll refer you to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you're unfamiliar with their work, they're quite the authority on hate groups.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2005/6-10/news/localnews/antigay.cfm
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
TRCSF said:
I assume you're being facetitious when you're labelling the Democratic party as a hate group.

As for criteria of what makes something a hate group, I'll refer you to the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you're unfamiliar with their work, they're quite the authority on hate groups.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2005/6-10/news/localnews/antigay.cfm
Political parties are banned in some countries, so it's not entirely facetious, but, obviously, political parties aren't considered hate groups in America, in spite of some biting political rhetoric.

Your 'typical' hate group, like the KKK, is pretty easy to classify, as well. The groups that engage in violence, or advocate violent solutions, are clearly hate groups.

The CCC is pretty clearly associated with the KKK, which makes them easy to classify, in spite of the fact that they never resort to violence or any illegal activities, themselves. Likewise, other hate and terrorist groups have had their own front groups.

The groups that target a specific group of people without violence (physical or verbal) - target them strictly though the courts or legislation - are a little harder to classify without a more precise definition. This is the area where a vague term could wind up being applied to a whole range of groups, from Focus to the Family all the way to political parties that pool together to make sure as many people from party win elections over the other party as possible.

By time you get down to political parties, their actions are designed towards a practical purpose - gaining a majority in legislative bodies so that their own legislation is more likely to be passed. To me, that's clearly politics and not hate actions.

It's not entirely clear when you start talking about social issues. Are anti-abortion groups hate groups? How does someone else getting an abortion affect someone who is opposed to abortion? Are atheists that demand all references to religion be removed from public places hate groups? That could be (and often is) perceived as religious persecution.

I think that if you want to prevent folks from doing what they want, you have to prove that behavior hurts you and others like you in some significant way (which is why I wouldn't want to defend Focus on the Family - their headquarters are here and a popular bumper sticker around town is "Focus on Your Own Damn Family"). But, I'm not sure every group that tries to impose their own beliefs on others can be categorized as a hate group without turning the term into an ordinary political insult.
 
  • #93
BobG said:
Political parties are banned in some countries, so it's not entirely facetious, but, obviously, political parties aren't considered hate groups in America, in spite of some biting political rhetoric.

Your 'typical' hate group, like the KKK, is pretty easy to classify, as well. The groups that engage in violence, or advocate violent solutions, are clearly hate groups.

The CCC is pretty clearly associated with the KKK, which makes them easy to classify, in spite of the fact that they never resort to violence or any illegal activities, themselves. Likewise, other hate and terrorist groups have had their own front groups.

The groups that target a specific group of people without violence (physical or verbal) - target them strictly though the courts or legislation - are a little harder to classify without a more precise definition. This is the area where a vague term could wind up being applied to a whole range of groups, from Focus to the Family all the way to political parties that pool together to make sure as many people from party win elections over the other party as possible.

By time you get down to political parties, their actions are designed towards a practical purpose - gaining a majority in legislative bodies so that their own legislation is more likely to be passed. To me, that's clearly politics and not hate actions.

It's not entirely clear when you start talking about social issues. Are anti-abortion groups hate groups? How does someone else getting an abortion affect someone who is opposed to abortion? Are atheists that demand all references to religion be removed from public places hate groups? That could be (and often is) perceived as religious persecution.

I think that if you want to prevent folks from doing what they want, you have to prove that behavior hurts you and others like you in some significant way (which is why I wouldn't want to defend Focus on the Family - their headquarters are here and a popular bumper sticker around town is "Focus on Your Own Damn Family"). But, I'm not sure every group that tries to impose their own beliefs on others can be categorized as a hate group without turning the term into an ordinary political insult.
If a group of individuals openly have a common agenda to abolish another group, that would be a hate group.

Whether or not Political parties are hate groups is debatable as one would like to believe that one party wants to defeat the other party completely and decisively, while conspiracy theory says that they are just like brothers passing the buck back and forth.

Hate groups exist in political parties... that is for sure. Which way do most KKK's vote?
 
  • #94
outsider said:
If a group of individuals openly have a common agenda to abolish another group, that would be a hate group.

Whether or not Political parties are hate groups is debatable as one would like to believe that one party wants to defeat the other party completely and decisively, while conspiracy theory says that they are just like brothers passing the buck back and forth.

Hate groups exist in political parties... that is for sure. Which way do most KKK's vote?
BNP, Sinne Fein, National Front, (Neocon(USA), LDP(Japan)) Factions within legitimate 'Conservative' parties.

Israel is also rife with political parties that would instigate Holocaust in spite of their own history.

Note, I am referring to multi party states ... hence the absence of the CCP in my observation. (For those of you who will accuse me of Bias.)
 
  • #95
The Smoking Man said:
BNP, Sinne Fein, National Front, (Neocon(USA), LDP(Japan)) Factions within legitimate 'Conservative' parties.

Israel is also rife with political parties that would instigate Holocaust in spite of their own history.

Note, I am referring to multi party states ... hence the absence of the CCP in my observation. (For those of you who will accuse me of Bias.)
Rhetorical question on my part... :-p but thanks for the added info... the conservative parties are certainly solid set in ignorance, brotherhood, fear, and conspiracy for sure. Yes, morals too. Morals = Fear.

Tough to break through one's fear and ignorance for sure... but to break the brotherhood can mean death... or worse, the brotherhood conspiring against you and anyone who you befriend.
 
  • #96
outsider said:
Rhetorical question on my part... :-p but thanks for the added info... the conservative parties are certainly solid set in ignorance, brotherhood, fear, and conspiracy for sure. Yes, morals too. Morals = Fear.

Tough to break through one's fear and ignorance for sure... but to break the brotherhood can mean death... or worse, the brotherhood conspiring against you and anyone who you befriend.
As an example of how messed up this type of politics are ...

Koizumi just made the privatization of the Post Office a Confidence issue.

When he lost, he dissolved parliament and stated that those representatives who voted against him would not be allowed by the party to stand for election come September.

Is this the purpose of an election?

Don't you vote for a person who represents you and not the Party Line?

This is exactly what the 100 flowers movement did in China.

Invite people to contribute and then round up those who went against policy.

Do you really think that this type of 'extremist politics' under a democracy diverges that much from a fascist state?
 
  • #97
The Smoking Man said:
As an example of how messed up this type of politics are ...

Koizumi just made the privatization of the Post Office a Confidence issue.

When he lost, he dissolved parliament and stated that those representatives who voted against him would not be allowed by the party to stand for election come September.

Is this the purpose of an election?

Don't you vote for a person who represents you and not the Party Line?

This is exactly what the 100 flowers movement did in China.

Invite people to contribute and then round up those who went against policy.

Do you really think that this type of 'extremist politics' under a democracy diverges that much from a fascist state?
It's all about reframing. Changing slightly so that it's "different" but the effects are ultimately the same for sure... as those in power eventually become irresponsible... and buttkissers will rub up to get what they want... smart individuals never take power, but do some good buttkissing and win both ways. I think we all knew that.
 
  • #98
Yes. I will be away from pf.
 
  • #99
Ben Sargent's take on http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20050823/cx_bs_uc/bs20050823
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
9K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
9K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
14K