No. Like you say, riots, and of course the ongoing epidemic of stochastic terrorism, possibly with more violence directed against politicians and the government, but it's definitely not going to look like tanks shooting at tanks, and it's also not going to look like people crawling through tunnels a la Vietnam. What American simultaneously cares enough about politics to risk their life over it, while also being willing to go live in a trench without their phone for a month? No, as long as it's an option to live a normal life where you can return to your couch and watch or read the news while feeling righteously indignant and engage with social media however you like, that's what people will do. Look at the January 6'ers, for example, who fully expected to return home and be able to post all about the exciting event all over social media.

Now, that all goes out the window if some lunatic decides to start WWIII with China and institutes a draft (assuming we don't all just die in nuclear hellfire). You tell people they'll have to give up their phones and go live in a trench anyway and maybe some decide they'd rather fight the people making them do that. Americans generally love war, but a lot of that comes from being completely and totally separated from any real life consequences from it. And of course, no insurgency would stand any chance of defeating the US government without foreign support.

Sources that I’d prefer to regulate in terms of animal rights, but every time that comes up, you people divert the conversation to “if you’re not gonna be vegan you’re evil either way so it doesn’t matter” and everyone tunes out.

Pack it up, vegans. This person was going to wish upon a star to regulate animal agriculture, which would've done it, but we just had to go and advocate for making material changes on a level we have control over, and that forced them to be explicitly fine with abuse. If only we had your thoughts and prayers, what a horrible miscalculation on our part.

The democrats have been pushing that angle with Trump since 2015, and with republicans in general before that.

"Reasonableness" is at the core of democratic messaging, and that's a problem because what that does is allow the right to set priorities and values uncontested. Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama didn't stop that, he just said he would conduct the war in a more "reasonable" way. The same thing with Biden's attempted immigration bill that would've expanded the executive's ability to crack down on immigrants, the idea that cracking down on immigrants is necessary is uncontested, it's just about doing it in a more "reasonable" way. And when someone's electoral pitch is being reasonable, it puts them in a weaker position because they're expected to be reasonable and willing to compromise even when the other side stonewalls them, which republicans always do.

Apart from those things being bad, it's also not really an effective strategy. Many people are more concerned with whether a politician is on their side and representing their interests rather than whether they are being reasonable. On top of that, many Americans are straight-up anti-intellectual and so the reasonableness angle doesn't resonate with them. And there's a certain extent to which reasonableness is socially defined, and so if the current system isn't working for people and they want it to change, then they're probably not going to be concerned with existing norms of what is and isn't reasonable. Essentially, the reasonableness angle can at least potentially come across as elitist.

The democrats squeaked out a win with that angle in 2020, in the middle of Trump's terrible mishandling of the pandemic, and it's possible that they'll squeak out another one now, but if reasonableness was such an effective angle then every election against Trump should've been an absolute blowout.

This is genocide denial.

totalitarian control

Lmao y'all are wild. Why are you on a platform where people you don't like have, "totalitarian control" over the structure? Is it, perhaps, because they used this "totalitarian control" to create a structure that was decentralized and allowed communities to form that operated on different rules and different views? Doesn't sound very totalitarian if you ask me.

If he's lost the Holden Bloodfeast demographic he's finished.

There were a number of objectively conservative parties that backed Hindenburg: Catholic Centre Party, BVP, DVP, and DStP. Hindenburg chose to support Hitler because of the threat posed by the left to the bourgeois interests he represented and because Hitler didn't really challenge said interests.

The SPD also chose Hindenburg over Thälmann, and if they knew he was going to support Hitler, then maybe they would've acted differently. But either way they weren't Hindenburg's core base of conservative support.

"Libs" is short for "liberal," meaning a supporter of capitalism. Those on the American right who aren't fascists are generally liberals, though they often don't know what it means. When I criticize liberals, it's from a leftist/anti-capitalist perspective.

I'm not exactly sure by what standard you're distinguishing between "survey" and "empirical study," considering all of your cited studies also rely on surveys.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951003089863c

Not prepared to read through over 100 pages of unrelated stuff, perhaps you could add a page number? It sounds like this source is included only for a critique of the original study though, and I'll accept that that study isn't perfect.

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1862

Ninety officers returned the surveys for a response rate of 36%.

This type of sampling comes with both weaknesses and strengths. One important weakness of using this convenience sample is that the results generated on the nature of the police sub-culture and the frequency of interpersonal violence on the part of police will not necessarily be generalizable. Although these results may not be generalizable, this sample is satisfactory for testing relationships among the variables—traditional police sub-culture, police domestic violence. This sample comes entirely from Central Florida, which further limits generalizability.

This paper is focused on a link between a domestic violence and a "traditional police sub-culture," it is not intended to be taken as a reliable, generalizable source of overall domestic violence.

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4951188/FID707/Root/New/030PG297.PDF

Did not investigate this one because I don't have the means to read floppy disk .iso images readily available.

https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2519&context=fac_pubs

This one does reference the studies you mentioned, along with other studies showing much higher numbers. It then goes on to say:

The data on intimate partner abuse by police officers are both dated and potentially flawed, but in ways that make it more likely that abuse is being under—rather than over—reported.59 Most of the studies rely on self-reporting by police officers to establish prevalence of abuse. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable measure; as one study noted, “The issue of the reliability of self-reports data is problematic when considering any socially undesirable behavior.”60 Intimate partner abuse is frequently underreported,61 both by those who experience it and those who commit it. Underreporting is likely to be particularly prevalent among law enforcement officers “who fear, even when anonymity is assured, that admitting their own or their colleagues’ abusive behavior may jeopardize careers and livelihoods and break up families."

Weapons can be used for liberation or oppression at the same time. Lockheed doesn’t get to say who they sell to.

Yes, you've identified the problem.

At least 2/3 of the world is lactose intolerant, with much higher rates among PoC.

If someone gives a sandwich to me and a gun to a person actively trying to murder me, they are not "pro-me"