"Civil War" trailer

JimmyChitwood

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 3, 2015
739
1,149
93
Southern Iowa
I went on a two day, kind of self-guided tour of probably 35 Civil War historical sites in northern Virginia/southern Pennsylvania about a year ago. Just hit one after another, driving and trying to hit as many as I could with no real "plan". Truly fascinating adventure.
The wife and I have started doing this as well. We like to hit at least one place per year. It's truly fascinating.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,088
37,243
113
Waukee
That being said, it doesn't take a large percentage of the population to really **** a lot of things up.

A small number of people could cause large power grid disruptions, for example.

I took an English class per semester in Ames. Some of those were required (the basic freshman composition classes and 314 for Technical Communications) but many were just for some fun.

One of the most enjoyable was 370 for Science Fiction.

One of the novels we read was Empire by Orson Scott Card. It is not a good novel. It pales in comparison to his acclaimed classics like Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead. And I am well aware that Card's own personal politics have gone somewhere in the direction of a cuckoo bird in recent years.

He did make one point in Empire that stuck with me, though.

I am paraphrasing, and I could dig out the old book and the old quote if you want me to. But he said something to the effect of, "Most people just want to live their lives and be left alone. This is why relatively few people can have tremendous impacts on the course of history... very few people care enough to try and stop them or to try and undo whatever it is they did to look up from their daily grind."

So, yeah, a small group of revolutionaries of whatever political stripe can do a lot of damage.
 
Last edited:

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,088
37,243
113
Waukee
I hope not. I like action sequences, but there are a lot of action movies out there without enough investment in story, character development, etc, and that takes a lot out of a movie IMO

I went to Die Hard in a theater earlier this week -- starting the holiday season off right.

Die Hard doesn't work because it has better action sequences or special effects than other movies of its era. It's more or less par for the course on those fronts. It's good, but there's nothing truly memorable that stands out like, say, the car chase in The French Connection or semi flip in The Dark Knight.

It works because of the characters.

You want John McClane to survive and reconcile with Holly and go home for Christmas with the kids. They're both good people, strong, and resourceful. You want them to make it through this.

You're oddly fascinated with the suave charm and sophistication of Hans Gruber.

You bond with Al and John as they bond with each other. Them embracing is an emotional moment.

You hate the stupid LAPD guy and the ******* FBI guys and the brutality of Gruber's goons. And oh my goodness the comeuppance the TV new guy gets at the end felt good when it happened.

Take those characters away and it's an entirely forgettable film.
 
Last edited:

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
96,896
58,205
113
53
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
I went to Die Hard in a theater earlier this week -- starting the holiday season off right.

Die Hard doesn't work because it has better action sequences or special effects than other movies of its era. It's more or less par for the course on those front. It's good, but there's nothing truly memorable that stands out like, say, the car chase in The French Connection or semi flip in The Dark Knight.

It works because of the characters.

You want John McClane to survive and reconcile with Holly and go home for Christmas with his kids. They're both good people, strong, and resourceful. You want them to make it through this.

You're oddly fascinated with the suave charm and sophistication of Hans Gruber.

You bond with Al and John as they bond with each other. Them embracing is an emotional moment.

You hate the stupid LAPD guy and the ******* FBI guys and the brutality of Gruber's goons.

Take those characters away and it's an entirely forgettable film.
Yep, the amount a movie makes me care about the well being (or hopeful demise) of characters translates directly to how memorable and great a movie is to me.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
9,183
11,129
113
So, yeah, a small group of revolutionaries of whatever political stripe can do a lot of damage.

Isn't it like 3% of the population coming to a protest is the tipping point for revolutions? I thought someone researched that once and came up with that number.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
11,208
17,115
113
I'm interested to see this, as I think the idea of an American Civil War gets thrown around, but as many have described here, rural vs. urban seems to be the closest thing to a geographical division.

I think an interesting version of this is in Omar el Akkad's American War. I'm not remembering all the details, but it was a small cluster in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia that split, but while it's obviously not going well for them, they muck it up and use terrorist tactics while climate change and plague are causing chaos, and there is major foreign support for the breakaway region to destabilize the US.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: CyValley

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,371
23,558
113
38
Driftless Region
Visit site
Isn't it like 3% of the population coming to a protest is the tipping point for revolutions? I thought someone researched that once and came up with that number.
I don't think we're even close to that, personally. Lots of people *****, very few (thankfully) are willing to take that kind of action.
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
25,088
37,243
113
Waukee
Isn't it like 3% of the population coming to a protest is the tipping point for revolutions? I thought someone researched that once and came up with that number.

"Every society is three meals away from chaos." ~Lenin

"Looks like we're gonna need some more FBI guys"

Just like ******* Saigon, eh, Slick?
 
  • Funny
Reactions: CascadeClone

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
9,183
11,129
113
While not one-sided, there is decidedly more animosity by the rural areas towards the urban areas than vice versa, in my experience.
Any visible conflict would likely be a urban-led government "oppression" causing "resistance" from the rural areas.

I think it would be more like Ireland's "Troubles" than 1860-1864.
 

ISUTex

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 25, 2012
8,655
8,299
113
Rural U.S.A.
I agree with that assessment, but it would be quite horrible for all involved (and those not involved). Wars are a nightmare for people who are used to extreme hardship, and our society is most certainly not even used to the slightest of inconveniences.

Yes. Think zombies, except they aren't zombies. They are just hordes of desperate/fed up people who are young/in shape enough to take from, and do away with the overweight, old etc.
 

ISUTex

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
May 25, 2012
8,655
8,299
113
Rural U.S.A.
Isn't it like 3% of the population coming to a protest is the tipping point for revolutions? I thought someone researched that once and came up with that number.

I think only like 15% of American colonists were "rebels" in the American Revolution. Most just wanted to stay out of it.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
9,183
11,129
113
I'm interested to see this, as I think the idea of an American Civil War gets thrown around, but as many have described here, rural vs. urban seems to be the closest thing to a geographical division.

I think an interesting version of this is in Omar el Akkad's American War. I'm not remembering all the details, but it was a small cluster in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia that split, but while it's obviously not going well for them, they muck it up and use terrorist tactics while climate change and plague are causing chaos, and there is major foreign support for the breakaway region to destabilize the US.

That's a thing now. Autocrats definitely are doing things to amp up our divisions - from twitter bots to funding noxious groups.

And has been for a long time. USSR did a lot to help support and fund the anti-war movement in 60s-70s. Not that there weren't lots of US citizens involved, but they got some juice from the Sovs too.

In the midst of all our glorious E Pluribus, we need to remember our Unum.
 

simply1

Rec Center HOF
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 10, 2009
36,994
24,811
113
Pdx
While I agree this is most likely, there are possibilities for it to go both ways in a hypothetical scenario.

A 'third term president' might just be one of those.

Not that everyone within each state would agree with their own state's decision on where to side. They didnt during the civil war either. But the state governments have a lot more organizational power so things may be represented as 'state v state' even when its muddier in reality.
A lot of times these days it’s city versus state in places like Texas.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Gorm

CyValley

Well-Known Member
Feb 29, 2008
4,050
2,438
113
Isn't it like 3% of the population coming to a protest is the tipping point for revolutions? I thought someone researched that once and came up with that number.
I haven't come across this.

I do recall being surprised some decades ago reading this rough breakdown about the American Revolution: 1/3 British/Tory, 1/3 Rebel, 1/3 Neutral/unconcerned.

IOW, the Revolution was supported, roughly, by no more than one-third of the eastern seaboard population. (Maybe these figures are out of date today.)
 
  • Informative
Reactions: CascadeClone

Gorm

With any luck we will be there by Tuesday.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 6, 2010
5,569
2,381
113
Cedar Rapids, IA
Anyone else remember this one from back in the late 90's on HBO?

Oddly enough, the plot line is very reminiscent of current day issues.

1702602312512.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: CyValley

everyyard

Well-Known Member
Nov 24, 2006
8,175
3,594
113
46
www.cyclonejerseys.com
Wouldn't even really be a fight. Wouldn't even really need to fight much.

Rural America has access to and controls all the infrastructure that makes a modern economy possible. Just cut off or destroy the highway and railroad bridges/tunnels, transmission lines, and pipelines flowing into the major coastal cities and wait for them to starve and freeze in darkness until they quit quickly enough.

Both sides definitely lose in any material or moral sense, sure, but in a strictly military sense... I'm betting on whichever side controls the mountain passes through the Appalachians into the major population centers in the Northeast, and I think we both know which side of any conflict like this that would be.
Dumb take. Food and supplies can easily come into ports (or by air) and the largest populations have access. Just like the first Civil War, the rural side might make early gains but the size, money, weapons, and industrial power of urban areas would eventually crush them. Look at the population of Iowa. Then look at the population of one major US city.
 

somecyguy

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2006
3,221
3,581
113
I can't find the tweet, but I read one from someone with the suggestion that too many people think a civil war would entail them and a group of their friends in killing people, but it's more likely finding your brother dead in a garbage dump with his hands tied up with electrical wire.

No one survives a civil war. If you aren't killed, you'll have family and friends that will be. Ordinary daily life that everyone relies on will no longer exist.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gorm

CloniesForLife

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 22, 2015
13,956
17,732
113
Wouldn't even really be a fight. Wouldn't even really need to fight much.

Rural America has access to and controls all the infrastructure that makes a modern economy possible. Just cut off or destroy the highway and railroad bridges/tunnels, transmission lines, and pipelines flowing into the major coastal cities and wait for them to starve and freeze in darkness until they quit quickly enough.

Both sides definitely lose in any material or moral sense, sure, but in a strictly military sense... I'm betting on whichever side controls the mountain passes through the Appalachians into the major population centers in the Northeast, and I think we both know which side of any conflict like this that would be.
You're talking about the northeast. Maybe they could gain quick control of that region but you still have huge population centers all over the country. No way could the coordinate and have the manpower to take over all of those quickly. Cities on the coast would have ports to provide supplies. I could see most of our allies aligning with the urban side of the conflict as well. It would be a total mess and would be anything but quick.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron