Is a bigoted dystopia really feasible anymore?

[Martinus]

The fact that during Thatcher's rule many people thought that V for Vendetta scenario is possible (whether they were right or wrong), shows you why many people now are celebrating her death.

I know this feeling from the brief rule of PiS in Poland - they didn't really do all that much in retrospect, but the constant feeling of oppression and "what they will do next" was palpable and distressing. I probably won't celebrate Kaczynski's death, but mainly because I don't celebrate anyone's death (not even Saddam's or Pinochet's) but I will be happy for it.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, Ide, I think you are pretty naive thinking that the West is not capable of bigotry and hatred like that in V for Vendetta any more. In fact, V for Vendetta is quite prophetic in that it predicts that muslims would be the likely target for such hatred, as opposed to the (less likely these days) "traditional" groups such as Jews or blacks.

[Razgovory]

Thing is the NSDAP type style goverment was never likely in the US, (and probably the UK though I know less about it).  Groups that wanted to install something like that in the US or UK were met with hostility, less because of the racism but because thuggish militarism wasn't tolerated.

Now, oppression of a minority is possible, and possibly a nuclear genocide  of a foreign people (like Iran), but not genocide of a local group.

In my opinion oppression in the US is less likely to come from the Federal government then a local government (or perhaps no government).  Tyranny in the US tends to be grass roots in nature, starting with mobs terrorizing and intimidating and then have rights legally restricted  by local governments.

[Ideologue]

Incidentally, Ide, I think you are pretty naive thinking that the West is not capable of bigotry and hatred like that in V for Vendetta any more. In fact, V for Vendetta is quite prophetic in that it predicts that muslims would be the likely target for such hatred, as opposed to the (less likely these days) "traditional" groups such as Jews or blacks.

I dunno, man.  Islam and America had its Reichstag Fire writ large on the Manhattan skyline.  What happened?  Not very much.  Oh, sure, a few glorious, just wars of liberation, which involved no genocide and really a lot fewer deaths than comparable fights (contrast Vietnam).  And certainly no camps here, no repression at home worthy of the Susan/Norsefire government (I do not remember the names in the movie), let alone Actual Hitlerism.  Bush was our shittiest president since Hoover, the PATRIOT Act sucked, Obama's extrajudicial drone killings are iffy, and the ongoing erosion of privacy isn't good (if unavoidable for other reasons), but nothing really horrific occurred.

It may be different in continental Europe with your totalitarian tradition.

[Ideologue]

In my opinion oppression in the US is less likely to come from the Federal government then a local government (or perhaps no government).  Tyranny in the US tends to be grass roots in nature, starting with mobs terrorizing and intimidating and then have rights legally restricted  by local governments.

I think you'd have a hard time pulling it off even in the Southeast, unlike Money's glib comment  Besides the fact that something like 1/3 of the population would be bound to resist, a good half of the white folks in general, and more than half of the able-bodied white folks capable of bearing arms, would either be passive or active resisters themselves.  More to the point, due to this opposition, it would never get a point like that again, outside a very slow and unlikely cultural change to where racism, etc., were first socially appropriate, then could be legislated.

I will concede that if you somehow magically removed the U.S. government from S.C. for a protracted period, though, I imagine the result would be a civil war.

[Tamas]

But you do need a critical mass of people who are gung-ho, and probably a majority who don't give a shit

The bigger the latter group, the smaller the former need to be. Also do not underestimate the desire for order and efficiency.

Are the Western countries the least likely today to fall into such a state? Of course. Is it impossible for them to do so? Hells no.

[Razgovory]

In my opinion oppression in the US is less likely to come from the Federal government then a local government (or perhaps no government).  Tyranny in the US tends to be grass roots in nature, starting with mobs terrorizing and intimidating and then have rights legally restricted  by local governments.

I think you'd have a hard time pulling it off even in the Southeast, unlike Money's glib comment  Besides the fact that something like 1/3 of the population would be bound to resist, a good half of the white folks in general, and more than half of the able-bodied white folks capable of bearing arms, would either be passive or active resisters themselves.  More to the point, due to this opposition, it would never get a point like that again, outside a very slow and unlikely cultural change to where racism, etc., were first socially appropriate, then could be legislated.

I will concede that if you somehow magically removed the U.S. government from S.C. for a protracted period, though, I imagine the result would be a civil war.

I'm not thinking blacks in the South, but other small groups like Muslims.    Though the South isn't impossible.  Since the oppression is coming from terrorists they are difficult to resist.  They don't have to shackle every black guy in the state, just kill enough to terrorize the rest.  The goal isn't elimination or even slavery but suppression.  It has been done before.  You often see people arguing that that 2nd amendment is a safe guard against tyranny and keep the Federal government away, but the only time it's been used to by private individuals to defeat the Federal government was after Reconstruction when private militias destroyed Reconstruction governments and then suppressed African American rights.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, Ide, I think you are pretty naive thinking that the West is not capable of bigotry and hatred like that in V for Vendetta any more. In fact, V for Vendetta is quite prophetic in that it predicts that muslims would be the likely target for such hatred, as opposed to the (less likely these days) "traditional" groups such as Jews or blacks.

I dunno, man.  Islam and America had its Reichstag Fire writ large on the Manhattan skyline.  What happened?  Not very much.  Oh, sure, a few glorious, just wars of liberation, which involved no genocide and really a lot fewer deaths than comparable fights (contrast Vietnam).  And certainly no camps here, no repression at home worthy of the Susan/Norsefire government (I do not remember the names in the movie), let alone Actual Hitlerism.  Bush was our shittiest president since Hoover, the PATRIOT Act sucked, Obama's extrajudicial drone killings are iffy, and the ongoing erosion of privacy isn't good (if unavoidable for other reasons), but nothing really horrific occurred.

It may be different in continental Europe with your totalitarian tradition.

Going to two wars over the death of 3000 people is imo a pretty freakishly disproportional reaction.

If there was an event that was really catastrophic, V for Vendetta style (as opposed to what was essentially a death toll equivalent of a couple of weeks of car crashes), I can see this turning pretty bad very fast.

[Tamas]

Incidentally, Ide, I think you are pretty naive thinking that the West is not capable of bigotry and hatred like that in V for Vendetta any more. In fact, V for Vendetta is quite prophetic in that it predicts that muslims would be the likely target for such hatred, as opposed to the (less likely these days) "traditional" groups such as Jews or blacks.

I dunno, man.  Islam and America had its Reichstag Fire writ large on the Manhattan skyline.  What happened?  Not very much.  Oh, sure, a few glorious, just wars of liberation, which involved no genocide and really a lot fewer deaths than comparable fights (contrast Vietnam).  And certainly no camps here, no repression at home worthy of the Susan/Norsefire government (I do not remember the names in the movie), let alone Actual Hitlerism.  Bush was our shittiest president since Hoover, the PATRIOT Act sucked, Obama's extrajudicial drone killings are iffy, and the ongoing erosion of privacy isn't good (if unavoidable for other reasons), but nothing really horrific occurred.

It may be different in continental Europe with your totalitarian tradition.

Going to two wars over the death of 3000 people is imo a pretty freakishly disproportional reaction.

If there was an event that was really catastrophic, V for Vendetta style (as opposed to what was essentially a death toll equivalent of a couple of weeks of car crashes), I can see this turning pretty bad very fast.

[Josquius]

Nice reply to a valid point there.

[Tamas]

Nice reply to a valid point there.

going to wars when you don't really know who to go war against (or rather, you know, but he is your ally so you kick the shit out of somebody else instead), is stupid of course.

But generally speaking like Marty did, in what kind of sick world should a state not revenge the killing of its 3000 citizens? Should the leaders and citizens just shrug saying "shit happens" and go on?

[CountDeMoney]

It would've been nice to see Martinus faceplant himself into concrete from the 103rd floor.  Either tower, doesn't matter which one.

[dps]

In my opinion oppression in the US is less likely to come from the Federal government then a local government (or perhaps no government).  Tyranny in the US tends to be grass roots in nature, starting with mobs terrorizing and intimidating and then have rights legally restricted  by local governments.

I think you'd have a hard time pulling it off even in the Southeast, unlike Money's glib comment  Besides the fact that something like 1/3 of the population would be bound to resist, a good half of the white folks in general, and more than half of the able-bodied white folks capable of bearing arms, would either be passive or active resisters themselves.  More to the point, due to this opposition, it would never get a point like that again, outside a very slow and unlikely cultural change to where racism, etc., were first socially appropriate, then could be legislated.

I will concede that if you somehow magically removed the U.S. government from S.C. for a protracted period, though, I imagine the result would be a civil war.

Frankly, I can't imagine a reasonable scenario where a totalitarian government could come to power in the U.S. as a whole, at least not in the near-to-mid term future (say within the next 70 years or so).  But I can imagine somewhat reasonable scenarios where the central government fell apart and feuding local/regional governments took power, and some of those might likely be totalitarian in nature (though I'd expect their authority to be limited geographically to areas smaller in size than most states).

[garbon]

But generally speaking like Marty did, in what kind of sick world should a state not revenge the killing of its 3000 citizens? Should the leaders and citizens just shrug saying "shit happens" and go on?

Please don't try and defend America if you're going to say things like this.

[PDH]

But you do need a critical mass of people who are gung-ho, and probably a majority who don't give a shit.

No, you need a sense that the previously acceptable is wrong, failing, or no longer applies and willingness on the part of the extremes to take advantage of this.

I'd also argue that the "normal people" view of the Holocaust and other dystopic situations, e.g. the antebellum American South, either doesn't stick, because of ample opportunities to oppose the status quo before the full power of the state was brought against dissension, or proves too much, that the "normal person" is a coward and a monster himself.  Which is, indeed, the belief I actually subscribe to, since I don't have a great deal of respect for the people of the past, morally speaking (though I am awed and troubled by their ability to at least feel passionately about things, fight overwhelming forces of authority, and die for their often-wrong beliefs, which is something else I don't think will ever happen again in the real West, probably because we don't let large numbers of mentally-sound people actually starve very much).

You really misunderstand culture, how society normalizes behavior, and the need of people to belong to that society. As I said, the ugliness of the "normal people" point of view is not that they were moral cowards and that they knew better and were weak, but rather that the obscene acts became the norm, and the extreme thinking became the center.

It's a different situation in the real West (to which Hungary and its shitty cohorts arguably do not belong)--there is no critical mass of people who are really gung ho about anything,* nor is there likely to be, while contrariwise the majority does give a shit about what would happen to their gay Kenyan Muslim friends and colleagues (and, one should not forget, family).  The odds of this trend reversing seem remote, to say the least.

*Except maybe immigrants in the American SW.  But that's different too, though because it's America, of course it winds up being racialized, when it's really about how IT'S 2013 NOT 1888 WE'RE FULL SO GO HOME.

Again the naivete helps this.  The "it can't happen here" mentality is the social self congratulations or an understood morality and self-awareness that will not let it happen is precisely what societies do - naturalize actions so they become the norm.  A disruption, for modern western culture I would say a series of economic disasters, could easily destroy the comfortable normal and make the extremes far more likely to happen.