Related:

https://manifold.markets/FranklinBaldo/which-country-will-have-the-next-co

https://manifold.markets/LivInTheLookingGlass/conditional-on-a-democrat-winning-i

https://manifold.markets/wasabipesto/conditional-on-a-democrat-winning-i-5047057f4ade

https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-there-be-an-attempted-autogolp

https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-there-be-a-civil-war-in-the-un

https://manifold.markets/DeanValentine/will-any-weird-country-experience-a

https://manifold.markets/MathieuPutz/will-30000-people-die-in-a-us-civil

https://manifold.markets/MP/will-a-vice-president-with-the-cabi

https://manifold.markets/DeanValentine/will-any-of-the-following-weird-cou-b07b8b698192

https://manifold.markets/dreev/trump-coup-2025-conditional-on-a-de

https://manifold.markets/MatthewBarnett/will-there-be-a-coup-attempt-that-k

(No way to copy-paste a market grid, so I'm just providing links.)

Conflict has to start after market creation?

@JimHays Yeah, we don't currently have anything that should qualify.

Ok, any objection to me adding a requirement that there be at least 1 billion dollars in damages? (Valuing a death at $10 million.)

@IsaacKing That's what, 100 people? That could happen with just a single large terrorist attack.

The definition means that something like the FARC or Talebã wouldn't count

""Large scale" means that it takes place in more than one city and each side has the support of a significant fraction of the country."

I notice this definition means the actual quantity of fighting could in theory be quite low.

@BenjaminIkuta Hmm. Maybe I should add a minimum people count?

@IsaacKing I don't know, but it's a more unclear question than it seems, I think, because violence exists on a spectrum.

Just to be clear, armed non-state militia in two or more regions of the country undertaking actions against the nation would count as a yes, correct? If not, what other factors would be required?

and each side has the support of a significant fraction of the country

@IsaacKing Just for clarification, would the actions on January 6th count?

@JohnLewis Shouldn't, no. I don't think their actions were supported by a significant fraction of republicans. (At least not when the true actions are known.)

@IsaacKing What percentage of support would you require?

@IsaacKing Given that the protestors killed no one, broke a few windows, and shoved some popo around, and were generally polite (the QAnon Shaman went so far as to pray for the police officers) it barely qualifies as a riot.

@EricAshley I mean... I don't usually break windows and shove around police officers in my free time? I kinda feel like that's what a "riot" is.

@IsaacKing No buildings were set on fire, no cars flipped and/or set on fire, no guns were fired, no bricks were thrown. You can call it a riot, but it was a very mild one.

The only people who died were protestors. The only people who died from violence were two women. One was shot in the throat, and the other was beaten as she lay unconscious on the ground.

I know we're supposed to go 'worst thing evar' but honestly, the average weekend in Chicago is way worse.

@EricAshley It was a riot and its intent was to alter the course of a political proceeding. Protesters were violent and attacked police. They stormed the building, destroying anything in their way. Why would you downplay what happened rather than addressing it as a problem that society needs to address?

@JohnLewis Barely a riot, man. And one wonders how many of the shovers were actually Feds or Feebs themselves.

It was a protest to get Congress to do its obvious duty.

As to destroying everything in their way---QAnon Shaman got escorted around, and had doors opened for him by the police. Another guy put his feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk, and wrote a short non-threatening note on her desk. Oooh, the horror of it all.

One guy went so far as to have some goofball pics taken of him carrying the podium---a college prank. (and yes, prank is the right term. Collegians for decades have take professors cars and put them on the roofs of buildings without anyone going to jail).

Very, very little was damaged.

But you are correct that this is a serious problem: what do you call a country where the majority of the population rightly fears to protest the government?

@EricAshley Considering Isaac's question is about civil war, which we all should want to avoid, does the atmosphere of fearful repression, that awful injustices will be done to an ordinary man who yells at a politician, push us closer or further from civil war? I'd argue it makes it more likely as cussing out pols is a good way for the nation to course correct, and to release steam. Take away free speech, and what do you h ave left to change people's minds? A technocratic censorship is not going to change minds; its merely going to drive the anger deeper, and create more problems. You should be trying to understand why the average American thinks that Biden did not win the election instead of having Facebook censor them.

But that's enough for now.

@EricAshley I think you're stuck in an information bubble. I'm telling you this because the only way out of it is too trust someone who is outside it. Or at least be curious that you might be in one. Try to find a third viewpoint.

This is where I say 'we told you so'. The Right told the Left 'don't lie for power, or there will be bad consequences' and the Left did it anyways. Now no one listens to the Left, and you're left asking me to go listen to someone I don't trust. Trust lost is hard to regain, John.

And tu quoque is not an adequate response.

The only adequate response is to repent of dishonesty, and seek Jesus, and Truth, and over time win back a reputation for the Left as capable of being honest. Otherwise, there is little reason for me to seek out such opinions when I glance at them and think 'eh, he's probably lying'.

I rarely get into political debates online anymore. No real point, and its a waste of time. Used to do it a lot. This debate might be the first in two months for me, or more. But this idea of prediction markets does seem like it might be a bit amusing. Good night, and good bye.

@EricAshley Perhaps I'm not being clear. I'm not "the Left". And I'm not asking you to trust me other than suggesting you are stuck in a information bubble. I left behind the two party political system, it's feeds on itself. I'm not suggesting you "listen to someone you don't trust." There's more than two sides and outside of the two party dynamic of demonizing the enemy, there's a world looking in.

Find third parties you don't distrust. They exist and you can find your way out of the cycle if you're curious. If you're not curious and you're comfortable with the answers your leaders give you, then you're right, there's no point in talking about it. Have a good night.

how will this resolve if, in 2030, the recent history of the united states looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles - ongoing active conflict with mostly-coherent sides, mostly militia civilian attacks on non-militia civilians, with some ineffective military response? note that most folks predicting civil war currently describe what they expect as looking like the troubles, eg I've been impressed with the discussions on amanpour - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOQuymOvZzo

@L I don't know anything about The Troubles. If the military is involved in a drawn out conflict inside the United States, that's probably a civil war.