Just in case anyone needs to explain to someone you know (local villiage useful idiot) why Ma'Khla Bryant was an attempted murderer, and why you don't stop a stabber with random gunfire to the air, or shots to the leg.
For some insane reason the Left truly believes knives are somehow less or even non-lethal compared to guns.
For some insane reason the Left truly believes knives are somehow less or even non-lethal compared to guns.
If they acknowledged the lethality of knives, they'd have to acknowledge other things that are narrative destroying, such as gun free London being more violent than gun filled Houston or even NYC.
Even the Left in the UK admits that Knife Crime is really bad and absolutely lethal enough to scare illegal migrants into the UK back to Somalia. The American Leftists are literally standing there defending children having knife-fights... which is something you can see in London.
For some insane reason the Left truly believes knives are somehow less or even non-lethal compared to guns.
I'm sure a bunch are just knowingly lying to virtue signal and/or push political agendas, but for many it comes back to the same issue that always arises with nearly every political debate: People are making statements about things they know jack **** about.
If the scariest "knife" you've ever used is a semi-dull steak knife (or, maybe even just a bog-standard dinner knife) then their statements make sense to you. If you've ever had to butcher an animal, clear brush or defend yourself with a blade (or, heck, even just prepared a thanksgiving turkey) then you find out real quick what knives are actually capable of.
I'm sure many are pushing their dogma, but I've got to believe, considering how little push-back on the Left I've seen from this, that there are people now buying it. Just like there were people who believed 1 in 3 women were raped in College.
If the scariest "knife" you've ever used is a semi-dull steak knife (or, maybe even just a bog-standard dinner knife) then their statements make sense to you.
The scariest knives are the unassuming ones. Thin and just a little long. There's a reason the SEAL's knife is like that, and it's purpose is based on human anatomy.
What is childhood even like if you can't go out with friends, play video games, dress in edgy clothing, and stab the shit out of your friend's throats!
I'm not sure. I think it's about who's committing violence.
Social violence is weird. These same people who will scream that cops will kill them, treat cops as if they would never even think of touching them. If you treated a gang member or a robber like you treated a cop, you'd be already dead.
That being said, social violence is totally normal among these same people's social group.
I mean, the Columbus thing is a perfect example, and it might even explain the "in defense of stabbing" response. It's completely normal to just kick people in the skull, stab them, and never stop fighting... it's just not okay for someone outside their social group to use enough force to unquestionably win.
Maybe the problem is social violence. Social violence will continue and escalate unabated because it is a form of social status sorting. But they don't have any experience with defensive violence. A level of violence that insists on not gradually increasing, but instead demands an immediate cessation of violence or the level of force used will be extreme.
I think the level of violence that even the middle class are exposed to is this graduating violence that gives you little feed-back which you simply try to avoid every time you escalate, versus abrupt violence which gives very dramatic feed-back and teaches you to to stop because you're not prepared for the escalation.
Didn't really consider it that deeply until you mentioned it, but social violence is pretty interesting in its nuance. You have groups that find it foreign, groups that find it commonplace, groups that have fled from it...
Kicking people, stabbing them, and never stop fighting is foreign to me. Violence is nothing but a last resort.
Last resort.
I can't imagine committing myself to violence as a way of life, but instead a means to an end. If that end isn't peace and stability for my family and their future, the point mostly escapes me.
Just spitballing myself here. All humans engage in violence, but like most things, I guess I don't view all violence as equal.
Well, that's exactly the point, you and I (because, yeah, same) have had that experience where violence wasn't really a graduating social thing. It was an abrupt and hard barrier. Technically abrupt violence can be social, but it's only to be applied on hard barriers, and taboos. Abrupt violence would require a use of other social shaming or reward mechanisms. Where-as defensive violence has no social aspect to it.
This is the way I think of it:
Behavior:
Type of violence: description of retaliation [level of violence from 0-10]
0 - Non violent, not status challenging
1 - minor violence, not status challenging
3 - Non violent, challenging
4 - minor violence, challenging
5 - Non violent, threatening
6 - minor violence, threatening
7 - moderate violence
8 - severe violence
9 - lethal violence
You were stupid [0]:
Social Violence: slap to head [1]
Abrupt Violence: mockery as social enforcement [0]
Defensive Violence: mockery as social enforcement [0]
You got generally aggressive, boisterous [3]:
Social violence: identical aggression or physical challenge [3]
Abrupt violence: verbal warning [3]
Defensive violence: withdrawal [0]
You socially attack someone through disrespect or belittling [4]:
Social violence: You slap them or shove them for disrespecting you [4]
Abrupt violence: You attack them for challenging your status [7]
Defensive violence: withdrawal [0]
You physically intimidate someone or shove them hard [6]:
Social Violence: You attack them to defend your status [7]
Abrupt violence: You attack them to hurt them badly enough to not challenge you again [8]
Defensive violence: tell them to get away from you, withdrawal [3]
You physically attack someone [7]:
Social violence: You fight them to hurt them badly enough to not challenge you again. [8]
Abrupt violence: You assume lethal intent [9]
Defensive violence: You assume lethal intent [9]
0-3-4-6-7
1-3-4-7-8
0-3-4-8-9
0-0-0-3-9
Contrasting these: social violence slowly increases at a fairly steady rate. Abrupt violence has no middle and takes a hard turn. Defensive violence basically leaps into lethal violence. Anyone expecting Social Violence may feel emboldened by defensive violence because there keeps being no response for such a long period of time. Abrupt violence gives anyone expecting social violence a bit of a warning, but still makes a dramatic leap.
If you're operating under the pretense of social violence, you're always basically navigating how much violence you want to engage in to maintain status (like animals making aggressive postures or displays of dominance). If there's no response to social violence you may think you are dealing with a low status individual who will accept it. ... until you realize your grave mistake because he just shot you in the face. He didn't want or know to participate in social violence. He assumed defensive violence. If you're at 7, and he's at 3, he's not going to 7 next, he's going to 9. If you're convincing in your aggressive displays of dominance, he's not going to retaliate with his own display, he's going to respond with lethal force.
If you live in perpetual social violence, you expect to navigate it with feedback. But defensive and abrupt violence refuse that feedback. Frankly, that's why it teaches you to be a "polite society". Your feedback isn't someone punching you in the face, it's a dude saying "GET AWAY FROM ME!" for the 50th time before they shoot you. That was never intimidating, right until you see the muzzle flash. Thus, you need to listen the first time he gives that warning because the jump in force might take you completely by surprise.
Social Violence is a major part of "Honor Culture". When social status is identified by the concept of social honor as a currency that can be lost or gained through social behaviors like violence. Without an Honor Culture, societies have to define social value through other things like wealth, width of social network, influence, title, or skill. When you remove social value & sorting from violence through mandating defensive violence only, social filtering has to be done through those other mechanisms.
It may be that aspects of our society (typically the lower class), Social Violence and Honor Culture still exist (worse, is being promoted by members of the Left who profit off of their own kind of honor culture). The Left may be engaging in so much Honor Culture style 'culture warfare' and virtue signaling through social media that they are inspiring a re-emergence of Social Violence in response.
You say social mockery is 0. While I don't necessarily disagree, because it isn't physical, it is still escalation. 0 begs for 7, and often begets it, depending on the (american) culture it's occurring in.
Ideally, society allows for social mockery without condoning violence. I think we're way past that now.
Well, sure, my numeral system was to try and classify levels of violence in abstraction. Even the severity or social taboo of violence can vary substantially in regards to culture.
I've always felt that spitting is a good example of a level of absolutely minimal physically violent force which is so socially taboo that it solicits quite a severe response from people. It's one of the reasons we classify it as assault, but even battery, in many states. If you spit on someone, you're asking for them to fly off the fucking handle even in the best of situations.
But I think that's also something that's related to what the Left is doing: crafting an Honor Culture with it's own concept of violence.
Think about it, Ben Shapiro won't use the wrong pronouns on a tranny, and the tranny gets to grab him by the neck and physically threaten him. Among, specifically, the mtf transgender activists, they use their male propensity for violence as an active threat to bully and intimidate other people into accepting their status. That, in and of itself, is a form of social violence that is made to secure a social status, because their transgender status is a social status among the Left's concept of victimization. Ben was given a rather significant amount of social violence and coercion to enforce their Honor Culture.
This is also why I bring up the concept of Lyncherdom being the final form of a virtue signal. Lynchings are a form of social violence as well. A kind of scape-goating for a community, an assertion of power by the communal leaders over the law, and (as Twain pointed out) a form of social filtering among the lynchers themselves to identify who would (and more importantly) who wouldn't associate themselves with the lynchers.
The Leftist Honor culture is trying to associate violence and speech by turning Social Mockery about particular issues from 0 to 7, so that they may justify what would normally be considered a disproportionate use of force. Demoralization, then Normalization by Yuri's standard.
But that's also why the Culture War is such an important aspect of this conflict. We must not tolerate the demoralization of our standards in favor of introducing an Honor Culture, particularly an ever-changing Leftist one. That's the dangerous challenge to the Left. Social Mockery doesn't justify violent retaliation, it justifies nothing but further mockery. Thus when they lash out with violence, it does justify our defensive violence. That defensive stance must be taken unapologetically.
That isn't normal, frankly, for most soft-hearted normies. They feel bad that they had to do violence even defensively. It's a good thing, really. You want a society filled with people who are regretful of intentionally causing harm to others, even if it was well earned. The problem is that we are dealing with predators. They don't think like normal people. They think such expressions are weaknesses to take advantage of. Whatever cruelty you think you've done to them, there is no question that the predator silently admires you for having actually had the balls to be cruel, because he thinks your like him, and he can respect other predators. Not prey. After all, he would have done the same to you.
We can't, and shouldn't, be predators. But we do have to communicate with them in a language they understand. We mark our territory, and we are unflinching in our aggression to keep other predators out. Predators probing our territory are not tolerated, and we must not be easy prey for them. We must not only be anti-fragile and affirmative, but we must be absolute in our moral conviction because we're doing the right thing, and they fucking know it..
I think it's as Jordan Peterson's analysis says: it's not the meek that will inherit the Earth, but those who have a sword and keep it sheathed, until it's finally time to use it because it's the right thing to do.
There was a video posted on fightporn or somewhere that got taken down and it was some South American country (I thought this would be the same video) where their militarized looking cops were trying to take in a suspect with a knife, in a field, or a yard, with some fence and trees, a bit of obstruction. A TV crew I guess was filming it and the guy took several bullets but still managed to stab two cops to death before being taken out. It was such a waste of life. Had they just shot the deranged dude the two officers would have been alive. Knives are deadly, the public needs to understand police using lethal force on suspects wielding them at the cops is justified. Running isn't always an option either. Having civilians and cops with guns helps as a deterrent. I was watching the video of a Singaporean guy on a bike getting saved from a knife wielding supremacist by a live streamer in Europe I think. It can happen suddenly, to anyone. Getting rid of guns didn't help the Brits and it won't help us.
Just in case anyone needs to explain to someone you know (local villiage useful idiot) why Ma'Khla Bryant was an attempted murderer, and why you don't stop a stabber with random gunfire to the air, or shots to the leg.
For some insane reason the Left truly believes knives are somehow less or even non-lethal compared to guns.
If they acknowledged the lethality of knives, they'd have to acknowledge other things that are narrative destroying, such as gun free London being more violent than gun filled Houston or even NYC.
That's why I loved Sargon's expression watching this.
Even the Left in the UK admits that Knife Crime is really bad and absolutely lethal enough to scare illegal migrants into the UK back to Somalia. The American Leftists are literally standing there defending children having knife-fights... which is something you can see in London.
The worst part is: it wasn't a "knife fight" at all! Only one girl had a knife, it was attempted murder.
Try telling a leftist that though :/
I'm sure a bunch are just knowingly lying to virtue signal and/or push political agendas, but for many it comes back to the same issue that always arises with nearly every political debate: People are making statements about things they know jack **** about.
If the scariest "knife" you've ever used is a semi-dull steak knife (or, maybe even just a bog-standard dinner knife) then their statements make sense to you. If you've ever had to butcher an animal, clear brush or defend yourself with a blade (or, heck, even just prepared a thanksgiving turkey) then you find out real quick what knives are actually capable of.
These ACAB tards would be singing an entirely different tune once they're a victim of knife crime.
Probably join Moms Against Knives.
I'm sure many are pushing their dogma, but I've got to believe, considering how little push-back on the Left I've seen from this, that there are people now buying it. Just like there were people who believed 1 in 3 women were raped in College.
The scariest knives are the unassuming ones. Thin and just a little long. There's a reason the SEAL's knife is like that, and it's purpose is based on human anatomy.
I know!
What is childhood even like if you can't go out with friends, play video games, dress in edgy clothing, and stab the shit out of your friend's throats!
I'm a completely normal human!
While you were in school, I studied the blade.
tips fedora
I remember a video of a fight on a subway that sprawled out of control but was settled by a crazy nerd with an actual katana.
I still wish we could have seen it in use.
Modern society is too far removed from the realities of violence. Seems to me that it's a self-correcting problem.
I'm not sure. I think it's about who's committing violence.
Social violence is weird. These same people who will scream that cops will kill them, treat cops as if they would never even think of touching them. If you treated a gang member or a robber like you treated a cop, you'd be already dead.
That being said, social violence is totally normal among these same people's social group.
I mean, the Columbus thing is a perfect example, and it might even explain the "in defense of stabbing" response. It's completely normal to just kick people in the skull, stab them, and never stop fighting... it's just not okay for someone outside their social group to use enough force to unquestionably win.
Maybe the problem is social violence. Social violence will continue and escalate unabated because it is a form of social status sorting. But they don't have any experience with defensive violence. A level of violence that insists on not gradually increasing, but instead demands an immediate cessation of violence or the level of force used will be extreme.
I think the level of violence that even the middle class are exposed to is this graduating violence that gives you little feed-back which you simply try to avoid every time you escalate, versus abrupt violence which gives very dramatic feed-back and teaches you to to stop because you're not prepared for the escalation.
Didn't really consider it that deeply until you mentioned it, but social violence is pretty interesting in its nuance. You have groups that find it foreign, groups that find it commonplace, groups that have fled from it...
Kicking people, stabbing them, and never stop fighting is foreign to me. Violence is nothing but a last resort.
Last resort.
I can't imagine committing myself to violence as a way of life, but instead a means to an end. If that end isn't peace and stability for my family and their future, the point mostly escapes me.
Just spitballing myself here. All humans engage in violence, but like most things, I guess I don't view all violence as equal.
Well, that's exactly the point, you and I (because, yeah, same) have had that experience where violence wasn't really a graduating social thing. It was an abrupt and hard barrier. Technically abrupt violence can be social, but it's only to be applied on hard barriers, and taboos. Abrupt violence would require a use of other social shaming or reward mechanisms. Where-as defensive violence has no social aspect to it.
This is the way I think of it:
Behavior:
Type of violence: description of retaliation [level of violence from 0-10]
0 - Non violent, not status challenging
1 - minor violence, not status challenging
3 - Non violent, challenging
4 - minor violence, challenging
5 - Non violent, threatening
6 - minor violence, threatening
7 - moderate violence
8 - severe violence
9 - lethal violence
You were stupid [0]:
You got generally aggressive, boisterous [3]:
You socially attack someone through disrespect or belittling [4]:
You physically intimidate someone or shove them hard [6]:
You physically attack someone [7]:
0-3-4-6-7
Contrasting these: social violence slowly increases at a fairly steady rate. Abrupt violence has no middle and takes a hard turn. Defensive violence basically leaps into lethal violence. Anyone expecting Social Violence may feel emboldened by defensive violence because there keeps being no response for such a long period of time. Abrupt violence gives anyone expecting social violence a bit of a warning, but still makes a dramatic leap.
If you're operating under the pretense of social violence, you're always basically navigating how much violence you want to engage in to maintain status (like animals making aggressive postures or displays of dominance). If there's no response to social violence you may think you are dealing with a low status individual who will accept it. ... until you realize your grave mistake because he just shot you in the face. He didn't want or know to participate in social violence. He assumed defensive violence. If you're at 7, and he's at 3, he's not going to 7 next, he's going to 9. If you're convincing in your aggressive displays of dominance, he's not going to retaliate with his own display, he's going to respond with lethal force.
If you live in perpetual social violence, you expect to navigate it with feedback. But defensive and abrupt violence refuse that feedback. Frankly, that's why it teaches you to be a "polite society". Your feedback isn't someone punching you in the face, it's a dude saying "GET AWAY FROM ME!" for the 50th time before they shoot you. That was never intimidating, right until you see the muzzle flash. Thus, you need to listen the first time he gives that warning because the jump in force might take you completely by surprise.
Social Violence is a major part of "Honor Culture". When social status is identified by the concept of social honor as a currency that can be lost or gained through social behaviors like violence. Without an Honor Culture, societies have to define social value through other things like wealth, width of social network, influence, title, or skill. When you remove social value & sorting from violence through mandating defensive violence only, social filtering has to be done through those other mechanisms.
It may be that aspects of our society (typically the lower class), Social Violence and Honor Culture still exist (worse, is being promoted by members of the Left who profit off of their own kind of honor culture). The Left may be engaging in so much Honor Culture style 'culture warfare' and virtue signaling through social media that they are inspiring a re-emergence of Social Violence in response.
That's my take at least.
Well... shit. I really agree with this take.
But because I'm contrarian, I must argue.
You say social mockery is 0. While I don't necessarily disagree, because it isn't physical, it is still escalation. 0 begs for 7, and often begets it, depending on the (american) culture it's occurring in.
Ideally, society allows for social mockery without condoning violence. I think we're way past that now.
Let's keep going and see what happens.
Well, sure, my numeral system was to try and classify levels of violence in abstraction. Even the severity or social taboo of violence can vary substantially in regards to culture.
I've always felt that spitting is a good example of a level of absolutely minimal physically violent force which is so socially taboo that it solicits quite a severe response from people. It's one of the reasons we classify it as assault, but even battery, in many states. If you spit on someone, you're asking for them to fly off the fucking handle even in the best of situations.
But I think that's also something that's related to what the Left is doing: crafting an Honor Culture with it's own concept of violence.
Think about it, Ben Shapiro won't use the wrong pronouns on a tranny, and the tranny gets to grab him by the neck and physically threaten him. Among, specifically, the mtf transgender activists, they use their male propensity for violence as an active threat to bully and intimidate other people into accepting their status. That, in and of itself, is a form of social violence that is made to secure a social status, because their transgender status is a social status among the Left's concept of victimization. Ben was given a rather significant amount of social violence and coercion to enforce their Honor Culture.
This is also why I bring up the concept of Lyncherdom being the final form of a virtue signal. Lynchings are a form of social violence as well. A kind of scape-goating for a community, an assertion of power by the communal leaders over the law, and (as Twain pointed out) a form of social filtering among the lynchers themselves to identify who would (and more importantly) who wouldn't associate themselves with the lynchers.
The Leftist Honor culture is trying to associate violence and speech by turning Social Mockery about particular issues from 0 to 7, so that they may justify what would normally be considered a disproportionate use of force. Demoralization, then Normalization by Yuri's standard.
But that's also why the Culture War is such an important aspect of this conflict. We must not tolerate the demoralization of our standards in favor of introducing an Honor Culture, particularly an ever-changing Leftist one. That's the dangerous challenge to the Left. Social Mockery doesn't justify violent retaliation, it justifies nothing but further mockery. Thus when they lash out with violence, it does justify our defensive violence. That defensive stance must be taken unapologetically.
That isn't normal, frankly, for most soft-hearted normies. They feel bad that they had to do violence even defensively. It's a good thing, really. You want a society filled with people who are regretful of intentionally causing harm to others, even if it was well earned. The problem is that we are dealing with predators. They don't think like normal people. They think such expressions are weaknesses to take advantage of. Whatever cruelty you think you've done to them, there is no question that the predator silently admires you for having actually had the balls to be cruel, because he thinks your like him, and he can respect other predators. Not prey. After all, he would have done the same to you.
A rare, honest, conversation with a predator
We can't, and shouldn't, be predators. But we do have to communicate with them in a language they understand. We mark our territory, and we are unflinching in our aggression to keep other predators out. Predators probing our territory are not tolerated, and we must not be easy prey for them. We must not only be anti-fragile and affirmative, but we must be absolute in our moral conviction because we're doing the right thing, and they fucking know it..
I think it's as Jordan Peterson's analysis says: it's not the meek that will inherit the Earth, but those who have a sword and keep it sheathed, until it's finally time to use it because it's the right thing to do.
THIS ISN'T HOLLYWOOD
THIS ISN'T COMIC BOOKS
THIS ISN'T VIDEO GAMES
ANIME JA NAI
Why is this so fucking hard to understand?
Entertainment is reality, that's why the propaganda works. Reality can be whatever you want it to be.
Reality is terrorism and oppression. That's why anyone who doesn't accept the propaganda is a terrorist.
anime ja nai
my fucking sides
Remember Bushido Blade?
A fighting game that's all about swords should be awesome!
Oh damn, why are the fights over so quick?
"People die when you kill them." (Jojo I think?)
DEEN Fate is what made that a real meme.
What's the difference between a gun fight and a knife fight?
In a gun fight one person dies. In a knife fight two people die.
I used to do martial arts, and we told people all the time, "One dies on the street, the other dies in the ambulance."
Low Key disappointed this wasn't Surviving Edged Weapons
That movie is legendary
too low hanging fruit. I went with new content.
Cops were dumb as fuck though.
Yes, I don't know that Argentina is well known for having excellent police.
There was a video posted on fightporn or somewhere that got taken down and it was some South American country (I thought this would be the same video) where their militarized looking cops were trying to take in a suspect with a knife, in a field, or a yard, with some fence and trees, a bit of obstruction. A TV crew I guess was filming it and the guy took several bullets but still managed to stab two cops to death before being taken out. It was such a waste of life. Had they just shot the deranged dude the two officers would have been alive. Knives are deadly, the public needs to understand police using lethal force on suspects wielding them at the cops is justified. Running isn't always an option either. Having civilians and cops with guns helps as a deterrent. I was watching the video of a Singaporean guy on a bike getting saved from a knife wielding supremacist by a live streamer in Europe I think. It can happen suddenly, to anyone. Getting rid of guns didn't help the Brits and it won't help us.
I think I remember the video. He stabbed two cops to death, but wounded the other 3 which were trying to arrest him.
Yeah he did a colossal amount of damage for one guy with a knife. Central mass man, less dead cops and civilians.
Yup.