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.
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.