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.
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.