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.
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.