@nerthos

If you respond to savagery with savagery the end result is just more savagery, not less.

@RevilerD @mk

@freemo @RevilerD @mk What do you propose, other than replying in kind, when someone is out for your life?

@nerthos

Depends on which way they are "out for your life", the response would be very situational.

@RevilerD @mk

@freemo @RevilerD @mk The kind of individual he's talking about would avoid confronting you one on one, but would physically attack you if they had numerical superiority or authority on their side. They will, as well, do all in their power to modify law and society to eradicate your kind.

@nerthos

So are you more worried about how to respond to pre-crime of what they may one day maybe possibly do.. or are you asking me how to address something they are currently actively doing? The response to each is different.

If your concern is about how they might behave int he future, then there is time, and your goal is to ensure you defuse that future as much as possible. If you are agressive, ugly, and hostile then all your doing is giving strength to their movement. You are giving them a valid face of the enemy. You are ensuring the very future you wish to prevent (just as they are ensuring the same future with their own actions). So with that intention it is a very flawed tactic.

@RevilerD @mk

@freemo @RevilerD @mk I think he has the same approach to this than I do: embolden them while they're still in truth a weaker force. Get them to strike first, and then retaliate with full extermination. Accelerate the conditions for war and make them believe they are extremely powerful when in fact they aren't.

@nerthos

The end result of such a policy is to quickly accelerate their growth and power, not diminish it. Particularly since its a metaphor for words and not a literal proposal of violence.

@RevilerD @mk

@freemo @RevilerD @mk No, I'm talking about leading them, an extremist-leaning movement, to think they're at the point where they can get away with violently exterminating their opposition, in turn justifying responding in kind with superior force. The only reason they don't use deadly force right now is a belief that they can't reasonably get away with it.

@nerthos can't imagine that helping matters honestly. violence is never the answer.

@freemo Honestly, I wish I could agree with you, I really do. I believe there is no point at which violence is the only possible way out when dealing with people, in a civilized society. But in this case, the enemy is not another nation, or another political force. It is a cult-like, quickly radicalizing, racially and ideologically motivated group closed to outside ideas and completely convinced the right thing to do, which will give them an utopian world, is to get rid of an entire people. At this point, strategical application of violence is the only way out. Defeating them through any other means doesn't mean victory, but rather just stalling open conflict, a conflict in which conditions will be less favourable. You can't talk to a machine shooting at you, all you can do is destroy it and then level the factory.

Look at any historical case of a movement with similar characteristics attaining power due to people trying to meet in the middle ground like they would with a normal "enemy" and how the death toll only increased from there. Zimbabwe is a good example of this. This is a yet cold, but eventually hot war to prevent more countries from becoming Zimbabwe.

@nerthos The problem is by taking this tactic and opinion the only result is ensuring your own extermination, that isnt victory.

@freemo Only if they win the war, but the side they oppose is overwhelmingly more fit for warfare from a demographic view than their side. That's why accelerating the conflict and getting them to overestimate their forces matters.

@nerthos They will, if you behave in a way intending to incite violence out them, like you claim, you will bolster their numbers and support and ultimately ensure they will, in fact win.

Since you were encouraging violence I'd argue they **should** win against any who encourage violence by the very nature of violence.

@freemo I'm not inciting violence in a "go out and start shooting them" way. That would give them victory. I'm inciting pretending to be much weaker than the side actually is, so unprovoked they start using physical violence at a big scale.

If they didn't intend to use violence already, I wouldn't be proposing bracing for the initial punch. But you get a soldier to fight you by aiming a gun at them, a coward, however, you incite to attack by turning your back to them.

@nerthos Im not sure that would work either. People are, mostly, sheep. they support whatever side they perceive to be more powerful. By pretending to be weaker than you are you would only result in more people favoring the other side as well.

I dont think manipulative tactics really work too well here.

@freemo Considering their targets are racially defined, them making the first move too early while outnumbered works. It's really simple, it'd be extremely irrational to side with a group whose stated goal is the extermination of the ethnic group you belong to.

@nerthos Nah, they just pretend its racially defined. I am partly NAtive American and that has in no way made me immune from their attacks.

@freemo The leadership knows that, sure, but you don't bait a general if you want an atrocity, you bait the stupid underlings. As I said, not people. No cult leader drinks the koolaid, the followers do, in copious amounts.

@freemo @nerthos
Hidden inside your own argument against violence is a fundamental acknowledgement that the side that is willing to be violent will win. Think about that. After you've thought about that, think about how we live in one of the most violent civilizations ever known to man. However, in this civilization, violence is held as a legitimate privilege of an anointed few and forbidden legitimacy to the overwhelming masses.

@jack

No what I claimed is if you take specifically the tactic he suggested (you inciting violence through the use of violence) you will loose.

My argument implies that if you yourself are peaceful and the other side largely more violent than the peaceful side will win presuming the numbers are mostly equal.

So hidden in my argument is the exact opposite of what you saw.

@nerthos

@freemo @jack The tactic I suggested was not inciting violence through the use of violence, it was inciting violence through pretending to be helpless, thus openly revealing the other side is willing, and intended from the start, to murder helpless victims. This doesn't work against a normal enemy, a normal enemy will sit down and draft your terms of surrender when you seem helpless. An enemy that seeks your extermination and thinks there's no possible way they can lose will just go crazy with it, like the soviets did in berlin when the defenders surrendered.

@freemo @nerthos
>by inciting violence through the use of violence you will lose

Why?

There's no logical or rational or naturalistic or historical or statistical basis for it. It's a Judeo-Christian morality thing. And it's not the case that the person who picks a fight is more likely to lose it.

@jack

Quite simply because virtually all of the popularity of the left hings on the narrative that the right incites violence and hate. This in its current form has generated a huge amount of support for the left. Some people, those int he middle, dismiss it because they personally might feel they havent seen such violence and it isnt justified.

If your response is to actually be violent, now youve turned an accusation with little reality to it into truth. Not only will the embolden the current supporters but will also prove their message to be true. Anyone ont he fence about the issue will now be polarized to the left in response to your violence and ensured your own loss.

@nerthos

@freemo @jack You're just defending my argument, make the left openly show violence while the right doesn't, and the support turns around. I'm simply proposing exposing the left for what it is, and once that's done, fighting a hot war against it with a valid self-defense justification.

@freemo @nerthos
>Person A looks at the fighter and says disparagingly that he's an evil fighter.
>Person B taunts the fighter, winds him up. (In psychiatry this actually has a name "reactive abuse" as part of a Cluster B illness.)
>The fighter lashes out and hurts Person B.
>Person A says, "See, I told you he was an evil fighter."
This is basically where most people's scenario ends. BUT everything actually hinges on the next moment.
>DOES the fighter accept the mental frame of Person A and Person B?
>If so, he accepts the negative character they have ascribed to him and also admits to defeat, even wrongdoing, or a sort of "Original Sinfulness."
>BUT if the fighter does not accept the mental frame of Person A and Person B and instead asserts his own framework, which could vary, because he has lots of options, this is where the game really begins. Now, this takes a lot of skill and most people can't hold their own frame under intense pressure. But when they can, people treat them like a god. They become a folk hero or a martyr. It's a showing of incredible power and it can spread rebellion or "instability" very easily. They can win battles their side actually should not have won and even on the face of it didn't appear to win. Simply by how they behave in those key moments.

@jack @freemo That last bit is the key. Tip the glass just enough so that the monopoly on violence is lost, and the issue solves itself, as one side depends entirely on the other being unable to retaliate for victory.

@nerthos @freemo
I understand your approach and think it could be a good strategy in a lot of circumstances.

But one thing you both have in common is that the fight isn't really thought of in terms of belligerents. It's a fight-as-performance, in front of an audience. And everyone thinks of how they can control and manipulate this audience to their advantage — appear sympathetic, innocent, upstanding, formidable, fearsome, etc. So that they don't fight against you, make it an unfair fight, punish you if you win, etc.

But, the Soviet dissident post @orekix made last night has me thinking. The idea behind you guys' fight-as-performance is that the audience will behave rationally and logically. And that doesn't tend to be how people or even whole countries behave. (In Orekix's link, the Soviet regime did not behave rationally for its own best interests.) So I think it could be a lot more unpredictable than anyone thinks it might be.