@RevilerD

Thats sad they drove you to that. My advice would be to be the bigger man and not succumb to it.

@mk

@freemo @RevilerD @mk "Being the bigger man" works in civil society. It doesn't work with savages.

@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.