🇳🇱
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.
@nerthos can't imagine that helping matters honestly. violence is never the answer.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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@shitposter.club
>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.
