The Place of Violence in Society -

Gus

Interlocutor
kiwifarms.net
Here's something I wrote for myself when reflecting upon my life and what I've learned from my regrets. It's essentially just introspective practice for strengthening my beliefs, but I thought it might make good discussion material. It's really basic stuff, but a lot of people don't really have that basis unfortunately, so it's worth a post.

People who larp about violence in imaginary situations over the internet are often one of two extremes. One side is overly jumpy and hateful, and will often fantasize about itching their trigger finger until an opportunity comes for them to go too far. The other side will larp from a place of fear and arrogance until they really are in one of those situations, at which point they'll understand the reality of the shit they've been talking and hesitate. Fear is of course a root from which hate and adrenaline is naturally formed, so it's no surprise that these extremes overlap. It's all emotional stupidity, and it unfortunately fuels a lot of political and philosophical beliefs. So is the nature of emotional hijacking of reason.

Such beliefs, of course, are a part of the cycle that brings these 'situations' into reality to begin with. Many people reject the idea of turning the other cheek, or "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind" because they believe that if good people reject violence absolutely, then evil will dominate the material world, and I'd say they have a point. Principles are only valuable when they translate properly into reality. We cannot believe in fantasies. And so it is my belief that we must have gravity - not necessarily, but perhaps including violence - to respond to the force of threats. A simple term for this is obviously self-defense, but even so, it doesn't clearly define what exactly I'm talking about. There is a place for violence, and it's not always only at the point of a knife diving towards you. Sometimes, we must act beyond our immediate means to take care of a problem if we know for certain that a risk is too obvious to be worth the waiting.

But these conclusions cannot be made with the mindset of people who do not know what the genuine nature of violence is, whether it be through a lack of empathy or plain ignorance. We must be cold and measured to commit such acts, and we must observe the sacred depth of the wounds we might create within others and within ourselves. There is a cost and a risk, and it must be understood or we will end up with people who have either lost themselves or a part of themselves. There is a certain responsibility that must be accepted, and in order to fully grasp that responsibility, we must overcome violent urges, fear, and hate. We must mature.

If you hurt someone, you must do it from a place of love for what you are protecting. If you kill someone, you must do it from a response of cold gravity. If you want peace, you must be firm in your convictions and recognize that the only good thing about violence is in a purpose that leads to peace.

Only balance is acceptable when it comes to handling extreme measures.
 
Last edited:

crocodilian

K. K. K. Rool
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
"Do no harm, unless you're absolutely sure it's necessary for maintaining peace and not coming from a place of impulse" is a sound conclusion. The next step in your self-reflection should be understanding what 'necessary' entails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Otterly
not everyone desires peace, some people enjoy chaos. life is just a game and there's not going to be any reward for you in "the afterlife" for being a docile little bitch all your life, those are fairy tales the government and your parents tell you to keep you enslaved like nigger cattle so you'll keep working your boring wageslave job that no sane person would want to do. civilization is fucking boring and I want to burn it all down, then rebuild it. I enjoy both destroying and building things. I really enjoy fighting, punching people until they're unconscious is a lot of fun even if I don't dislike them at all, even if they're my friends. spending a few weeks waiting for my wounds to heal while on pain meds on the rare occasions I lose a fight is worth it, I will go right back to fighting after I've healed.

some men just want to work a desk job, raise a family, watch TV, mow their lawn, then die in a nursing home. some men just want to have fun, do drugs, party hard, break things, fuck hundreds of hot sluts, break all the laws, watch the world burn, drive 150 mph on the freeway and die young. there's no such thing as good and evil, there's only chaos and order. you're the kid that cried when I knocked down your sand castles, I'm the kid that had more fun knocking down my own sand castles than I had buliding them. learn to enjoy violence or you will always be a victim.
 

Lemmingwise

✊Black in solidarity with black lives matter✊
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It'd be nice if humans didn't evolve from violent chimp-like creatures. Why not more friendly or chill ones, like bunnies?
Thank god that the most technologically advanced species isnt one that tries to poop out as many babies as possible.
 
  • DRINK!
Reactions: ToroidalBoat

Austrian Conscript 1915

133 days in Przemysl
kiwifarms.net
"If you hurt someone, you must do it from a place of love for what you are protecting. If you kill someone, you must do it from a response of cold gravity."
This statement infers that the only good violence only comes from defensive action even if the action is technically "offensive" despite the enemy posing an imminent threat. And I agree with the second part, if you're going to kill someone then it's best to do it without emotion.

"Balance" isn't good when handling things in a violent way because if you don't beat something thoroughly and completely there's always the risk that it might return with more malice. Or alternatively beat it to the point where you know it won't return.
Violence is a natural part of life and it's unrealistic to try to suppress it. But we must make the distinction between violence between countries and violence within society. In the latter case all violence must lead to justice and justice can only come from reason so the best way to deal with violence is through the legal system because it is entirely based on reason. But in the cases where the legal system cannot come into play the only way justice can be done is by the individual, and we all know that people aren't the most logical creatures. So the only right way to deal out violence in these situations is with reason in mind and if any factor like emotion were to come into play when making the decision the violence that would be dealt would be a violation of morality.

In the other case of violence between nations I don't believe eternal peace or solving the situation "diplomatically" is always ideal. War is a product of the free market and sometimes war is needed to sort things out. If a nation cannot survive an extended period of war without its soul being crushed then it also cannot survive an extended period of peace
 

Gus

Interlocutor
kiwifarms.net
"If you hurt someone, you must do it from a place of love for what you are protecting. If you kill someone, you must do it from a response of cold gravity."
This statement infers that the only good violence only comes from defensive action even if the action is technically "offensive" despite the enemy posing an imminent threat. And I agree with the second part, if you're going to kill someone then it's best to do it without emotion.

"Balance" isn't good when handling things in a violent way because if you don't beat something thoroughly and completely there's always the risk that it might return with more malice. Or alternatively beat it to the point where you know it won't return.
Violence is a natural part of life and it's unrealistic to try to suppress it. But we must make the distinction between violence between countries and violence within society. In the latter case all violence must lead to justice and justice can only come from reason so the best way to deal with violence is through the legal system because it is entirely based on reason. But in the cases where the legal system cannot come into play the only way justice can be done is by the individual, and we all know that people aren't the most logical creatures. So the only right way to deal out violence in these situations is with reason in mind and if any factor like emotion were to come into play when making the decision the violence that would be dealt would be a violation of morality.

In the other case of violence between nations I don't believe eternal peace or solving the situation "diplomatically" is always ideal. War is a product of the free market and sometimes war is needed to sort things out. If a nation cannot survive an extended period of war without its soul being crushed then it also cannot survive an extended period of peace
If force excessive enough to make sure something does not return is logically needed, then my statements permit such a thing. That's what I meant by 'balance', you see; momentum must be met with momentum - force must be met with something strong enough to defeat it. If you bring your fists, I'll take out mine. But if you come back with a knife, then I'll bring a gun, because I know that you'll come back with a gun if you walk away after I won with a knife. It's not ideology so much as it's a question of physics. There's a certain threshold to be crossed... a certain pale, where beyond, the only choice you have is to do what is pragmatic or what is ideal. And while a martyr may make an influential symbol for a peaceful ideology, it is foolish to say that this is preferable to them responding equitably to might.

There was a comment a little before yours, and as much of a knuckle-dragger as he appears to have been, he did get something right: people who reject violence absolutely will always be the victims of people who are unbound by scruples and beliefs. A big part of my overall point here is that if we do the ideal thing instead of the reasonable thing, we will be subject to the whim of the terrible. Therefore, there must be a gun for every knife, a tall tree for every rape, a revolution for every oppression, and a war for every invasion.

It's not about abstaining from violence until the last minute or half-stepping. It's about having a spine that's strong enough to keep you standing.
 
Last edited:

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
The place of violence in society is either to force people to obey to that society's rules or to force society to obey to the people's will.
 

Leonard Helplessness

kiwifarms.net
Humans have a weird relationship with violence. It was so integral to human survival that humans are predisposed to enjoy doing it, even to other humans. Natural selection is some very ugly business when it results in creatures that are genetically predisposed to destroy each other and each other's children. This happens, for instance, with lions -- when a pride's king is overthrown, the new king exterminates the dethroned's entire bloodline by killing all the cubs in front of their mothers. Evolution fucking sucks like that. We are descended from despoilers, rapists, and murderers; this is because the people who didn't feel like doing that shit were despoiled, raped, and murdered.

On the other side of the coin, we're taught practically from birth to not harm one another; notably,we have to be taught this. Most of the world at this point belongs to societies that are built in huge part around preventing their members from devouring each other because every society that did not account for and work to suppress its members' violent urges has self-destructed. Societies that are 100% pacifist have a tendency to become roadkill when they're discovered by societies that are willing to prey on outsiders, but those societies themselves tend to have rules about not generally hurting each other, only outsiders.

By the time we're adults we're usually fairly well-conditioned to not use violence and destruction to solve our problems and satisfy our desires, but the inclination is still there, held back by very little. It's extremely easy to get a taste for hurting people once you've done it; it's gratifying and addictive. Once you find out that you can destroy somebody for being a heretic or a nigger or a jew or a communist or a satanist or a racist or whatever other persona non grata is on the menu today, everybody looks like another persona non grata to be torn to pieces.

Violence is rewarding on a very deep, visceral level, which makes it extremely fucking dangerous to engage in. This conflicts with the fact that violence is often necessary, because there exist shitty people who do terrible things and can only be stopped through forceful means. In an ideal system, force is only dispensed in a careful, controlled manner and only under carefully-defined circumstances. Civilized society attempts to achieve this by forbidding people from violencing each other as a means of problem solving and by ensuring that people have nonviolent solutions available to address every possible problem. When violence absolutely must be dispensed, it is ideally dispensed by an established state that represents the people's best interests; the violence is not dispensed by the people directly. That way lies madness.

Also in an ideal system, circumstances never arise in which we need to outright harm one another directly. In the instances where we do, however, the OP is absolutely right: We must act impersonally and coldly. Due to how the human brain works, this is extremely difficult to do, especially if the people engaging in violence are an uncontrolled group feeding off each others' excitement and rage. Mob justice is an oxymoron.

To close, I'd like to get biblical with a comparison between Old Testament justice and New Testament justice, specifically as each part deals with capital punishment.

  • The Old Testament: Capital punishment is widely discussed in the Old Testament; in general they're very violent books. There are many discussions of laws, especially in the book of Leviticus. One popular form of capital punishment prescribed in that book, and put into use in many instances in the Old Testament, is stoning -- in which the condemned was taken outside their city and pelted to death by a rock-wielding mob that included men, women and children. Stoning was a fucking horrifying way to die and many countries still do it today, to my knowledge.
  • The New Testament: The first four books of the New Testament are mostly Jesus Jesusing around, saying and doing weird shit. Stoning does specifically come up in two notable instances: When people try to kill Jesus on the spot for what amounts to outright blasphemy, and when Jesus shames an entire mob into going home and sparing the life of a condemned adulteress. One bit that's come to particularly interest me, though, is Matthew 18:6. That chapter is one of Jesus's weirder and more disturbing rants, and the sixth verse specifically is about what's translated as "scandalizing children." "Scandalizing a child" is frequently interpreted as referring to kiddie-fiddling, and Jesus's prescription for people who "scandalize" children is that they're to be weighted down with a millstone and sunk in the depths of the sea. Given how amazingly harmful and cancerous pedophilia is, I can understand why civilized societies evolve to take such a merciless stance on it; what interests me is the means of execution here. The offender is essentially thrown away and forgotten about like a piece of trash, and society goes on as if he never existed in the first place. This is a world apart from someone being tortured to death by a blood-crazed mob; while it still fucking sucks to have to kill someone, this method doesn't further mentally scar an entire community. The deed is simply done and over with.

I find this to be an important lesson in how force should be used, when we have to use it at all. I've come to believe that the United States is a nation in decline and comprised of people who by and large are no longer worthy to live in a democracy, and I suspect that things in our society are going to get a lot worse before anything gets better. In times like this, I think it's important to remember the flaws in the human condition, so as to avoid giving into them and becoming yet another monster.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Bung

Baguette Child

so tender and mild
kiwifarms.net
a revolution for every oppression,
This is the problem I have with your philosophy: You seem to think that people are rational. That people can be trusted to use violence "responsibly". But people use this line of thinking to justify violence against individuals on a frequent real world basis. Individuals who, often, have committed no true offense or crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


My own recent real world example was the sacking and burning of my bookstore- A locally owned business that had no connection to the police in any way shape or form and yet was burned down by people shouting about 'revolution' and sticking it to the oppressors. Now I, and the people who relied on me for financial support, are innocent victims of a situation we played no part in- And yet the people who carried the torch view the situation as one hundred percent justified and meaningful. So I have to ask: where are the checks and balances in the system once we decide that violence is in any way acceptable as a means of protestation? Who gets to decide the ideological basis for who we can commit violence upon, and can we be justifiably certain they are unbiased and fair?


People are irrational. We cannot trust society with violence as a commonplace tool- It is safer to push for nonviolence as a general rule.
 

Mr. Bung

So many holes, so little time...
kiwifarms.net
Humans have a weird relationship with violence. It was so integral to human survival that humans are predisposed to enjoy doing it, even to other humans. Natural selection is some very ugly business when it results in creatures that are genetically predisposed to destroy each other and each other's children. This happens, for instance, with lions -- when a pride's king is overthrown, the new king exterminates the dethroned's entire bloodline by killing all the cubs in front of their mothers. Evolution fucking sucks like that. We are descended from despoilers, rapists, and murderers; this is because the people who didn't feel like doing that shit were despoiled, raped, and murdered.

On the other side of the coin, we're taught practically from birth to not harm one another; notably,we have to be taught this. Most of the world at this point belongs to societies that are built in huge part around preventing their members from devouring each other because every society that did not account for and work to suppress its members' violent urges has self-destructed. Societies that are 100% pacifist have a tendency to become roadkill when they're discovered by societies that are willing to prey on outsiders, but those societies themselves tend to have rules about not generally hurting each other, only outsiders.
A species being both highly social and territorial pretty much guarantees that it will be a violent one, with lots of intraspecies conflict. You mention lions, which fit both criteria. As do most primates, including humans. Then there's meerkats, which surprisingly have the highest rate of intraspecies violence out of any animal. So at least we can take solace in the fact that humans aren't the species that are the most violent with each other on planet Earth.
 

Gus

Interlocutor
kiwifarms.net
This is the problem I have with your philosophy: You seem to think that people are rational. That people can be trusted to use violence "responsibly". But people use this line of thinking to justify violence against individuals on a frequent real world basis. Individuals who, often, have committed no true offense or crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


My own recent real world example was the sacking and burning of my bookstore- A locally owned business that had no connection to the police in any way shape or form and yet was burned down by people shouting about 'revolution' and sticking it to the oppressors. Now I, and the people who relied on me for financial support, are innocent victims of a situation we played no part in- And yet the people who carried the torch view the situation as one hundred percent justified and meaningful. So I have to ask: where are the checks and balances in the system once we decide that violence is in any way acceptable as a means of protestation? Who gets to decide the ideological basis for who we can commit violence upon, and can we be justifiably certain they are unbiased and fair?


People are irrational. We cannot trust society with violence as a commonplace tool- It is safer to push for nonviolence as a general rule.
I have a little too much going on right now to give this the response it deserves, but I want you to know that your commentary is appreciated and you make solid points.
 

Gus

Interlocutor
kiwifarms.net
This is the problem I have with your philosophy: You seem to think that people are rational. That people can be trusted to use violence "responsibly". But people use this line of thinking to justify violence against individuals on a frequent real world basis. Individuals who, often, have committed no true offense or crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.


My own recent real world example was the sacking and burning of my bookstore- A locally owned business that had no connection to the police in any way shape or form and yet was burned down by people shouting about 'revolution' and sticking it to the oppressors. Now I, and the people who relied on me for financial support, are innocent victims of a situation we played no part in- And yet the people who carried the torch view the situation as one hundred percent justified and meaningful. So I have to ask: where are the checks and balances in the system once we decide that violence is in any way acceptable as a means of protestation? Who gets to decide the ideological basis for who we can commit violence upon, and can we be justifiably certain they are unbiased and fair?


People are irrational. We cannot trust society with violence as a commonplace tool- It is safer to push for nonviolence as a general rule.
It is true that we can't absolutely suppress the animal instinct to commit atrocities in a population when you open the gate of violence, and I'll admit that it is a gaping hole in my ideology. But while I agree to that point, I cannot consider the alternative a live option because it allows the philosophical opposition of an ideology to suffer defeat and martyrdom, the latter of which can also be twisted as a propaganda tool for the opposing force - the most obvious example being that of Jesus being used to justify countless wars over two millennia.

Rioting is like having a deep, wide, rich pit of oil, and setting fire to it until it's so burnt out that there's no fight left in a movement, and all that's left is ashes and sorrow. If people desire to truly get something done, it'd require that they learn to pipeline the oil so that it can power a military machine capable of the organization required to hit priority targets and leave non-combatants alone in the realm of general possibility. Now, with the consideration that even misconduct within a military organization which actively forbids the accosting of innocents cannot be circumvented, I'd say that it mostly comes down to whether something is truly worth the collateral and other costs of going to war. Such a question, of course, can't really be objectively answered because every complex political ideology is flawed, being that humans are naturally as complex as they are flawed. So, in the end, we are left with one of the most difficult of ancient questions. One that everyone seems to have an answer to, but nobody can agree upon.

I am not arrogant enough to say that I know for sure what means will yield the most progressive and stable of ends, but as with even those who represent a direct contrast of what I believe, I only suppose what seems right in my line of logic, and that is the basis of all conflict in the world. Perhaps it's just something that we have to evolve out of.
 
not everyone desires peace, some people enjoy chaos. life is just a game and there's not going to be any reward for you in "the afterlife" for being a docile little bitch all your life, those are fairy tales the government and your parents tell you to keep you enslaved like nigger cattle so you'll keep working your boring wageslave job that no sane person would want to do. civilization is fucking boring and I want to burn it all down, then rebuild it. I enjoy both destroying and building things. I really enjoy fighting, punching people until they're unconscious is a lot of fun even if I don't dislike them at all, even if they're my friends. spending a few weeks waiting for my wounds to heal while on pain meds on the rare occasions I lose a fight is worth it, I will go right back to fighting after I've healed.

some men just want to work a desk job, raise a family, watch TV, mow their lawn, then die in a nursing home. some men just want to have fun, do drugs, party hard, break things, fuck hundreds of hot sluts, break all the laws, watch the world burn, drive 150 mph on the freeway and die young. there's no such thing as good and evil, there's only chaos and order. you're the kid that cried when I knocked down your sand castles, I'm the kid that had more fun knocking down my own sand castles than I had buliding them. learn to enjoy violence or you will always be a victim.
Where can I get this printed on the back of a T-shirt with a badass skeleton giving the middle finger on the front of it?
 

Made In China

kiwifarms.net
Violence has its place, but maybe if you had more modes than "do nothing" and "go postal" you wouldn't feel the need to use it all the time.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gus

Otterly

Primark Primarch
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Violence has a place but it has to be limited. Limited in who uses it, how many people use it, when, and under what circumstances.
It is necessary to use violence sometimes. Is it right for me to pick up a heavy object and hit someone with it, incapacitating them? Not generally. Not if we are sat at a bus stop waiting for a bus. But...If someone is about to harm me, or a loved one, or someone innocent then yes, that violence is justified.
Violence has to be proportional and neccessary. It also has to be generally restricted to smaller groups of people. For example - the police need to be able to be able to be violent to maintain control, in specific scenarios. Those again are limited. Police excercising violence on a routine beat, no. Able to put someone who is going to harm others on the floor, yes
. If the police are abolished, that violence will need to be wielded by MORE people with FEWER controls, checks and balances. That’s the route to anarchy and chaos.
Humans have a degree of aggression naturally and that’s Ok, as long as it’s used and directed. We can channel aggression to sports, to games, to debates, or just to make us excel at things. Or to defend ourselves and our tribes. Ironically, targeted, controlled and appropriate violence probably reduces the overall amount of violence needed and used by a society.

walk softly, and carry a big stick.
 
Tags
None