Evil Companions

[Luckmann]

 

 

 

Yeah, I don' think anyone is arguing Violence is the best solution to all problems. Or even that it's a -good- solution. Just, you throw enough violence at something, that particular issue will go away.

 

Which is still a damn stupid viewpoint, once you go beyond caveman-level issues.

 

 

Eh? Stupid? It's just a true statement, not a judgement on it's merits compared to other options Stupid would be saying 'Violence is a good solution to all problems'. Or heck, even 'Violence is a good solution to a reasonable minority of problems'. Or maybe 'Violence can't solve all problems.'

 

You're trying to argue against the possibility of something by pointing out it'd be a terrible idea, which isn't exactly how it works.

 

 

 

Given that the original statement being objected to was:

 

 

 

Violence is a solution to most if not all problems. If you apply enough violence the conditions that are the cause of the problem get fixed.

 

 

Which, again, is simply untrue. In any complex civilization, the number of problems literally unsolvable by violence (unless you broaden your definition of "violence" to the point where it ceases to have meaning) will always be greater than the opposite.

 

Depends on your definition of a problem, really. There's a great many tasks that are not actual problems, unless you consciously make them such. Is it a problem going to Mars? No, not really. Is a math assignment a problem? Again, not really. And would two separate assignments count as two separate problems? Well then, yeah, there's a point in saying that the number of "problems" that cannot be solved with violence is greater than the opposite.

 

But in reality, I can make that math problem not be a problem anymore, with enough violence.

[Ymarsakar]

Violence has a negative social reputation, well in some societies. Raiders, vikings, and Aztecs probably prized it, as well as warrior cultures.

 

But even in a peaceful culture like the United States has become, voter intimidation in the form of Black Panthers patrolling the area with night sticks and clubs, when the Justice Department refuses to prosecute them or acquire evidence against them, exists.

 

Riots still exist, plus extortion, political or just greed motivated. So all these civilizational benefits, like iphones and smart phones, still certainly do exist. And yet people still use violence to get what they want, because it is easier or just because a lot of rich people tend to throw money at thugs. So violence being something a crude drug gang uses exists. But violence being something the intellectual or political elites use to get what they want, also exists. It's just a different scale, more clever or subtle, with more money behind it.

 

Violence is akin to wealth or influence. It's a personal resource. Some people have it more than others, and others are more willing to use what they have. If a guy with 5 billion, like some mega rich Soros villain, came into your neighborhood, he has a weight and presence, because what he offers to people might coerce or persuade them to do things his way. But if a death squad came to your neighborhood and was singling out X types of people for execution and demanded information from the neighborhood, it would have about the same effect.

 

If people don't have the resources to fight some giant real estate developer, they will lose their edge and interests. If a person doesn't have enough personal power or violence to counter other people's personal violence, they will also lose. And it's not something civilization can recreate or recover easily. Violence has the benefit of metaphysics and entropy on its side. No amount of wealth or propaganda can re attach a dead person's head back on their body and then have everyone act as if that person was resurrected. He's not alive again, at best he's just a zombie now. Violence can easily destroy what a nation has spent decades or centuries creating. That is its power or threat. Destruction is easier than creation. If anything, violence is more effective in an advanced civilization because those citizens or subjects have abdicated any personal desire to obtain violence or physical power. As there are less limits on those who use violence, violence becomes more effective.

 

The internet itself is always interesting to me. Because it allows the creation of sub cultures that can almost guarantee that physical violence is no longer effective or convenient. But that doesn't reduce the violence, all it does is increase people's incentive to use verbal violence. As people can witness on any number of social media or exchanges.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Ymarsakar

[Ineth]

How can a thread go so far down the drain that aluminiumtrioxid becomes a shining beacon of reason and sanity in it, relatively speaking...