3 ms·
Yeah, no problem with your sweet outlook, though I don't appreciate the personalization of your response. But what would I do if some unenlightened person soug
by unchocked 11y ago
Yeah, no problem with your sweet outlook, though I don't appreciate the personalization of your response.
But what would I do if some unenlightened person sought to compel me through the threat of force?
- danharaj 11y agoYou resist them with force. Of course that's a little facetious. There's more to resisting force than simply meeting it with force in opposition. People live lives of resistance in all walks of life, and finding ways to get around hard, inflexible enforced conditions is useful to even powerful people. In general, the answer to your question is exactly determined b y the nature and context of the force. Personally, I am a nonconfrontational person. I think avoiding confrontation has helped me find ways to deal with people who throw their authority around. On the subject of physical violence, well I don't want to spill personal details like that on a public forum.
- unchocked 11y agoAnd thus we find that force is the ultimate arbiter of human affairs.
- danharaj 11y agoI edited my comment realizing I was being too facetious. Force is usually the worst way to get anything done socially. If someone is using force, it means they have failed in every other way, and it'll lead to degrading social bonds, a reduction in cohesion, lower productivity, and future conflict. We live in a society that propagandizes extremely violent power structures and tries to pretend they aren't as violent as they actually are. If force were so ultimate and the true master of human relations, people wouldn't try to so hard to obfuscate it. Force is force. People dislike people who use force. That's why they bend over backwards to justify their force, or dress it up as some other means of mediation.