4 ms·

Reminds me of some test I read in a book (can't remember which one). A teacher asks some student to stand up and raise his hands before him. The teacher stands

Reminds me of some test I read in a book (can't remember which one). A teacher asks some student to stand up and raise his hands before him. The teacher stands in front of him and does the same, touching the students hands. Then the teacher starts pushing, and the student uses force to stay in place. Then the teacher uses more force, and so does the student. Finally the teacher asks: "Whay are you pushing me?". "Because you were pushing me!" This is exactly what is happening here. You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing.

nitrogen 6y ago
This is exactly what is happening here. You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing. There was an episode of STTNG that had a profound effect on me as a kid as a metaphor for confrontation, where the crew of a destroyed ship kept saying "more power to the shields" when the "shields" were actually causing the problem.
hef19898 6y ago
So in that case, the party with authority and power asked the other to do something. Then the powerful party started pushing and then complained about counter pressure. Sounds familiar.
zozbot234 6y ago
> ... You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing. On the contrary, Chinese martial arts (as well as physical exercise more generally, as with Tai chi chu'an) use the pushing hands exercise to teach how to skillfully yield and redirect the other party's power. It's viewed as foundational to the entire discipline.
- progre 6y ago
  Martial arts is not politics, and the western mindset is to respond with equal or greater force. In fact the military doctrine is to respond with disproportional force. Yielding may be the smarter thing to do, but that's would be seen as weak in most of the world (including, I suspect, China).
TeMPOraL 6y ago
There's a common idea I see sometimes in discussions about weapons of war - would it be good if everyone only made defensive technologies? Say no to fighters and bombers, but yes to surface-to-air missiles? Say no to guns, but yes to anti-ballistic protection? But to this, the answer is: every defensive technology can be used as an offensive weapon. I can pack my SAM turrent on a truck and drive all the way to your city, and start shooting down your airliners, and you won't be able to do anything about it, because whatever guns you scavenge from a museum mean nothing to my anti-ballistic vest. This is what I think of when I see people who purposefully inject themselves into communities, feign offense and call society for help. Using means of protection as weapons.

nitrogen 6y ago

This is exactly what is happening here. You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing. There was an episode of STTNG that had a profound effect on me as a kid as a metaphor for confrontation, where the crew of a destroyed ship kept saying "more power to the shields" when the "shields" were actually causing the problem.

hef19898 6y ago

So in that case, the party with authority and power asked the other to do something. Then the powerful party started pushing and then complained about counter pressure. Sounds familiar.

zozbot234 6y ago

> ... You cannot expect people to give in once you start pushing. On the contrary, Chinese martial arts (as well as physical exercise more generally, as with Tai chi chu'an) use the pushing hands exercise to teach how to skillfully yield and redirect the other party's power. It's viewed as foundational to the entire discipline.

progre 6y ago
Martial arts is not politics, and the western mindset is to respond with equal or greater force. In fact the military doctrine is to respond with disproportional force. Yielding may be the smarter thing to do, but that's would be seen as weak in most of the world (including, I suspect, China).

TeMPOraL 6y ago

There's a common idea I see sometimes in discussions about weapons of war - would it be good if everyone only made defensive technologies? Say no to fighters and bombers, but yes to surface-to-air missiles? Say no to guns, but yes to anti-ballistic protection? But to this, the answer is: every defensive technology can be used as an offensive weapon. I can pack my SAM turrent on a truck and drive all the way to your city, and start shooting down your airliners, and you won't be able to do anything about it, because whatever guns you scavenge from a museum mean nothing to my anti-ballistic vest. This is what I think of when I see people who purposefully inject themselves into communities, feign offense and call society for help. Using means of protection as weapons.