7 ms·

An awful lot of those sayings are extolling "willingness to commit violence" as a virtue. That's not the sort of society I think we should emulate.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
steve76 5y ago
Don't you have a store to loot and a city to burn and a murder rate to double and a terrorist nation to build? One criticism I do have is it's all about dying, as in, losing. We lack a clarity. It's easier than most people think. Light those people up. Have skill. Be cagey. But don't kid yourself. You're dealing with animals who lack your compassion. Your past victim-hood means nothing, just blood in the water. The people who do claim it wins popularity and softness works have fooled you and the most malicious ones of them all. They actively seek your destruction. This isn't kindergarten!
duxup 5y ago
There's very much a cultist / opressive / disturbing aspect from the bits of quotes and history that have been passed on.
wutbrodo 5y ago
There's a novel twist on this particular selection too. Glorifying violence and being callous about its consequences is even more abhorrent from a position where you're guaranteed not to suffer the direct consequences.
emadabdulrahim 5y ago
Doesn't it depends on the context? Defending an elderly from assault or protecting one's family from a reckless person is violence in the name of virtue.
- xgb84j 5y ago
  While violence is sometimes justified, I think it's still better to build a society that tries to solve its problems without violence or prevents problems that can only be solved with violence. When you have reckless people attacking the elderly you need better psychological healthcare and a better social system to prevent that. I understand your point and in a narrow context it's definitely true, but in a larger context you can prevent most violence by changing society.
  - refurb 5y ago
    What about the people that are violent, not because of mental illness, but because well, they want to cause others pain?
    - Applejinx 5y ago
      Rule of law and systemic governance will always be more practical to manage this, than dependence on heroic vigilante justice to meet an evil individual with a heroic individual, on the spot and ready to act. There's a variety of reasons for this, but one of 'em is that in a condition of systemic governance, there's some societal pressure against the kind of sadism you mention. In a world like Sparta, it's hard to tell the heroes from the villains, and anybody might lash out at any time. Even the quotes given, spell out situations where random violence was just a part of everyday, expected life. This causes tensions and grudges.
    - xgb84j 5y ago
      Many of these people are heavily traumatized. Charles Manson for example was mistreated by his mother and in prison. If there were better child protective services and a more humane prison system in place, he might never have done what he did. Most people doing evil things are in part doing these evil things as a result of their circumstances. By changing their circumstances through social programs you reduce violence and make everyone happier as a result. You can argue that blaming violence on circumstances ignores people's own responsibility, but I believe that better social and medical programs are still worth it because they attack the part of the root cause society can influence most easily.
Taywee 5y ago
Who is suggesting we emulate it? Can't things just be interesting historically?
- Applejinx 5y ago
  Yes. It's worth study. Especially since, all the world over, we've got resurgence of Spartan attitudes towards virtue, valor, and violence.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  There's a subset of people who think (or at least act like they do) anything short of a strong condemnation of something they don't like is an endorsement. Usually you see these people pop up when discussing societal norms in the 3rd world but they do pop up frequently enough to be noticed when discussing history.
Double_Cast 5y ago
Potential violence != actual violence. The potential to commit violence can be reframed as strength. It's useful because it grants you negotiating leverage, regardless of whether you are the aggressor or defender. Can't defend yourself? Vae victis.
- intrepidhero 5y ago
  The capability to commit violence might be a strength in a world where violence is an unfortunate necessity, ie for defense of the common good. But unless it's paired with wisdom and reluctance (as the opposite of the willingness noted above and gleefully promoted by adherents to the Spartan mythos) that capability is mostly the tool of tyranny.
narrator 5y ago
A lot of those quotes make me think that they thought they were so much better than everyone else that their downfall was chiefly caused by believing their own propaganda. This hubris, which the Athenians always warned about, has caused many empires to fall throughout history.
rufus_foreman 5y ago
I think the choice is between willingness to commit violence and willingness to accept violence being committed against you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

steve76 5y ago

Don't you have a store to loot and a city to burn and a murder rate to double and a terrorist nation to build? One criticism I do have is it's all about dying, as in, losing. We lack a clarity. It's easier than most people think. Light those people up. Have skill. Be cagey. But don't kid yourself. You're dealing with animals who lack your compassion. Your past victim-hood means nothing, just blood in the water. The people who do claim it wins popularity and softness works have fooled you and the most malicious ones of them all. They actively seek your destruction. This isn't kindergarten!

duxup 5y ago

There's very much a cultist / opressive / disturbing aspect from the bits of quotes and history that have been passed on.

wutbrodo 5y ago

There's a novel twist on this particular selection too. Glorifying violence and being callous about its consequences is even more abhorrent from a position where you're guaranteed not to suffer the direct consequences.

emadabdulrahim 5y ago

Doesn't it depends on the context? Defending an elderly from assault or protecting one's family from a reckless person is violence in the name of virtue.

xgb84j 5y ago
While violence is sometimes justified, I think it's still better to build a society that tries to solve its problems without violence or prevents problems that can only be solved with violence. When you have reckless people attacking the elderly you need better psychological healthcare and a better social system to prevent that. I understand your point and in a narrow context it's definitely true, but in a larger context you can prevent most violence by changing society.
- refurb 5y ago
  What about the people that are violent, not because of mental illness, but because well, they want to cause others pain?
  - Applejinx 5y ago
    Rule of law and systemic governance will always be more practical to manage this, than dependence on heroic vigilante justice to meet an evil individual with a heroic individual, on the spot and ready to act. There's a variety of reasons for this, but one of 'em is that in a condition of systemic governance, there's some societal pressure against the kind of sadism you mention. In a world like Sparta, it's hard to tell the heroes from the villains, and anybody might lash out at any time. Even the quotes given, spell out situations where random violence was just a part of everyday, expected life. This causes tensions and grudges.
  - xgb84j 5y ago
    Many of these people are heavily traumatized. Charles Manson for example was mistreated by his mother and in prison. If there were better child protective services and a more humane prison system in place, he might never have done what he did. Most people doing evil things are in part doing these evil things as a result of their circumstances. By changing their circumstances through social programs you reduce violence and make everyone happier as a result. You can argue that blaming violence on circumstances ignores people's own responsibility, but I believe that better social and medical programs are still worth it because they attack the part of the root cause society can influence most easily.

Taywee 5y ago

Who is suggesting we emulate it? Can't things just be interesting historically?

Applejinx 5y ago
Yes. It's worth study. Especially since, all the world over, we've got resurgence of Spartan attitudes towards virtue, valor, and violence.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
There's a subset of people who think (or at least act like they do) anything short of a strong condemnation of something they don't like is an endorsement. Usually you see these people pop up when discussing societal norms in the 3rd world but they do pop up frequently enough to be noticed when discussing history.

Double_Cast 5y ago

Potential violence != actual violence. The potential to commit violence can be reframed as strength. It's useful because it grants you negotiating leverage, regardless of whether you are the aggressor or defender. Can't defend yourself? Vae victis.

intrepidhero 5y ago
The capability to commit violence might be a strength in a world where violence is an unfortunate necessity, ie for defense of the common good. But unless it's paired with wisdom and reluctance (as the opposite of the willingness noted above and gleefully promoted by adherents to the Spartan mythos) that capability is mostly the tool of tyranny.

narrator 5y ago

A lot of those quotes make me think that they thought they were so much better than everyone else that their downfall was chiefly caused by believing their own propaganda. This hubris, which the Athenians always warned about, has caused many empires to fall throughout history.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

I think the choice is between willingness to commit violence and willingness to accept violence being committed against you.