4 ms·
As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win without violence The threat of violence can be both effective and nonviolent. Every battle is wo
by ip26 3y ago
As far as I know from studying history, it's impossible to win without violence
The threat of violence can be both effective and nonviolent. Every battle is won before it is ever fought- and by corollary, it is possible to win without ever having fought.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y agoHeh. When I think of "nonviolence" I think of Gandhi and MLK. Maybe I should really be thinking about Edward Teller and the RAND corporation? I'm not sure who would define "orthodox" nonviolence (ahimsa) -- maybe Mahavira? -- but whichever definition we chose, I suspect it would differ from yours on the subject of threats. Not that you're wrong, necessarily. But you can't play by only bluffing, can you? In optimal (say) poker play, the different actions, including what amounts to bluffing, are all chosen with some probability (a "mixed strategy"), fundamentally at random.