5 ms·

It's always funny to see people touting the virtues of de-escalation and soft talk. What happens when that fails? I started martial arts long ago because soft t

by zer8k 2y ago

It's always funny to see people touting the virtues of de-escalation and soft talk. What happens when that fails? I started martial arts long ago because soft talk and de-escalation failed. I started training martial arts years ago. Of the brawls I've been in since then, usually with the homeless or drug addled while out on the town, de-escalation has never worked. I've been in bars where you can't talk someone down. Do you know how long it took for the police to arrive when a homeless guy started a fight with me for no reason? After giving the guy what he deserved I escaped to safety to call the police/medical. They never arrived. Sobering. He ran off eventually. Which, frankly is a testament to the power of street drugs. You can't de-escalate someone who is determined to harm you. This is a fallacy promoted by people who have never had to fight. You are universally safer by knowing how to fight and never using it than not knowing how to fight at all. The correct answer is understanding the escalation of force spectrum. Always start by trying to talk some sense into them. Then, based on their next move you either escalate to physical violence to defend yourself, or lethal force if they use a weapon. FWIW BJJ and Muay Thai are the only martial arts you should ever do. Life is not a video game. The police aren't there to help you. There are bad people everywhere. It's better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.

sharkjacobs 2y ago
> Always start by trying to talk some sense into them. I think that deescalation might just not be your strong suit
- Freedom2 2y ago
  Yeah... there's other ways to deescalate but it involves sacrificing your ego. Unsurprisingly those who can sacrifice their ego and those who think they have to train because "Nobody should be the gardener in a war." are often not the same people.
  - zer8k 2y ago
    The implication that it's about ego is a relatively pathetic, naive, cosmopolitan view of reality. I wish I could live in such bliss.
- NoGravitas 2y ago
  Also, judgment about avoiding that kind of situation.
48864w6ui 2y ago
In a war you probably don't want to be a warrior either; better to be a REMF.
golergka 2y ago
De-escalation is also much more effective when your opponent sees how ready you are for the alternative.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  I could see that sometimes but I don't think that's usually true. People who feel threatened are in the 'fight or flight' state; their sympathetic nervous systems is activated. They are less likely to trust you and de-escalate.
  - golergka 2y ago
    If they choose to flight, it's also an effective de-escalation.
wolverine876 2y ago
> It's always funny to see people touting the virtues of de-escalation and soft talk. What happens when that fails? That (common approach) takes what is rationally a question of risk and turns it into a reactive question of survival. The reality is that there are many risks in life and I can't mitigate them all. I need to identify the greatest risks and mitigate those, and also I want to live my life - not prepare fearfully for danger. So far, I've never needed martial arts, off the top of my head I don't know people who could have used it more than a few times - probably not enough, even if they knew what would happen, to spend the time learning it. It's like people who want guns for personal safety - 'what happens if you need one?' turns the question into survival; the reality is that I don't know anyone who ever would have benefitted from having a gun in private life; I don't think the risk is there (also, even in truly dangerous situations guns are rarely useful - a wild west shootout isn't a good solution). Other people have different lives and experiences. Maybe they have more risk of situations where they need martial arts. Personally, I'd try to change my life so that I wasn't exposed to those situations but I really don't know about their lives. I guess if I was going to be incarcerated a maximum security prison, I'd want to learn something.
senordevnyc 2y ago
Of the brawls I've been in since then, usually with the homeless or drug addled while out on the town, de-escalation has never worked. I don't totally disagree with your overall point, but I have to say...I'm 41, I've lived in cities all over the US, stationed abroad in the military, traveled all over the world, and I've never been in a single "brawl", nor have the majority of other men I know. Maybe your neighborhood or line of work is such that you can't avoid it, or maybe you just have a higher risk tolerance than I do, but the best skill to have to avoid losing a fight is avoiding putting yourself in situations that lead to fights. No martial arts training in the world will save you forever from the wrong opponent, multiple assailants, weapons, or just being unlucky. If you keep getting in brawls, sooner or later your luck will run out.
wolverine876 2y ago
> Of the brawls I've been in since then, usually with the homeless or drug addled while out on the town, de-escalation has never worked. I've been in bars where you can't talk someone down. Do you know how long it took for the police to arrive when a homeless guy started a fight with me for no reason? After giving the guy what he deserved I escaped to safety to call the police/medical. I don't know you but there might be another way. I've interacted with many, many people who appeared unhoused (I usually don't ask people about their homes); I've never had a problem or a hint of violence. I've never been in a brawl or been close to being in one. Violence is easy to avoid IME. > You can't de-escalate someone who is determined to harm you. ... There are bad people everywhere. I've never encountered someone determined to harm me, afaik, and if that's how we define bad people, they are very rare. Humans are social creatures - just stand on a sidewalk downtown in a busy city - look at all the people getting along peacefully, being polite, helping each other. Logically, if you think of humans a bears - lone, anti-social creatures - then the danger makes sense, but very few people live on their own, away from other humans, like bears. We are social creatures, evolved since our proto-chimpanzee days to live harmoniously in groups, to only function even on a fundamental cognitive level when we are with other humans (solitary confinement drives people insane and is considered torture). > You are universally safer by knowing how to fight and never using it than not knowing how to fight at all. I'm universally safer knowing how to fly a plane, because what if a pilot is incapacitated? However, I don't need to plan for that.

by zer8k 2y ago

sharkjacobs 2y ago

> Always start by trying to talk some sense into them. I think that deescalation might just not be your strong suit

Freedom2 2y ago
Yeah... there's other ways to deescalate but it involves sacrificing your ego. Unsurprisingly those who can sacrifice their ego and those who think they have to train because "Nobody should be the gardener in a war." are often not the same people.
- zer8k 2y ago
  The implication that it's about ego is a relatively pathetic, naive, cosmopolitan view of reality. I wish I could live in such bliss.
NoGravitas 2y ago
Also, judgment about avoiding that kind of situation.

48864w6ui 2y ago

In a war you probably don't want to be a warrior either; better to be a REMF.

golergka 2y ago

De-escalation is also much more effective when your opponent sees how ready you are for the alternative.

wolverine876 2y ago
I could see that sometimes but I don't think that's usually true. People who feel threatened are in the 'fight or flight' state; their sympathetic nervous systems is activated. They are less likely to trust you and de-escalate.
- golergka 2y ago
  If they choose to flight, it's also an effective de-escalation.

wolverine876 2y ago

> It's always funny to see people touting the virtues of de-escalation and soft talk. What happens when that fails? That (common approach) takes what is rationally a question of risk and turns it into a reactive question of survival. The reality is that there are many risks in life and I can't mitigate them all. I need to identify the greatest risks and mitigate those, and also I want to live my life - not prepare fearfully for danger. So far, I've never needed martial arts, off the top of my head I don't know people who could have used it more than a few times - probably not enough, even if they knew what would happen, to spend the time learning it. It's like people who want guns for personal safety - 'what happens if you need one?' turns the question into survival; the reality is that I don't know anyone who ever would have benefitted from having a gun in private life; I don't think the risk is there (also, even in truly dangerous situations guns are rarely useful - a wild west shootout isn't a good solution). Other people have different lives and experiences. Maybe they have more risk of situations where they need martial arts. Personally, I'd try to change my life so that I wasn't exposed to those situations but I really don't know about their lives. I guess if I was going to be incarcerated a maximum security prison, I'd want to learn something.

senordevnyc 2y ago

Of the brawls I've been in since then, usually with the homeless or drug addled while out on the town, de-escalation has never worked. I don't totally disagree with your overall point, but I have to say...I'm 41, I've lived in cities all over the US, stationed abroad in the military, traveled all over the world, and I've never been in a single "brawl", nor have the majority of other men I know. Maybe your neighborhood or line of work is such that you can't avoid it, or maybe you just have a higher risk tolerance than I do, but the best skill to have to avoid losing a fight is avoiding putting yourself in situations that lead to fights. No martial arts training in the world will save you forever from the wrong opponent, multiple assailants, weapons, or just being unlucky. If you keep getting in brawls, sooner or later your luck will run out.

wolverine876 2y ago

> Of the brawls I've been in since then, usually with the homeless or drug addled while out on the town, de-escalation has never worked. I've been in bars where you can't talk someone down. Do you know how long it took for the police to arrive when a homeless guy started a fight with me for no reason? After giving the guy what he deserved I escaped to safety to call the police/medical. I don't know you but there might be another way. I've interacted with many, many people who appeared unhoused (I usually don't ask people about their homes); I've never had a problem or a hint of violence. I've never been in a brawl or been close to being in one. Violence is easy to avoid IME. > You can't de-escalate someone who is determined to harm you. ... There are bad people everywhere. I've never encountered someone determined to harm me, afaik, and if that's how we define bad people, they are very rare. Humans are social creatures - just stand on a sidewalk downtown in a busy city - look at all the people getting along peacefully, being polite, helping each other. Logically, if you think of humans a bears - lone, anti-social creatures - then the danger makes sense, but very few people live on their own, away from other humans, like bears. We are social creatures, evolved since our proto-chimpanzee days to live harmoniously in groups, to only function even on a fundamental cognitive level when we are with other humans (solitary confinement drives people insane and is considered torture). > You are universally safer by knowing how to fight and never using it than not knowing how to fight at all. I'm universally safer knowing how to fly a plane, because what if a pilot is incapacitated? However, I don't need to plan for that.