“I was asking about your main point Kable. Why not cut out the unmotivated questions and just say what you mean?” [/parody]
You misconceive my position. You can be a DIY person and still call a pro for more challenging jobs. I thought I made that clear. In this context, Czarcasm retains his most powerful tools for dealing with the aggressively inclined: they include voice, de-escallation, sussing the situation, a calm head, and threats to call for legal help. All those can occur before the cops are called. There’s also wrestling.
For myself, I have martial arts techniques, though frankly I doubt whether I will ever use them. That’s the goal anyway. My dojo practices both hard and soft styles, so there’s a chance I wouldn’t have to attempt to break bones. Again, I train for fitness: if I need to take out 12 guys with sunglasses, I’ll hire a ninja. Or maybe a film director.
At any rate, if there’s an emergency, step 1 will typically be to call the professionals. Then I’ll deal with the fire, be it actual or metaphorical. Nzinga, Seated: Can you see why I might have misinterpreted Kable’s earlier remarks now? If you’d like to comment on my upthread positions, feel free.
At the risk of being too clever by half, perhaps pacifists are like sheep in a world where wolves have been wiped out (England) or pushed far away from their pasture. Nobody here is pushing 19th century pacifism, though I suppose it could be argued for. The Quakers originated in the 1700s after all.
No, I haven’t seen that Penn and Teller episode. I would guess that it is reasonably accurate though. Put another way, showmanship is an aspect of the martial arts. And why not? Martial professionals reside in the armed forces and they don’t spend too much time practicing front snap kicks.
James Randi noted that he could break a board at the age of 80. If the grain is aligned correctly, it’s easier than it looks. If the grain is aligned improperly, then breaking the board is impossible. That said, it’s not entirely showmanship. After all, joints aren’t exactly made of steel either. And there’s the matter of aiming one’s feet properly, which like everything else takes practice. Especially if you are a spaz like myself.
Czarcasm - one of the tools men have access to is assertiveness. It can involve a hard stare. In another age or in certain situations it might imply a willingness to use violence. I confess that I’m not above using confrontational language (generally speaking without shouting), though if somebody indicated they wanted to fight I would scoff, chuckle or if it was serious deescalate or flee.
I’m wondering about the role of assertive techniques in your pallet. I’ll give some examples to make things concrete: you don’t have to address them directly.
a) You are getting nowhere with a telephone correspondent, who nonetheless remains professional. Let’s say you don’t think it appropriate to speak with the manager yet. Do you use pointed language?
b) Now imagine somebody cuts in line. This is addressed politely. Normally the perp would apologize and sheepishly go to the back of the line. But say they shrug. Most people aren’t like that. But some are. I can imagine that I or someone else might deliver a sarcastic remark at this point. The smartest thing to do though is to blow it off entirely, as the perp might be somewhat 'pathic or have anger management issues. What would be your instincts?
The underlying question involves the extent to which an unwillingness to throw punches has shaped your stances towards other people during adulthood. I could imagine answers ranging from “Not much” to “Oh yes actually”. I have the sense that it’s more like the latter, but I thought I might get more elaboration on alternative strategies when violence is a mostly remote consideration.
Assertiveness has its place, but it depends on what you are trying to assert, I think. Are you trying to imply that you might pull back or break a deal, or are you implying that violence might be a step that you would use if you don’t get your way? If someone is getting confrontational in(for example) a bar, and attempts to pacify the situation or walk away from the drunk won’t work, than you can either be assertive by threatening to beat the crap out of the souse, or you can be assertive by loudly telling the bartender to call the police and/or telling the lush that he if tries to attack you’ll sue that pants off him/her.
Can you aim your feet well enough to break a bat or pipe being swung at you? IMO practicing ancient martial arts that are largely ineffective against modern weapons seems like a waste of resources however I respect your freedom to protect yourself as you see fit.
Your remark about calling the police brings a certain issue to mind. When you call the police to deal with a miscreant, are you not threatening the miscreant with violence, albeit by proxy?
Are there any statistics that show how often such encounters result in an increase in violence? I would think that the initial action of threatening to call the police would decrease the chance of further violence escalating, the actual calling of the police(and informing the miscreant that it has been done) would further reduce the chance of further violence and, if that weren’t enough to discourage, the actual arrival of the police usually does wonders in pacifying the situation. Now consider the alternative-I fight back. Screw that old “All bullies are cowards at heart-if you fight back they will run away” crap. If you hit back the fight will escalate and others(his friends, your friends and others) might get involved, and when the cops come you’ll probably get hauled away.
Kable appears to have jumped to the conclusion that I would defend against a swung blunt object with my feet. It’s hard to know where to start. Clubs are hardly new weapons: they are one of the oldest ones. And unarmed self defense against them involves primarily control of distance, while RL methods involve grabbing what you can. I happen to have a little training with a tambo, but honestly I don’t plan on using it against an angry mob.
At any rate (again[sup]3[/sup]) I primarily train for fitness as cardiovascular disease is a greater threat to my health than bad guys with pipes. Though I’ve seen a lot of guys swing them against other people - on TV that is. If it helps think “Hobby”, not “Secret agent”.
I wouldn’t try to imply violence. In the back of my mind though, I was wondering whether certain stances would register as such. Murder rates were shockingly high in the ancestral environment, and I speculated that people might respond to certain assertive behaviors with caution (but admittedly not fear). No, I’m not sure my hypothesis is well grounded - I’m exploring ideas here.
…and/or if it’s a bar I’d probably try to get out of Dodge. Legal threats might be useful on my way out.
(Though I should say that while I’ve been in my share of dives, I’ve never witnessed a bar fight.
Bar story!
One time a guy sitting next to my brother in an NYC bar decided to show my brother his handgun. Which struck him and me as pretty nutty, not least because they are typically illegal in NYC. Cops were called; we exited. The funny thing is that they weren’t in deep conversation: the fool just decided that would be a cool thing to do. The cops felt otherwise. )
I think Skald was implying that sending a guy to the cooler was in a way an act of violence. I’m not sure that follows. The cops certainly embody a threat of violence. Violence occurs in prisons. But while there are a few anarchists that might advocate the abolition of prison, I’m not aware that pacifists do so. Perhaps a pure pacifist would have to, to the extent that escorting a perp to prison necessarily involves a credible threat of violence. But we only have to set aside that extreme view: it’s entirely reasonable to develop and opt for less violent methods as a first resort, with the goal of generally reducing violence in a community. Being a pacifist shouldn’t necessarily imply utopianism.
Questions along the lines of “What if you knew that calling the police would result in the death of your attacker?” really annoy me-How would I acquire such knowledge ahead of time. Maybe a valid response to such a loaded question is another loaded question: “What if you knew that any sort of none-pacifistic response would result in further retaliation that would cause the death of your family?” I would rather live in (and deal with) real world solutions to real world problems.
I don’t think that’s the point Skald was making. Call the cops and you are saying to the perp: “Leave my home now or a) wait for cops, resist arrest, and receive my violence-by-proxy or b) wait for cops and be escorted to jail peaceably.”
Threats of harm are a necessary part of a lawful society as are the sub-category threats of violence.
My take is while that is a killer argument against a purist (straw man?) position, it doesn’t say much about the advisability of turning down the violence knob. I’ll opine that I support the long term trend towards more peaceful conflict resolution that has occurred since 1980 and am glad the 1980s crack epidemic (which temporarily reversed such trends) was tamed. That said, some of the efforts against the crack epidemic were counterproductive and excessive, in contrast with those that used civil law. Crime in the United States - Wikipedia