I’m sure we have all had moments where we’ve wanted to smack someone in the face, but we’ve been raised in a culture where that’s a no-no. Does anyone out there wish society was, at least potentially, more violent? That is, if anyone (including yourself!) stepped over some acknowleged boundary of speech or behavior, that it was legally and socially acceptable to respond with physical assault? I’m reminded of the incident in which moon-hoax fanatic Bart Sibrel called Buzz Aldrin “a coward, a liar, and a thief”, whereupon Aldrin popped him one in the mouth, to near-universal acclaim. Or to put the question another way, do you wish the penalty for being rude or an asshole was corporeal and immediate?
No, for the same reason I imagine it isn’t currently the penalty: “rude” and “asshole” are subjective, and who would get to say where the line gets drawn? People could start making shit up to justify hurting those who they simply dislike. Besides, I don’t want some rude asshole to haul off and deck me just because he thinks I was a rude asshole. Also, words and fists are quite different – “sticks and stones,” and all that. I’m not quite willing to give up that part of civilization that encourages us to control our tempers. While I can understand Aldrin’s anger at having his character impugned, quite frankly a bigger man would have just laughed at such ridiculous accusations. I’m sure he regretted his actions once he calmed down.
Nope. It would unlevel the playing field. The suggestion that the rules could change to permit physical violence if some social or legal boundary is crossed wouldn’t permit everyone to engage in physical violence; it would only permit those that could do so relatively unscathed. So I vote no.
Whilst I’d be reluctant to definitely state I’d want to return to it, I do harbour a certain sympathy for the days when a cop could give a smart-arsed teenager a clip over the ear.
Better for the kid in the end, because they don’t get dragged into the criminal system. In fact, many of the old-school coppers here would give the kids options: “I can place you under arrest, I can take you hom to your dad in a police car, or I can give you a boot up the arse.” Most kids chose the boot up the arse.
I kinda like the way that “who can kick who’s ass” doesn’t really matter in our society. Who wants meathead bullys controlling everything?
[hijack]
I think the only reason we got out of the middle ages alive, was that people were taught to fear religion instead of the sword[sup][/sup]. Intelligence was then allowed to become a controlling factor as opposed to might and violence. Maybe I’ve read Pillars of the Earth too many times.
[/hijack]
[sub][sup][/sup]Please don’t take this as an endorsement for such practices.[/sub]
Not at all, no. Most civilized people have no understanding of physical violence. I would argue that most people on this board, for example, have never been in a real fight (not wrestling/slapping but fists, heads, knees, pint glasses etc.) so this discussion will be academic to them. Physical violence is as awful as it sounds and it behooves us as humans to move away from any society that rewards or tolerates such behaviour.
I’m living in Iraq right now and it is an unbelievably violent place. I have also lived in Afghanistan and Kosovo which were also very violent. I don’t mean just the war, but the way people react to one another and resolve conflicts. These have been societies drenched in blood and it is deleterious to the quality of life and affects almost every aspect of social interactions.
Hardly a week goes by where someone on the staff is killed or they report the loss of a relative. People are killed for being the wrong religion in the wrong neighborhood, for minor disputes over money and for very small amounts of money. This has a chilling affect on social interactions. Essentially, there is no sense of a social contract. If I don’t know you, and if you are not part of my immediate social circle, I do not feel the least bit of obligation to you and you very well might be a threat. There are strong disincentives to trust you and strong incentives to hurt you before you hurt me.
This fear and lack of trust filters down throughout life. I not only am afraid you might kill me with little provocation, I also assume you will screw me over in business deals. The violence has a chilling affect on every interaction and I believe people living in such an environment become fundamentally broken and their societies unworkable.
That’s very interesting, madmonk, thanks for posting your observation. I think that has huge implications for society. For example, here in the US we tend to take our relatively civilized, working society for granted, but in so many places, that social contract is broken or limping–and I think one big result of that is poverty. IMO when there is no social trust, no contract, and people get cheated a lot, then it’s much harder to have lots of economic activity and more people live in poverty. It’s something of a vicious cycle and prevents people from working their way up the ladder.
Cheating is becoming far more common here in the US, and I worry that it will become common enough to damage our society; we can absorb some of it, but eventually it will hurt us enough that we will really feel the effects. And if we don’t reverse the trend, we may well become that more violent, less trusting, and poorer society.
So I guess my answer is no, I am not willing to condone a society where violence is more acceptable. Children hit each other when they’re angry; adults need to find better ways to work things out.
You know, this lack of trust manifests it self in a thousand little ways everday. For example, everyday after work, we play ping pong. It’s just a silly game to get some exercise, no one takes it too seriously.
It’s a mix of people who play, Americans, Iraqis, Jordanians, etc. Some of the Iraqis always engage in behavior that borders on cheating. For example, when the ball goes under the table and both players will be looking for it. If it is the Iraqi’s turn to serve and he finds the ball first, he will serve it whether or not his opponent is still under the table looking for the ball or not. A lot of times, they will also try to add points to their score just by saying a new total and hoping their opponent doesn’t notice. It’s like they cant’ help themselves.
Every interaction is a zero sum game. Sometimes the rest of us find it funny, but it is just tiring to have to always have your guard up whether it’s making a big transaction or playing a stupid game of ping pong at the end of the day.
Physical violence is already somewhat acceptable in our culture. Boxing, football, “pro” wrestling, that ultimate fighting whatever, basically almost any contact sport is a form of physical violence.
Most states have laws that protect a homeowner from prosecution if he does harm to an intruder. However, our state has recently gone one step further. A recent law was passed that goes hand-in-hand with the concealed-carry law here; it allows a person who ‘feels threatened’ to used deadly force against someone else. What constitutes “threatened” is, of course, not defined. This smacks of vigilanteism to me, and condones violence as a means of resolution. While not the reversal of society’s mores suggested in the OP, it’s a disturbing trend.
Absolutely not. Besides if you really want to hurt someone, mind games are the way to go anyways. I punched my sister once when I was 11. I still regret it to this day.
I think that every time I watch Deadwood - great show, but I wouldn’t want to live there. I kind of like the social restraints and respectability that keeps me from being fed to the pigs for pissing somebody off.
I sometimes think that organised optional dueling would be a worthwhile idea. With rules and regulations to keep non-lethal duels non-lethal but to allow lethal duels if agreed to by both sides. No one would be forced to accept a challenge to a duel, but anyone who wanted too could do so legaly.
The only problem, there never were any such days, at least to hear my dad and uncles talk. There were days when a cop could give *pretty much any teenager he pleased * a clip over the ear, and we expected and hoped he would restrict such pursuits to the deserving.
Also, words and fists are quite different – “sticks and stones,” and all that. I’m not quite willing to give up that part of civilization that encourages us to control our tempers. While I can understand Aldrin’s anger at having his character impugned, quite frankly a bigger man would have just laughed at such ridiculous accusations. I’m sure he regretted his actions once he calmed down.