An informal poll about attitudes - REVISED

[unixronin]

Caution:  May be inflammatory.

Just for the sake of possibly-morbid curiosity:  I direct you to this article that perspicuity pointed out to me elsewhere.  Please go and read it.  Particularly the beginning.

Now, please answer only one poll.  First up, asking my readers of the feminine persuasion here:

[Poll #1472271]

For my chromosomally heterogeneous readers, I offer the following alternate poll with your own seven eight choices:

[Poll #1472272]

My personal feeling is that if you regard every male as a probable rapist lacking only the opportunity, I want some way to know in advance, because if the very first thought that goes through a woman's head is, "Is that man going to try to rape me?", I don't even want to start a conversation.  I find the whole attitude insulting, to say the least.  It's way too high a disadvantage to start out having to first of all convince someone that you're not planning to rape or murder them, and if I knew in advance that I was going to be up against that, I'd move on immediately to talk to someone saner.  I don't know how people who approach the world with that kind of level of fear every day can even function, but I do believe that it's not my responsibility to walk on eggshells everywhere I go, just to avoid triggering someone else's paranoia.

(Heh.  I just discovered I have to answer both polls to be able to see the results of my own poll.  Pretty obviously, so does everyone else.  Please note I am RESUBMITTING to add a "Just show me the results" entry to each poll.  If you already voted, this means your vote will be lost.  Feel free to vote again.  We apologize for the confusion.)

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

We are taught from a very early age that fighting is wrong: a little kid who defends himself from violent playground bullying will be suspended for every bit as long as his or her tormentors. The lesson we inculcate in children is that violence, for whatever reason and under whatever provocation, is wrong except when it is applied by authority figures. “Don’t fight back, call the cops,” is a lesson that men get as well as women.

And that's a big part of the problem. If we made an effort to teach that unprovoked violence is wrong, but self-defense is not only a right (in both senses) but a civil responsibility, there would be a lot less need for police. But that would move power away from the hands of government and put more of it back in the hands of individual citizens, and government doesn't like that.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I would settle for children simply being taught that violence is a social act — as in “part of the fabric of human existence,” not as in “socially commendable” — and there exist multiple perspectives on how it ought be treated. You know, the same way everything else is taught.

If little kids are taught that, “well, from some perspectives it’s okay that Heather has two mommies,” and, “well, from some perspectives Columbus Day should be a day of mourning” — to name two perspectives I don’t mind at all being taught in school, and which I think should be taught in school, with ultimate choice on which is right being left to the student — why is it so hard to teach, “well, from some perspectives responding with violence is the Right Thing To Do”?

When I was seven I read Pat McCord’s “A Bundle of Sticks” (http://www.amazon.com/Bundle-Sticks-Pat-Mauser-McCord/dp/1880336863). Even by the standards of 1982 it was controversial. It is even moreso today, just because it teaches kids that there is a when, a why and a how to fighting — and that when all three questions are answered, fighting is forgivable.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

See, I am personally of the school of thought that legitimate self-defense should NEVER be controversial. If you don't have a right to defend yourself, do you really have any rights at all that mean a damned thing? Because if you don't have a right to defend yourself, anything else you have can be taken away from you with impunity.

I'm one of those who believes the Second Amendment should have been first, because without it, all the rest are just unenforceable hot air.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

The problem with that thinking is it handwaves the word, “legitimate.” I think the overwhelming majority of people with two neurons to rub together would agree that legitimate self-defense is uncontroversial. However, I think a disturbingly large number of people today would have some really appalling ideas for what constitutes “legitimate.”

And even then, even if we all agree that in theory legitimate self-defense is uncontroversial, in practice it will always be. I’ve seen women who successfully fended off violent assault get pilloried by their “sisters” (a word I use mockingly, since their language made it clear they could claim no kinship with the brave soul they were disparaging) because, “don’t you know it’s almost always safer to just give him what he wants?”

So, yeah. Those are my two objections to your statement. The first is that it handwaves the word “legitimate.” The second is that even if self-defense is legitimate, it will still face social approbation from the malinformed, the unwise and the sheeple.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The problem with that thinking is it handwaves the word, “legitimate.”

True. Mea culpa.

Let me try to clarify what I meant by "legitimate" self-defense ... shall we try "appropriate level of force, used only when necessary, with the intent of stopping an attack, not necessarily of wounding or killing the attacker"?

Social approbation from the malinformed and the craven, unfortunately, is something to be endured, and to be addressed with education of the malinformed. If we allow our actions and choices to be dictated by those whom we believe to be wrong on the subject, and just accept that, we're lost. We don't give up and say "Ah, well, we'll just have to live with gay-bashing, because some misguided people believe it's perfectly OK." So why should we just resign ourselves to giving up self-defense because some misguided people believe it's wrong?

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

"appropriate level of force, used only when necessary, with the intent of stopping an attack, not necessarily of wounding or killing the attacker"

OK, I have a problem with that...

Like 'legitimate', I think 'appropriate' is a bit of hand waving, too.

But then, I generally think if you shoot someone inside your house (or more generally on your property) uninvited, that's just peachy.

I'd prolly tsk tsk at mutilating the corpse or mounting the head on a pike, but making that illegal seems overkill.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

In this case, I was thinking more along the lines of "probably shouldn't shoot someone who started running away the moment he saw the gun". ;)

People these days are just so effete when it comes to heads on pikes...