I don’t know; struggle with this. Yes, manners are the default and baseline for our lives and society. But I get frustrated at the (implicit) refusal of Yoder to recognize that there are people who are absolutely unreachable. Like the monsters who broke into family kitchens and tied up families and tortured them to death in front of each other. There are situations in which it’s true no resistance is possible. But it’s not true, not at all, that every situation contains the seed of a possible peaceful outcome. Just no. And failing to either qualify his approach with “almost always” or to concede resistance is sometimes the only response (I think? Haven’t read this man before or even heard of him TBH) weakens, to me, his “nonviolence at all times” approach. Absolutely the garden variety thug would hesitate, in a stable situation, to hurt a child - but not the psychos, many of whom are all amongst us. If he’d acknowledged that his approach will inevitably result at times in failure to defuse, and at times to head off violent attacks, I’d be OK. I think he deceived himself in saying there’s always hope. No, there’s not always.
I think what Yoder would say is that you're presuming that fighting back -- using force against force -- will always lead to a better outcome than nonviolence. And that's a massive assumption that is unsustainable too. So the argument that it is better to fight back even if one might lose to a stronger foe rather than attempt to defuse that stronger foe isn't sustained by evidence or proof.
I think he would say that and I agree there are times when de-escalations the right approach - when raising your hackles and snarling only makes things worse. But I don’t agree that it’s always best to try defusing first. As a smallish weakish person defusing/complying is certainly my default - but haven’t you met people who without exchanging a word or glance made a chill run up your spines? Better to die fighting than submitting in some cases…better to provoke a swift bad response than quietly walk to an isolated place and face something worse. We have to trust that gut feeling of alarm or horror. Death isn’t always the worst outcome.
I will add that I have a foolishly combative streak for someone with no money at all to put where my mouth is. I remember the IDF Tshirt incident. It made me so mad I bought one for myself. I have never worn it outside my house NOT because I am afraid of a hostile response but because don’t want to hurt the feelings of my very kind neighbors. I don’t think I would’ve responded so calmly as you did and a harsher response would almost surely have escalated things (maybe not - people are tolerant of old ladies).
I don’t know; struggle with this. Yes, manners are the default and baseline for our lives and society. But I get frustrated at the (implicit) refusal of Yoder to recognize that there are people who are absolutely unreachable. Like the monsters who broke into family kitchens and tied up families and tortured them to death in front of each other. There are situations in which it’s true no resistance is possible. But it’s not true, not at all, that every situation contains the seed of a possible peaceful outcome. Just no. And failing to either qualify his approach with “almost always” or to concede resistance is sometimes the only response (I think? Haven’t read this man before or even heard of him TBH) weakens, to me, his “nonviolence at all times” approach. Absolutely the garden variety thug would hesitate, in a stable situation, to hurt a child - but not the psychos, many of whom are all amongst us. If he’d acknowledged that his approach will inevitably result at times in failure to defuse, and at times to head off violent attacks, I’d be OK. I think he deceived himself in saying there’s always hope. No, there’s not always.
I think what Yoder would say is that you're presuming that fighting back -- using force against force -- will always lead to a better outcome than nonviolence. And that's a massive assumption that is unsustainable too. So the argument that it is better to fight back even if one might lose to a stronger foe rather than attempt to defuse that stronger foe isn't sustained by evidence or proof.
I think he would say that and I agree there are times when de-escalations the right approach - when raising your hackles and snarling only makes things worse. But I don’t agree that it’s always best to try defusing first. As a smallish weakish person defusing/complying is certainly my default - but haven’t you met people who without exchanging a word or glance made a chill run up your spines? Better to die fighting than submitting in some cases…better to provoke a swift bad response than quietly walk to an isolated place and face something worse. We have to trust that gut feeling of alarm or horror. Death isn’t always the worst outcome.
I will add that I have a foolishly combative streak for someone with no money at all to put where my mouth is. I remember the IDF Tshirt incident. It made me so mad I bought one for myself. I have never worn it outside my house NOT because I am afraid of a hostile response but because don’t want to hurt the feelings of my very kind neighbors. I don’t think I would’ve responded so calmly as you did and a harsher response would almost surely have escalated things (maybe not - people are tolerant of old ladies).