In my opinion there are four words that best describe all humans. We fit into one of these catagories. Which one best describes you? Be honest with yourself. There is no use in lieing to yourself about who or what you are. All definitions are brought to you today by the Merriam-Webster Online homepage. If you don't know..... Look it up. And brought to you by the letter Q, and the number 0. subjugate - to bring under control or governance. to make submissive. subvert - to overturn or overthrow from the foundation. to prevert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith. subject - one placed under authority or control. one who lives in the territory of, enjoys the protection of, or owes allegiance to a sovereign power or state. submissive - to willingly give control to another Now you have the four catagories. I'm certain you will notice some similarities in each. It is however, the implication of power or control itself, that makes the words seperate in their meaning. See if you can determine which one describes you. Do not be surprised if you are displeased with the answer. I know that I was, at least until I came to terms with it. I will get to me after I hear from a few of you.
Subvert. See "undermine". See "negate". Not really. There isn't a huge difference between subjegation and submission. To rule is to obey, and few who obey have no desire to rule. -Xev, who is bored and thought this was about sex
S (though i hate to say it!!). and by the way jlabrec they were all brought to us by the letter S not Q!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
subjegate. I like to be in control of my surroundings. in the world submissive. Im very shy and will not speak unless I got something to say. I prefer to be controled in bed subvert. I don't like the status quo as it is not helping the overall human condition subject. I am only that because of my young age. I would join into a place if I felt there was a place that I belonged and could life a good life. There is none so Im considering forming my own. see they all apply to me.
Submissive. I find it strange though how the submissives or dominants in the world are completely the opposite in their private life. I think it's a channelling of aggression or something.
Aggression? How's that? Man, vanillas are just weird. No offense dude, but I totally do not see how you can see aggression in this. Expression of power is not expression of violence, indeed, violence usually destroys power. Take the Chinese kids in Tiennamen square - growing international and domestic support, biological power (if you believe that power is innate and organic) - but still destroyed when thier government sent in the tanks. I'm not saying that violence can't be a means to power - if power is the ability to enforce one's Will, then violence is obviously a tool to power - but violence and power should not be thought of as interchangable. Trite example - take Ghandi. Powerful? Fuck yes, he managed to get the Brits out of his country. But the little dude pretty much sat around eating rice and writing pamphlets. -Edit- Of course, if Ghandi had faced down the Nazis instead of the Brits, his followers would have been slaughtered.
I think pretty much everyone on here is a subject of some country or power. I guess I'm subvert, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as that. When I'm around people who are bigger, older, and more dominant than I am, I tend to be subversive, but if people aren't more dominant or obviously more powerful I'll gladly take control. The fact that I'm not a big, husky guy has a lot to do with it.
When did i say i did?! I never even mentioned them. I thought they were. I heard there were seas of Ghandiites walking towards a wall of armed opponents and Ghandi told them to not fight back. It was a massacre but Ghandi refused to use violence. This is just what I heard though.
Well... so someone found my question to be intruiging. I have found that perhaps the best of the four to describe me, is....subject. I owe my allegiance to the sovereign government of the USA, Heh, thanks to five years in the US Army. I have always felt one should be willing to serve the government that both protects them, as well as houses them. I am not saying that government service is for everyone, I am saying that a person should be willing to support their government in whatever way is most convienient to them. I intend on not making this sound like some sort of recruiter bit so I'll end it there... subjugate: I have had positions of power. One example, having a 12 man crew working under me, when only age 18. Half of the men who worked for me were over 30. It was a rather precarious situation. The men respected me, simply because I didn't let our higher management push our shop around. It unfortuantely was not a self gratifying position, at least for me. I am certain most would love to have been placed in that type of position. Leadership, or rather direct leadership is not my best forte'. I am far better suited to being one of the grunts, so to speak. subvert: Never will this word ever apply to me, save for a situation where higher leadership is making dangerous mistakes, such as life threatening. However, my understanding of this word, leaves me to believe that it means the person is attempting a coup, but doing so covertly. If I am to undermine a position of leadership, I have the "balls" to stand face to face with that person or group, and let them know, they are fucking up. I did so when only an E-3(two ranks above the lowest pay grade in the Army), I told a full-bird Colonel he was an idiot for assuming he knew more about the equipment that I was trying to repair. Heh, nearly found myself locked up in Leavenworth for that remark. submit: I suppose one could argue that I did join the US Army willingly. They would be correct, however I had always felt I owed my allegiance to the US. I felt I was doing what was required, or expected of me. Heh, I suppose the only time in my life where I truly was submissive, was to my wife's request to return to her hometown after I ended my tour with the Army. Heh, I never intended to come back to this small hole in the middle of countless cornfields. Yep... I was indeed submissive. Good Husband... -mutters- I have often felt it wise for a person to be willing to admit to some of their weaknesses, as well as speaking on their strong points. If to no one other than themselves, it does a person great things to see the truth to what makes them who they are.
Heh... by the way, sorry bout the Q Neville. For some odd reason, its always been a favorite letter. Not due to some word. I think its just either the look of a Q, or the sound when you say Q. -shrugs a bit- Heh, it makes no sense to me either. It's kind of like in the middle of a conversation with friends, I'll all of the sudden, out of no where ask them, with a completely serious look on my face: "What about the Q?" Naturally, I am certain you can imagine some of the looks or comments I recieve.
I am not certain I can agree with your opinion Xev. From my understanding of these words, there is a dramatic, and almost tramatic difference between subjugation and submission. I think that something people, and even myself for that matter, need to understand about submission, is that a person only has the power over you, that you willingly give them. Certainly through subjugation, you can be forced to submit, but there is a point where you must still choose to do so. In the case of a subject, the difference is that you may have been brought to, or born into a location where some governing body is already in control. Regardless of your agreeing with the body's leadership, you are forced to fall under their rule. Subversion is then used by those who do not agree with the body's form of rule, in the hopes of gaining the control they have lost. In a toltalitarian rulership, subjugation is used to force the subjects into submission. Your comment of "to rule is to obey" is interresting. My question to you then is, who is the ruler obeying?
This reminds me of something that Faucault said, which was basically that no one can be forced to do something they don't want to do. He said in every situation people have a choice, even if it means killing themselves. However this is not strictly true because people in prison do not have much of a choice. This relates to the "to rule is to obey" because one can also refuse to agree with the leader. This is the kind of thing.
Neville: Arr, you did: Sorry if I misunderstood. Oh, well then let me retrench: if Ghandi had faced down the Nazis, he would'a been totally slaughtered. If what you said happened (I'm not great when it comes to Indian history), then the only reason it didn't work is because the Brits weren't always that ruthless. You read Foucault? I was thinking on starting a thread on him, buuuuut figured nobody was familiar with him. jlabrec: Good point, I should have been more clear. I don't see any real difference between dominence and submission, between ruler and ruled. Frankly, I can't see how one can "voluntarily submit". If it's voluntary, it's not submission - if I choose to abide by the Will of another entity, then my choice is no submission. I still follow my own Will. Thus, submission is only submission if forced. *Giggles* The forces of history, if you believe Hegel. The ruler still must obey his subjects to some extent. Take Hitler - he still has to manipulate his subjects. To manipulate is, in many ways, to obey - or at least manipulation is no real power. You're basically tricking someone into obeying you. Now, if one ruled purely by force, then you are in control. But what government rules soley by force? It's just not possible.
No I meant when did i mention 'vanilla' people. My aggressionesque theory didn't include normal people. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Exactly! You can't be submissive to someone and then tell them what you want because it isnt submission. I think this was Ghandi's line of thought. The soldiers would have to slaughter everybody, which would take some doing to a group of unarmed people not fighting back! It would take real guts. A government can't rule by pure force because they would end up killing all of their people and then who would protect the country or produce goods?? I haven't read much on Foucault, only little bits. What inspired me the most from what i've read were his thoughts on Society and Madness (ships of fools, workhouses etc) and his work on prisons (the design and invasion of privacy i.e. always being watched). What sticks in my mind the most is how he showed how corporal punishment, which went from public, brutality to a concealment of and control/rehabilitation of offenders thus marking a shift from the belief that the body should be punished for a crime to a belief in a soul and that treatment can be used to make the person a useful member of society.
The Mongols, when ruled by Gengis Kahn were ruled by pure force. If one of his subjects failed to do as he expected.... they were permanently replaced, killed. I am certain after a few replacements, the populous would come to understand his way. I have always admired him for that. Subjugation in its purest form. That sort of unbridled control is absolutely imperitive in today's society. Unfortunately no one is strong enough to have such ability. I must admit however, it appears that Mr. Hussein may be attempting to follow in Kahn's footsteps. Heh, I wonder what point a person feels it is far enough before they submit to another's authority. Some would perhaps immediately say things to the effect of "I would rather die then have my Freedoms removed" the entertaining thing is, few would dare challenge the authority figure if it was their life in jeapordy. Heh.... those same people are perfectly happy to allow someone else to take their place. This proposes another question, if a person fears complete submission, but allows another to be subjugated in their place, have they therefore also been submissive? Heh, I'm beginning to see your point Xev, indeed the two are very closely tied to one another.
