Everything you know is wrong: the modern decline in violence

Watch this:

[video=youtube;ramBFRt1Uzk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk[/video]

Do you agree or disagree?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He makes a good case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is such a thing as psychological violence...has anyone done studies on how people fair with such vs the actual physical violence?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

as a woman, I have to say there is a decline in violence. We can no longer be legally beaten or raped by our husbands.

 

as a man, I have to say there is an incline in violence. We can no longer win in courts or file for any rights to our own children and expect to win.

 

Yeah dude, that's not violence.

 

exactly my point, kill without fists, hurt the soul instead.

 

As car drivers, we have to admit there has been an increase in violence. We can no longer drive drunk and get away with it. If we try, violence is done to us by police.

O the horror.

 

A child is not like a car. I hope you realize the difference these have to a man's heart. Just because wars/violence has decreased across continents, does not mean people are treated any fairly with regards to their sexes. The world is in balance, if one is taken away it must be replaced with the other.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nor are hurt feelings anything like violence.

I don't believe that. Indeed, the point of his talk is that we have reduced violence overall, not just moved it around.

If you mean "in an adversarial court battle there can be only one winner of custody" then I agree. However, in that case the child has already lost, and nothing the court can do can fix that. And children are more important than parent's squabbles.

 

I believe his argument can be extended beyond just violence and that empathy and egalitarianism has increased and dramatically so in the last 500 years. As was pointed out above its now no longer allowed to hit or beat your wife, at least not in developed countries. Not only is there now an inclination to give women equal rights but that has been extended to all races and creeds in most developed nations, even some higher animals are being given rights, animal welfare would be far less thinkable a century ago when there was heavy argument in the US over the right for women to vote!

 

I enjoyed this video, thanks for sharing. I agree fully with most of his propositions, I especially liked his discussion concerning the availability heuristic in modern perception of contemporary violence proliferation. This is especially relevant today in our world of fantastic technology, where constant reporting of mass-shootings, riots, wars, and raping, are at our finger-tips and constantly flooding our conscious. Whereas newspapers etc. had both limited sources and slow reporting time, its reporting was also reactionary, deterring feelings of an 'imminent threat' from one's own species.

 

To bad we couldn't extend some of these rights to protect children from violence.

 

Are you saying children aren't protected from violence far more today then they were centuries ago? I don't think a spanking compares to being sold as a slave!

 

In the work place, physical and verbal abuse are both considered abuse subject to law. In the home, only physical abuse is subject to law. This is part of the dual standard, since women are far more effective at verbal abuse than physical abuse.

The main complaint of married men, who love their wives, is her abusive nagging. This would be a form of abuse in the work place, but at home men are not protected by law. In the old days, the male could use his physical strength to subdue a nagging wife before she plants the seeds of emotional abuse into his psyche through constant repetition. The wife knows her husband well enough to strategically place her daggers where she knows it will impact him the most. The righteous male's self defense has been taken away, by law (physical).

Even if you call it PMS, there is no excuse to be abusive, and that should be addressed by law, in a way the male does not need to take the law in his own hands or have to accept abuse while being handcuffed by law.

This change could shrink divorce, like in the past, since the female will need to learn to control herself and not drive her male away before he compulsively defends himself and gets arrested for self defense. The she is the victim.

In my experience, women are unconditional. To a loving woman, her guy can do no wrong, even if he is wrong, cheats or is abusive. But on the other hand, a switch can flip and he can do no right, even if there is only one thing he did wrong; woman scorned. The main form of male abuse occurs when the switch flips to unconditional wrong, and the husband is nagged without any sense of proportion, while lacking natural self defense. A male cannot out nag a nag, since it is harder for him to only see the bad and ignore her good. He will not place the same daggers or the switch may never switch back. The female knows the male will not do that very quickly. The law should either step in or give males back some physical defense. A good spanking can snap a female out of her nag by flipping the switch with a shock. The male avoids using daggers and only uses a club.

 

Who would think different? This is what I thought I knew. So he was wrong.

Before gunpowder people were forced to kill with knives, arrows, and rocks. People were more desensitized. If you killed animals everyday for your supper a jump to killing humans is not so far a stretch.

So I thought this is what I knew.

 

Regarding the OP, old news.

It's half the reason gun control advocates look so silly to anyone with half a clue.

 

wellwisher,

I don't think we would even be able to have a discussion about verbal abuse from women a century ago, perhaps someday if the trend continues verbal abuse will be punishable as well even within the marriage like physical abuse is, a solution that in line with the trend towards benevolence and egalitarianism seen over time and with the rise of civilization. Returning to the right to bitch slap your women into shutting up on the other hand is not in line with the trend.

I recently read the “Yanomamö: The Fierce People” (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology) by Napoleon Chagnon. Chagnon (a scientific anthropologist, as opposed to the esoteric anthropologist that just make up BS and believe it without any statistics and scientific analysis applied) had lived with these tribal people studying them in the late 1960's and 1970's. He noted that the women did in fact nag at their husbands despite the intense beating they received regularly as a matter of their culture (in fact he heard the women say to each other “your husband does beats you because he loves you” and “if your husband is not beating you he does not love you!”), that they would call their husbands cowards openly when they did not fight with neighboring villages, he believe it was a self-defensive measure as the women did not want to be abducted and raped and enslaved by the neighboring villages (at least within their own village the beatings and servitude was was less and they had their brothers to turn to for protection if their husbands became particularly cruel, so observed Chagnon) so they would goat their men to defend them preemptively even. The male Yanomamö suffers a 30-40% murder rate (Chagnon results after meticulously collecting hereditary records which he displays in his book), so is the life living innocent and free and in harmony with nature away from all the modern trappings of technology and so called progress! Those esoteric anesthesiologist counter that the Yanomamö were corrupted by the introduction of steel machetes, despite there being testimony going back over century of the violence of these people before such modern weapons, Chagnon called their counter racists in that “They believe only people as pure as the driven snow can be protect” and thus any negative traits about Yanomamö must be denied.

I think our society today has a “grass is always green on the other side” complex: we are painfully aware of the trappings and ills our our present society and we like to believe that other peoples live (and other times) in some kind of ideologically pristine existence and are better off. We like to delude our selves into believing that ideology can solve our problems when pragmatism has always ended up solving our problems: reality is not pretty or nice and for ever problem solved new problems will arise, but on average these new problems aren't as bad as the ones solved. That is the pragmatic reality: "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." only the second part is true!

 

The process is hardly complete, there is still plenty of violence to address. It's just that we don't realize how violent it really was in past societies compared to now.

 

what?! you can't file or win in court? Really? Ever? Exaggerate much?