Add new comment

I thought you didn't want to go too deep into it and I didn't want to be a bore, but let's get on it, then.

Your first assertion was that ostracism was "the weapon of the weak, or else it's a mercy".
And you sustained that claim by saying, if i understand you well, that
1. it's "only passive/aggressive", instead of overtly aggressive,
2. other things, like physical torture and killing, are worse, and
3. it's an effect of social power, which is a weaker form of power than brute force.

And... errr... Ok, there's a lot of stuff to do.
First, do I think points 1-2-3 are factually true? Only point 1.
Point 2 is meh. I would tend to agree that physical violence might be worse. That's what my gut says. But my point about spectacle is just a way to say that my gut cannot really be trusted in this matter, since it reacts to what looks painful and not what actually is. But as I said, I don't think there is any point in these comparisons, and it obviously depends on the intensity of it. You're right, physical violence at its worst is murder. At its worst, ostracism leads to suicide. Is getting killed better or worse than getting driven to suicide? Don't know, don't care.
Point 3 is not. If brute force was superior to social power, then capitalists would lift and do push-ups instead of building relationship networks. And yes, someone with social power cannot really harm you without the ability to call people able to deal physical violence, but that's the very definition of social power - the ability to make other people act how you want. You might consider than threatening to invade a country, or, say, send goons to break one's legs is a feat of physical, and not social, power, but that's doesn't make any sense to me. Biden do not send troops by threatening to beat them up if they don't go to war. Of course, in the right setting, physical power trumps social power, but in the right setting, being good at Tetris trumps it all. All of this is very ham-fisted, and I think there are way more subtle analysis of what power is, but in this matter your point is worse than my rebuttals.

But let's assume your points are true. Do they imply ostracism is "the weapon of the weak, or else it's a mercy" ?
1. Obviously not. If anything, the fact that a violence is covert is usually a feature of superior power (and if you didn't read it, the piece I linked is pretty good!).
2. Yes, if you define "a mercy" by "something that could be worse".
3. No. Even if physical power was superior than social power... First, because there are people who have both of them, or none of them. Most people I participated in the ostracism or who participated in mine have roughly the same physical build than mine. And, second, because leftist ostracism also relies on physical violence to be successfully enforced anyway.

But let's consider directly your claim. I don't believe in any weapon of the weak. By definition, the weak have no weapon. At best, there are weapons who are not thought as such. And I don't believe ostracism is really a mercy, in the sense that I believe it spares more the conscience of the ostracizers than the punished person.

And, finally, let's go beyond your claim. One thing you made clear is that you don't like people trying to rationalize shitty behavior.
And I think you should ponder on if it's, or not, what you're doing here.
At least, notice that from the point of view of someone who thinks ostracism is shitty, that would be the case.
I mean, I would accept "ostracism is shitty, but sometimes we don't see another way of doing things".
I would agree. Sometimes, I don't see another way myself.
And I agree that the line between what I call ostracism and what is just people cutting ties is blurry.
And people are in their right to cut ties.
But "being killed is worse anyway, and it's just the weak defending themselves, and grow a thicker skin, pansy" is... is it really the point you wanna make?