Is aggression justified?

Post Reply New Topic

On a philosophical basis, I think, very simply: yes. Targeted aggression, that is - no use in exploding at a random person on the street (unless they've specifically done something wrong at that exact moment).

People are way too patient, generally... with others who care about nothing but their own stupidity and the exaltation of money, regardless of who suffers (and they seemingly have no clue that it is utterly useless, unless one is starving: people are ready to take down any number of lives, and everyone they don't know if they can, to fulfil some empty materialistic dream that they themselves have no clue about and will never get them joy (but since they don't know why they're still unfulfilled they keep at it, anyway)).

Thus, I propose that everyone should shout (at the top of their lungs, if possible) at anyone who is utterly incompetent, because they most likely don't deserve a fraction of the salary they get. I propose that patience should only be afforded to those who actually need it by no fault of their own (children, slow people etc.) and not the ruthless, those we simply give a chance to because they might mean well.

No. If someone is condescending towards you DO NOT be polite because they have, basically, not afforded you that same courtesy. If someone is paid to help you DO NOT afford them mercy if they slack, because it is simply vile for them to not only be greedy about money, but to also not actually do what they're paid for.

This is all why I think aggression could be justified, if controlled. Aggression didn't evolve in humans for no good reason. But... you should try to be calm in circumstances where aggression isn't warranted, just so you could jump at the opportunity which warrants the aggression. Serenity is, after all, salubrious.

Make up your mind. As someone who works with the general public, I find that contradictory.

Completely disagree with any justified aggression, unless it's a matter of personal defense. I've had enough people holler at me for seeming incompetent anyway, don't really need to up the ante.

The word "aggression" implies more than self-defence. While I agree self-defence is justified, anything more than that is over the line, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, if someone is condescending to me, I may be condescending in return, but I wouldn't consider that aggression. As for people whose jobs require them to deal with the general public - you have no way of knowing the details of their working conditions, or many other factors which may affect their performance. With the exception of circumstances where there can be no doubt at all the employee is crossing the line themselves, I'd say cut them as much slack as you can.

To me, "aggression" implies someone who has lost control, who feels helpless and unable to solve a problem, and must therefore attempt to overpower (physically or emotionally) the other people in the situation. If I become aggressive, I consider it a failure.

However: Confronting, or even physically hurting, another person is not necessarily an act of aggression in that way. You may have to confront someone else to preserve your rights or the rights of another person, for example. It is not an aggressive act (again, by my definition) to hit someone who is trying to hurt you or your friends, especially if your goal is to prevent him from hurting you, especially if you have tried something else first.

How do you propose to tell the difference between someone who is slow (or someone who is tired or sick or has just had a breakup, or is confused, or is taking a two-minute break in the middle of a ten-hour shift) and someone who actually intends to be "incompetent"? It seems very strange to me that anyone--especially anyone with autism--would be able to know another person, perhaps a total stranger, so intimately that all these possibilities could be ruled out. I think that a good many of the people we "give a chance because they might mean well" actually do mean well. And if they don't? Do you really want to accept the collateral damage to those people who don't appear to have a good excuse, but actually do? And for what--the chance to yell at a few people who are actually slacking? If that's the case, I say we simply issue speeding tickets to everyone with a driver's license, just so we can be sure to catch all the people who are actually speeding!