Shunning: what it is and isn’t
If you think shunning means the right to initiate violence, then you have entirely missed the whole point of shunning. And I even gave a definition.
And have gone to considerable pains to point why shunning, according to most commonly accepted definitions, not including the PC wiki definition (who would not allow us to post any quotes by any founders to the FIJA entry, by the way) does not involve any of the actions you have brought up, including NOT EVER initiating anything but the passive self action which I have gone to some trouble to define.
The initiation of violence is what shunning, according not only to my personal definition, which I have posted on this thread and also according to a number of non-violent individuals over the years, obviously intends to avoid. There is no physical action. And the diatribe of sarcasm in which I engaged was not against YOU, it was against the WIKI entry, which I thought I had made clear. Shunning is NOT politically correct: why would any PC entity approve of or allow any non-PC person this passive, non-violent means to express their disapproval of or horror at the initiation of violence by others.
I am trying to be very careful in my choice of words: initiation of violence is a specific term, which connotes a very specific concept.
I went to some lengths in my sarcastic post to direct it toward wiki’s entry, and not anyone on this forum.
I did, however, wish to sharply contrast the passive practice of shunning with the initiation of violence on which government and government employees seem to wish a monopoly, while allowing a few thugs to act as small independents. And not just the government here in the US, by the way, although I did focus on US government examples, but also most other governments around the world who use the initiation of violence as a means to accumulate power and wealth, which enables those same governments to initiate even more violence to accumulate even more power and wealth.
No one in this nation has the ability to shun in the way you presented in the Dune scenario, and I had already addressed this issue in an earlier post. Shunning is designed to avoid vindictive, violent retribution. It is entirely passive.
And I continue to find the wiki entry hilariously biased, silly and up to the usual wiki PC standards. Yuk.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with you, except that I would suggest you look at some standard, non-PC dictionaries for definitions of, rather than discourses on, the practice of shunning around the globe, and most especially with respect to the practice as an alternative to the initiation of violence. Much has been written about this concept, by such people at Gandhi and MLK.
I was venting my hostility and the obvious stark contrast between the wiki PC definition of shunning and the “violent greed, political ambition, abuse of office under colour of law, violation of human rights, violation of the Constitution, the practice of government brutality, theft, imprisonment and tyranny.” I wanted to paint a contrast between the “psychological injury” wiki assigns to shunning and the actual initiation of violence practiced by government.
I had hoped to point out the non-injurious nature of shunning, with respect to human life and liberty, in contrast to the highly injurious nature of the initiation of violence, with respect to human life and liberty.
I did not intend, and thought I was careful to point out, that the entire entry was directed against the silliness of the wiki description, which no one could describe as a neutral definition, but rather as a biased, slanted discourse against shunning. Which is why I wondered what wiki had to say about those other concepts.
And let me say again, I am contrasting the initiation of violence with the passive practice of shunning.
I want to be sure that the distinction between these two concepts is entirely understood.
feralfae
And G., this part is for you: I have never met you, and I do not know of any instance where you have initiated violence or directly benefitted from the initiation of violence against another human. I have no reason to shun you. On the other hand, I have also never met Lon Horiuchi, but I do know he has initiated violence against another human. If I ever did meet him, I would refuse to shake his hand, and I would tell him why. Do you understand the distinction? This is NOT about simple disagreements: it is about refusing to hold social discourse with those who have initiated violence against any other human. I disagree with most every other human on some point or other, occasionally on the best colour to paint a wall. Such disagreements are NOT what I am discussing on this thread:
This discussion is about a fundamental difference in human thinking on whether or not any individual human ever has the right to initiate violence against another human. I believe they do not, and I live by that. Lon Horiuchi obviously, by his actions, believes that he has that right. So I would shun him. That is my sole, singular, defining issue on shunning.
I hope this (a) assuages your feelings of being personally attacked, which you were not, and (b) more clearly points up the distinctions between shunning and the initiation of violence as actions allowed and not allowed, respectively, toward humans under my lexicon of values and my understanding of ZAP.
feralfae
