Your response begins in the right direction but wanders into ambiguity where precision is needed.
Corrective Violence vs Soft Harm: You assert that “corrective violence hasn’t ever worked in this regard.” That’s historically false. In small-group settings, corrective violence was both deterrent and restitution. What has not worked is the institutionalization of corrective violence at scale without decidability—leading to either tyranny or passivity. Natural Law distinguishes between hard harms (actionable) and soft harms (non-actionable unless made decidable by measurement of cost to demonstrated interests). You’re halfway there, but missing the key: soft harms can be measured if we have a system of measurement.
Soft Harm is Compoundable: Yes. And Natural Law treats that compoundability as a form of fraud when the cost is externalized over time or across others without consent. Gossip, moralizing, shaming, undermining—these are acts of uninsured imposition.
The Gossip Creep: You mention “creeping gossip.” That’s GSRRM: Gossip, Shaming, Rallying, Ridicule, and Moralizing. It is a feminine reproductive strategy of social coercion that historically required regulation by norms or by corrective sanction. The failure to regulate it—through tradition, religion, or law—has led to institutional capture by this mode of influence.
Decidability is the Answer: Natural Law does not advocate a return to casual violence. It advocates decidability. If the harm is real, demonstrate it. If it is measurable, insure against it. If it is fictional, discard it. Decidability replaces both the superstitions of theology and the seductions of ideology.
The Problem is Not Female Inclusion—It’s Lack of Measurement: Inclusion itself is not the root cause. The problem is failing to measure and price the externalities created by different strategies of influence. We stopped punishing soft harms without replacing punishment with cost-accounting. That’s a system failure. Natural Law corrects that failure by restoring measurement of all impositions on demonstrated interests.
Reply addressees: @Archaic3one
Source date (UTC): 2025-05-08 03:19:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920317545263083523
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920316667936096506
IN REPLY TO:
@Archaic3one
Corrective violence attempts to reorient both hard and soft harms, many times the soft harms hit exponential factors(109) which turns into cognizable hard harms over time. (Yet the soft harm get lost in the hard harm flurry to reorganize) Further, soft harm is compoundable so the reciprocity question has still been partially avoided. Soft harms took hold long before the Frankfurt school or Jewish type institutions could publicly articulate a manipulative philosophical gossip. As what let these ideas in the door could be described as a creeping gossip. Which is still a decidability issue, as even males have their own interests which did eventually allow the feminine (group and individuals) in, but the quantitative aspect regarding a leg up in a certain aspect by pursuing an alternative strategy is present, and has been hundreds of times over at least the past 2 centuries.
However, even in this articulation there isn’t a comprehensive/decisive manner to deal with the soft harms, “corrective violence” hasn’t ever worked in this regard. Laws have an issue as 80-90% of every population is technically illiterate even if they can read, their theory of mind, critical thinking and ability to think logically before an emotional impulse takes hold is low or not in congruence. Which is why religion and Christianity was instrumental (as the illiteracy didn’t matter).
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1920316667936096506
Leave a Reply