Quote of the Day
Peace is possible: through superior firepower and willingness to use it in the most devastating and efficient (and sparing) way achievable.
We should try that.
Sarah H. Hoyt
March 6, 2026
All We Are Saying Is Give Peas A Chance – According To Hoyt
I never understood people who insist that in order to have peace we needed to disarm. Or the variation where they thought the Mutually Assured Destruction policy was insane. Whenever I tried to engage with people like this, they would either “prove their point” via vigorous assertion (raising their voice and repeating themselves) or go silent. I took the silent treatment as they had not really thought it through and were attempting to engage their brain when I asked them to explain how this worked. I was fine with this. But the vigorous assertion type annoys me. They are all emotion without no data or logic. Those types are a disgrace to humanity and a significant number of animal species.
As much as I dislike violence, I realize that sometimes it is the only way. Particularly with those “vigorous assertion” types. There are non-emotional types you need to worry about too. People can have faulty data or drastically different fundamental principles and arrive at conclusions which involve the elimination of “the rich”, “the poor”, “intellectuals”, “capitalists”, etc. But it seems at some point they, or at least their useful idiots, morph into a version of the “vigorous assertion” class.
If they get themselves worked up into a high enough emotional state, they become physically violent. And with enough numbers they become genocidal.
You can only communicate with these in their native language such that they truly understand. And there are very few more vigorous assertions they understand better than bullets and bombs.
The current issue of Imprimis, from Hillsdale College (free subscription, worth getting) has an article “Recovering the lost art of diplomacy” (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/recovering-the-lost-art-of-diplomacy/). Very good. It talks about what diplomacy is and is not, what it aims for and doesn’t. It nicely dismisses the notion of “rules based world” — it doesn’t quite call it a fairy tale but the sentiment is clear. That fairy tale is at the core of much of those “vigorous assertions”.
Another reason, somewhat related, is the memory of Gandhi’s “non-violent” resistance to the British that helped bring independence to India. But most who look at that miss a couple of key points. One is that Gandhi chose that approach because no other was really available (the locals were disarmed). Another is that the British, especially the general public in England, were fundamentally decent people in a democracy, so that approach won sympathy. As one novelist illustrated in an “alternate history” story, if India had been occupied by Nazi Germany, Gandhi would not have lived long and his approach would have been a total failure. And Gandhi was not opposed to violence; I have some quotes from his writings that make this quite clear.
” And Gandhi was not opposed to violence; I have some quotes from his writings that make this quite clear.”
Absolutely true. I have tried to point this out to people several times – non-violent protest was a *strategy* Gandhi chose, as he knew the British well and was confident it would work against them, no other reason.
It is not magical or inherently wonderful. In fact, it works in an ***EXTREMELY*** limited set of circumstances. In most times and places, it results in a lot of dead protesters… and really, not much else, certainly not guilt by the parties doing the killing. (We just got a significant demonstration of the in Iran.)
Most people cannot or will not accept that violence is Golden. It is the ultimate, complete and final arbiter of everything. Yes…often humans can come to terms before resorting to it. But deep in the background the possibility of violence is ALWAYS there. Anyone believing otherwise is a moron.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » I’M ALWAYS SHOCKED TO FIND MYSELF QUOTED: When Vigorous Assertions are Their Native Language.
I find it a bit ironic who you quoted in a post criticizing the “vigorous assertion” method of argument.
A close cousin is the “disparage and dismiss” method, at which the author you quoted is quite practiced. I recently disagreed with a point she made on her blog and her response was not to try to convince me of the correctness of her position through logic and reasoning, her response was to pronounce my position “bullshit” with no explanation as to why, and then declare me a “stupid troll” when I (quite civilly in my opinion) told her I found her pronouncement less than convincing and expressed my belief that if your goal is to convince others of the correctness of your position, a different tack might be more effective.
At any rate, water under the bridge, but I just thought it was interesting.
Thanks for the info.
What exactly did you say? Can you link to that comment?
Without knowing what you said, it’s impossible to evaluate your complaint.
Not a complaint, an observation. Her blog, she can write whatever she wants and is free to maintain an echo chamber and belittle anyone who disagrees with her all she wants.
I didn’t save the link to the article and don’t feel like going back and finding it. Not worth the effort. I’m not advising anyone to avoid her writing, that’s up to you, just relating my experience with her and the humorous irony I found in using a quote from her given the topic of Joe’s post.
My reply to her was in response to her relating that some Republicans were threatening to vote democrat in the mid-terms in retaliation for the Senate Republicans not getting the “Save” act passed. I argued that it doesn’t matter because if we don’t pass the “Save” act, the democrats will cheat their way to victory anyway.
I think she assumed that I was supporting the position of a revenge vote for Democrats. I never said that and I don’t support it, but she never asked for clarification, she just attacked.
Fair enough. Her blog, her rules. But I don’t read blogs to be preached at. I read blogs to increase my knowledge and understanding (something I get regularly from Joe’s blog) and to occasionally engage in civil debate when I disagree.
Apparently not her thing. Roger that.
Thank you.
My experience with Sarah is that, on her own blog, she has no patience for the BS she gets in so many places. She can make actual arguments for the stuff she supports (I’ve seen many of them), but on her own blog, and especially if what is stated to too similar to common trolling crap (and she gets a lot of it), she doesn’t bother.
Not saying she’s just so perfect or anything, only that people do need someplace to relax, to not be too involved in all the BS. Her blog is like a cliched bar at the end of the day – she hangs out with her friends, and if someone else comes in and starts crap, it’s not going to be some nice debate, it’s going to be rowdy, and the “outsider” will get tossed out.
She’s also quite cranky at times, so she’s not always the best at “community outreach”.
To be fair, that’s been my impression from reading there a few different times, but never deeply or long term, so I don’t remotely guarantee it’s completely accurate… just how it seemed to me. I largely agree with her on a LOT of points, appreciate her argumentation when she takes the time to make it (she CAN do a great job, I’ve seen it), and her own blog is still not a place that I like to hang out much (well, I read her posts occasionally, just not much of the comments).