It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
They’re the only group that can unilaterally end it since the other side wasn’t doing those things to begin with.
As I understand the historical dynamic, there is a conflict and the status quo is that dependents are safe. One side (call them Blue) escalates by attacking dependents, breaking the status quo. The other side (call them Green) might not have chosen to break the prior status quo, but once it is broken, they decide to start attacking dependents. Green might even escalate further.
Historically, these types of conflicts seldom return to the prior status quo. Most frequently, a new (bloodier) status quo is reached, or one side wins and ends the conflict. Occasionally, Green does not escalate, or decides that the new status quo is unacceptable and unilaterally deescalates (which doesn’t always successfully return to the old status quo). What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
In short, I notice I am confused by Dumbledore’s story of the safety of dependents at various times during the last war.
What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
Just to make sure I understand, consider the following hypothetical account: Sam and I are having a nonviolent argument. I get furious and punch Sam. Sam punches me back. I apologize for having turned this into a violent interaction and promise not to do that anymore. Sam agrees not to do it anymore either. We return to our nonviolent argument.
Is that an example of the sort of situation you’re describing, which you claim essentially never happens?
The historical assertion is in the context of group political conflict involving violence.
Apocryphally, the Mafia had a rule that they didn’t target families. Assuming this was true even in conflicts between families (and I don’t know this to be actually true), I’m saying that the family (Blue) that first broke that norm was not likely to be the family that unilaterally returns to the “don’t kill dependents” rule. Particularly if a lot of the unity of the Blue family is based on the strong personality of Blue’s leader.
(Mostly, I’m thinking of the Cold-War era internal conflicts between proxies of the United States and the USSR, especially in Latin America and Africa i.e. the Sandinistas. I’m not saying every conflict of that type escalated in the way I’m describing, just that the escalator basically never deescalated while the conflict continued).
It’s interesting in part because Harry is right that the behavior is unusual. Historically, the group that (1) is led by a strong leader who encourages personality cults, (2) doesn’t believe in the rule of law, and (3) resorts to violence at the slightest excuse is not the group that unilaterally ends dynamics like hostage taking and hostage killing.
They’re the only group that can unilaterally end it since the other side wasn’t doing those things to begin with.
As I understand the historical dynamic, there is a conflict and the status quo is that dependents are safe. One side (call them Blue) escalates by attacking dependents, breaking the status quo. The other side (call them Green) might not have chosen to break the prior status quo, but once it is broken, they decide to start attacking dependents. Green might even escalate further.
Historically, these types of conflicts seldom return to the prior status quo. Most frequently, a new (bloodier) status quo is reached, or one side wins and ends the conflict. Occasionally, Green does not escalate, or decides that the new status quo is unacceptable and unilaterally deescalates (which doesn’t always successfully return to the old status quo). What essentially never happens is Blue escalates, Green escalates, Blue unilaterally deescalates, old status quo returns.
In short, I notice I am confused by Dumbledore’s story of the safety of dependents at various times during the last war.
Just to make sure I understand, consider the following hypothetical account: Sam and I are having a nonviolent argument. I get furious and punch Sam. Sam punches me back. I apologize for having turned this into a violent interaction and promise not to do that anymore. Sam agrees not to do it anymore either. We return to our nonviolent argument.
Is that an example of the sort of situation you’re describing, which you claim essentially never happens?
If not, can you clarify what excludes it?
The historical assertion is in the context of group political conflict involving violence.
Apocryphally, the Mafia had a rule that they didn’t target families. Assuming this was true even in conflicts between families (and I don’t know this to be actually true), I’m saying that the family (Blue) that first broke that norm was not likely to be the family that unilaterally returns to the “don’t kill dependents” rule. Particularly if a lot of the unity of the Blue family is based on the strong personality of Blue’s leader.
(Mostly, I’m thinking of the Cold-War era internal conflicts between proxies of the United States and the USSR, especially in Latin America and Africa i.e. the Sandinistas. I’m not saying every conflict of that type escalated in the way I’m describing, just that the escalator basically never deescalated while the conflict continued).
Ah, gotcha. Cool, that makes sense… thanks for clarifying.