I'm reminded of the Vietnam war. The politicians used persuasion to convince their countrymen to go and fight (and to convince their policemen to arrest the draft dodgers who couldn't be persuaded), to use bullets and bombs to attack an idea.
They were worried that the allure of Communism was too persuasive.
It wasn't a fight against a particular ethnic group, or a fight for territory.
It was an attempt to fire bullets at an idea, and it failed because ideas are bulletproof.
Fighting indicates a failure to persuade. They weren't dropping leaflets on Vietnamese villages. In a war between ideas that's all the ordinance you should need.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Wow, fantastic points here man, I kind of wish I included this example in my post, lol, so thank you for sharing it in the comments. You're spot on, imho.
@intothewild 's tagline is "Good ideas don't require force," and I'd say that captures what you're getting at fairly well here.
Interestingly, the politicians feared the idea of communism, viewing it as too persuasive, so they used bullets, bombs, and threats as their best method of persuading others to avoid communism, or fight against it.
Ultimately, it all comes down to attempts at persuasion, whether poorly executed or not.
Wonderful contribution to the discussion as usual, good sir. Thank you for stopping by, I appreciate you. 🙏