[PAX] To threaten another person

[Tactical Panda]

Hey all,

Post your thoughts:

1. What do you think about the act of actively threatening someone to make them cave into what you want?
2. When do you do it? When do others do it? Why? What is the motivations?
3. It it the only choice you or they tend to have; is it the easy choice or the hard choice?
4. Would you or others threaten someone in a stronger position to yourself?
5. What sort of person would you or others threaten and what sort of person wouldn't you or others threaten?
6. Is threatening someone justified - or is it the easy and fast way out against people who are weaker than you?
7. Are people who threaten others motivated by what is best for everyone or what is best for them?
8. Is a threat arrogance - by trying to silence reason and claim the right to manage others for yourself by trying to sweep aside disagreement without hearing it out?
9 Should people be held accountable for their threats?
10. And how would you deal with people that threaten you, or how should you deal with it?

Trying to get my head around the issue. I can't remember the last time I threatened someone with something I wasn't going to carry out, or using something unreasoned. I kind of figured everyone was accountable to their words and actions.

And taking advantage of weaker people by pushing them about doesn't seem right.

Insight into the matter is very welcome.

Nothing urgent though, just thinking over the issue.

 

[roxtehproxy]

Lol@username.

1) If there's a good reason to do it (like if they put great pain on your friends, or took your job), then I suppose so. The means of doing this entail something completely different, however.
2) The motivations always change or are different. Usually to do what is 'fair'. If you take someones ice cream however, they have every right to get what is theirs, back.
3) No. People sometimes disregard 'two wrongs dont make a right', but I think that rule can be broken to a degree if someone does wrong you, and to the right level.
4) If I had all the power to, I would indeed.
5) It's not really dependent on the kind of person they are. As long as it isn't any authorities that I can't really undermine, I guess.
6) Fast way out. It's justified if you're in power to. It's not personally justified if you undermine them just because they're weak.
7) Can be both. It depends, right?
8) Not always. It shows you have confidence in your power. Some people disregard it and just take all the heat from other people.
9) Always. You never know what could happen afterwards.
10) Depends also. If you're going to get killed, you need to find the best way to counter that person. Trying to knock them out doesn't break any laws so long as you're being attacked by an armed person, but you have to make sure to ring the authorities afterwards.

 

[bickelz]

1. What do you think about the act of actively threatening someone to make them cave into what you want?

It's blackmail and illegal for a reason: it's mean.

2. When do you do it? When do others do it? Why? What is the motivations?
3. It it the only choice you or they tend to have; is it the easy choice or the hard choice?

To answer both of these, it's generally used in times of desperation. The exact motivation differs. The best one that comes to mind is government torture. I think that non-creative people think it's the only way to deal with a problem when it rarely is the only way.

4. Would you or others threaten someone in a stronger position to yourself?
5. What sort of person would you or others threaten and what sort of person wouldn't you or others threaten?

I would threaten someone in a position stronger than I if I felt they were like Big Brother watching over me and controlling me. If standing up for yourself in a threatening way is considered threatening someone, then that's how I would do it. Now that I think about it, I would only threaten a person of higher status than myself.

6. Is threatening someone justified - or is it the easy and fast way out against people who are weaker than you?

Not when you're doing it for personal gain or to weaker people. Only when it's better for the collective.

7. Are people who threaten others motivated by what is best for everyone or what is best for them?

They can be but I feel that is a rare occurrence.

8. Is a threat arrogance - by trying to silence reason and claim the right to manage others for yourself by trying to sweep aside disagreement without hearing it out?

A threat can silence the unreasonable.

9 Should people be held accountable for their threats?

Yes, and there should be appropriate consequences as there are with every action. There are both good and bad consequences.

10. And how would you deal with people that threaten you, or how should you deal with it?

Depends on who it is and what the threat is about. If a system (ie government) is threatening it's people, burn it down. If it's a hobo holding me at knifepoint, you can have my $20. And take a bath with that money. If it's this one guy from work, I don't want to think about what I'd do but the racist, condescending sob deserves it.

 

[Sensiko]

Making threats has it's place because there are people out there who play dirty. It's justified in certain situations when push comes to shove. I can't say I've made many threats, but the ones I have made were the last resort. I don't think it's in our character to make take confrontation and threats lightly, so when we do, the other person really f***ed up and just the confrontation itself should alert them. When I do make threats, it's well thought out, logical and reasonable and I put a lot of energy into it. My style is so the other person shouldn't easily get that I'm threatening them, there's a certain finesse to it. I can't handle when people take advantage of me and I secretly love to bring out my inner gangster every now and again.

 

[Nixie]

Overt aggression is useless unless you are willing to follow thru with action or be convincing enough to the other person to make them believe you are willing to follow thru with the action.

Much better strategy is to use persuasion to make the other person willing to do what you want them to do. Lesser effective strategy is to use manipulation to make the other person do what you want them to do--less effective because it carries the risk of backfiring and creating drama/tension. Least effective is overt agression because you have a greater odd of not only not getting what you want but having to fight and still not getting what you want.

Threats tend to be reactionary--usually not something well thought out. Implied threats tend to be more effective than outright threats because they require thought and work against "unknown" fears. EX: You don't want to know what will happen if this doesn't get done--people's imaginations are much scarier than you could be.

Threats themselves are neither good nor bad. Just like most things in life. Threatening your citizens with punishment if they kill someone. Threatening your roommate with a beating if they don't do your homework. It is the intent. However, "good" threats are usually considered "consequences" rather than threats.

Personally, I find threats to be useless. If needed, I will use an implied threat, counter with vigorous debate/argument or ignore you (while finding a way to work around you).

 

[justeccentricnotinsane]

1. What do you think about the act of actively threatening someone to make them cave into what you want?
In general, threatening = no. That was my initial reaction. And then I realised there was a time I had threatened someone. Generally, I don't threaten, I talk people round and generally, if it's something I want for myself, I don't bother, because I won't enjoy it when I've got it. If it's for the good of others as well as me, or just others, or I'm trying to cool down a difficult situation, I generally find common ground and work from there. Threatening rarely works.

However, there is one type I've threatened in order to get justice. If this person has a personality type, I don't know about it, she appears to me to be basically a sociopath - not a killer, obviously, I just mean it in that it was very clear she did not respond to emotional stimuli, have any reaction to deep feeling from others, unable to sympathise when others got bad news, and that she faked emotion when necessary. She was very manipulative so for some reason that me and my boyfriend just could not work out, people thought she felt guilty about things and wanted to change. She never, ever gave a hint of this, except in words (and when did we start trusting what people say?!) She owed me and my friends thousands of pounds and I eventually threatened to sell her possessions (we lived in the same house), evict her and take her to court. I got my money back, but I guess she could tell that I'm the one that would actually do that (well, not the first one, because it's against the law and she's bright enough to turn that back around on me). The others tried conversation, believing it to go well because she promised she would pay. But they have not seen a penny and she has now disappeared. Moral of the story - don't appeal to the conscience of someone who does not own one. With everyone else, appealing to the conscience (occasionally in a way that they do not notice you are doing so, if necessary) is far more effective. Threatening is only acceptable if it is to right a wrong and I don't bother to do it for myself, like I say, because I don't like my emotional involvement clouding my judgements.

2. When do you do it? When do others do it? Why? What is the motivations?
Kind of already said why I do it, with others, it would be very difficult to say. There are generic reasons, I suppose, but I think it's very individual. Generally, people behave with things like threats or other aggressive behaviour because of the way they personally see things or the way they are personally feeling, their personal neuroses and fears etc. For that reason, it's quite difficult to give a broad answer. It also depends very heavily on the situation. If someone threatens another person who is weaker, like how you were saying, then that is often their low self esteem (or high self esteem but this is far less likely). Depending on what a person sees to be important, if they have low self esteem they could either withdraw or overcompensate. Bullying behaviour by threatening a person deemed weaker is the second. The person threatening is likely to be someone who deems it important to have a certain status within society and is afraid of not having that. People assert their superiority by making themselves comparable to someone weaker than them. There is no question, then, that they are the stronger of the two. This isn't a male thing, tends to happen more with women than men if you ask me, women are segregated more into social classes, particularly when young. However, it's also very common among men and it will normally take the shape of either shows of physical strength or of wit - both of which are culturally designated as alpha male behaviours, so it fits their purpose.

When it comes to threatening someone because they have done wrong - say like in the case where they owe you money - then that is often just people being angry and taking it out, hoping that the situation will be resolved by the threat. In many cases it will, but some people are impervious to threats or they may actually become more difficult under threat because their stress reaction may be to withdraw and avoid (so you'l never get your money back, they'll just leave hide or leave town etc). So in that case, sometimes it's just a normal human reaction that some people may use too much assuming it is always a motivator of action (without realising that in some it is the opposite).

3. It it the only choice you or they tend to have; is it the easy choice or the hard choice?
I do what is most effective. Generally threats are not as effective as the right kind of discussion (I don't necessarily mean being open about what action needs to be taken). If there is a reason someone needs to be threatened - if I have deemed this so - then I will stick to the decision of getting the necessary action, but threats are generally ineffective. So it isn't really an easy/hard decision. If it is a person that needs to be threatened for them to the right thing, then they are probably an awful piece of work anyway and I couldn't give to shits if they were upset (if they have brought me to threatening them then they deserve it, because I only attempt to get things from others in very selective circumstances - i.e. when a wrong against the group needs to be righted - don't do it just for me because I don't like my personal emotions clouding my judgement and I will feel more guilt after the act than anger before the act - making it not worthwhile).

4. Would you or others threaten someone in a stronger position to yourself?
It depends what stronger means and how well I thought it would work out. I generally just go for the end result in all cases and the bits in between are just whichever is best for the moment to get most effective and with the least mess to the desired result. I have not threatened anyone in a position above me. I have spoken back to a boss before because they were being unfair to a colleague so I set her straight. So if they are in the wrong I am not afraid to say so (unless the situation is about me in which case I don't get involved due to personal emotional involvement clouding judgement as above). But threatening is a very selective behaviour that could only be used to right a wrong (for me) so it is not out of the question but since I use it so very rarely, it would probably not come up. With other people - yes, they definitely would. It is very individual, though. I still think that one of the majority motivators behind it is for social status and power, so a person who would like to be in a similar powerful position to the person they are threatening or who would like to usurp certainly would threaten. If the threat works then they have usurped that person's power in the social hierarchy regardless of whether anything physically changes (though eventually it will change due to this shift in the balance of power).

5. What sort of person would you or others threaten and what sort of person wouldn't you or others threaten?
With me, it's just those who will react to threats but no other type of manipulation. With others - again, it's really really individual. It depends on the motivations of the threatener.

6. Is threatening someone justified - or is it the easy and fast way out against people who are weaker than you?
Threatening is justified if it is in the interests of the greater good (the person must already be in the wrong and the action be that a wrong must be righted) but is rarely effective. For many people, it isn't exactly a way out - it is usually a power play. Now that I think about it there is another kind of threat, though, the "pathetic" threat of someone who is in trouble and threatens others to keep it quiet - the effectiveness of this threat depends on the social status of the threatener and may not even correlate to physical size in some circumstances, as social status can easily override the importance of this. It tends to be done in order to make the threatener feel something about themselves, though. Generally it is wrong.

7. Are people who threaten others motivated by what is best for everyone or what is best for them?
Depends - think this is sort of covered above.

8. Is a threat arrogance - by trying to silence reason and claim the right to manage others for yourself by trying to sweep aside disagreement without hearing it out?
Sort of. Arrogance itself is an overcompensatory behaviour for low self esteem (although you do get people with high self esteem who do it). I forgot to mention it above. People with naturally high self esteem will generally not go in for this kind of behaviour. When I talk about people with high self esteem threatening, I'm talking about very exceptional types with a psychical abnormality - narcissists, sociopaths, people with antisocial personality disorder etc. It can be teamed with arrogance and can be part of it. Both arrogance and threats come from the same place (in most cases, not all) and achieve the same ends - differentiating yourself from the socially weak in order to cement yourself among the socially strong through comparison.

9 Should people be held accountable for their threats?
Yes.

10. And how would you deal with people that threaten you, or how should you deal with it?
It depends on how serious the threat seems. If I think I could be in any danger I would probably go to the police because I'm a short, thin girl and I couldn't defend myself. If it was a threat from another girl that was not physical, chances are they don't know how to hurt me anyway. A lot of people just go for the normal bullying techniques without considering the personal achilles heel of the person they are bullying. If they had it right, I'd probably see if there was a way out, if there wasn't I would weigh up the situation and decide whether to a) stop it by hurting them first or b) just ride it out and ignore it until it goes away. I'd probably usually go for b as trying to stop them will normally cement their need to prove their superiority over me and make the situation worse (they will threatened themselves by any superiority I show and will try harder out of desperation). Normally, I am relatively unharmed by things so long as it does not reflect badly on my character. If I can stick to a belief that I am essentially good then that will help me ride through. It is only if I begin to judge myself as essentially bad that I fall apart.

 

[Gaze]

1. What do you think about the act of actively threatening someone to make them cave into what you want?
- It depends on the situation, reason, or motive. Personally, threats regarding penalties if something isn't done can be pretty effective. Of course, I'm not referring to threats regarding violence, etc.

2. When do you do it? When do others do it? Why? What is the motivations?
- To get people to see the possible consequences if they don't follow through. In these cases, it's not about "me" threatening them, but allowing them to realize they need to take action effectively before reap the benefits of poor action or inaction.

3. It it the only choice you or they tend to have; is it the easy choice or the hard choice?
Hard choice. I don't want to follow through on a threat. I wouldn't threaten anyone because I doubt I could take them on. As I said, the only threats I would make would be, "if you don't do so and so, then you will receive this or that penalty or you won't be able to accomplish your goals or you won't have as many choices, or opportunities, etc."

4. Would you or others threaten someone in a stronger position to yourself?
- No, I'd be too afraid of retaliation

5. What sort of person would you or others threaten and what sort of person wouldn't you or others threaten?
- I may get annoyed, bothered, or angry at someone, but not threaten them. I may think something bad or negative about them which shameful but I don't think I would verbally threaten them unless they were threatening me.

6. Is threatening someone justified - or is it the easy and fast way out against people who are weaker than you?
- It depends on the situation, motives, goal, etc. It's difficult to argue in absolutes in this.

7. Are people who threaten others motivated by what is best for everyone or what is best for them?
- Again, doesn't it depend on the situation? Someone can be seen as doing something based on self interest but their motive could be the complete opposite?

8. Is a threat arrogance - by trying to silence reason and claim the right to manage others for yourself by trying to sweep aside disagreement without hearing it out?
- Again, depends on the purpose of the threat, or goal -what is it designed to accomplish? Sometimes, an innocent threat can set someone right but again, in extreme or more serious situations where negotiation or persuasion are not effective.

9 Should people be held accountable for their threats?
- Yes, but again, if a threat, not an act of violence against someone, prevent someone from committing a serious crime or dangerous act, then perhaps, this can be considered when applying any penalities.

10. And how would you deal with people that threaten you, or how should you deal with it?
- I try not to. I would show in my demeanor or body language that I am not a threat to them. And I would not take them on. I would take them seriously. I would watch them closely and try to use whatever interpersonal strategies at my disposal to lessen their need to act or follow through on that threat.


When we were young, our teachers used a few threats to get us to listen. They used appeals to fear and guilt. By today's standards, those strategies would be considered abusive and ineffective. But in our day, it worked fairly well. Made you think twice about misbehaving. It made you more aware of actions and consequences. Won't say this should be done today, but it was pretty effective back then, just sayin'

 

[grapefruit]

1. It really depends on what you want, why you want it, whether there is another way to get what you want, and the extent to which the outcome of the situation will affect others.
2. Rather than threaten, explain what you will do if a certain situation results. If the occurrence of a certain consequence is only a possibility, say so. Threats could be motivated by destructive behavior or unreasonable groups or individuals who make decisions that would result in an undesirable outcome for all involved. Sometimes people need to be pushed back a little by a slight exertion of power. I mostly ignore threats because I generally know that they will not be carried out. However, if I knew the person was capable of doing so, I might be scared, frustrated, mad, or amused depending on the person and circumstance.
3. It really depends on the person and situation. If there was another way to solve the problem I would by all means do it, but if not...
4. If i had to yes.
5. As I already said, I don't consider it a threat to explain what you will do as a result of a certain situation. I would only make extreme statements like this if it was absolutely necessary to avoid bringing out hostility in the other person. If I determined that it was the only way, I would do so to any person regardless of strength. A person's strength does not determine his or her level of destructiveness.
6. It is as long as you have no other recourse, and are not doing it to gain power or take advantage.
7. It depends on the person.
8. Again, it depends on the person and the situation.
9. Whether you like it or not, you will be held accountable for your threats. If people see that you never carry them out, they will hold less and less merit.
10. If the person attempted to make a threat I knew couldn't be carried out, or that would have little effect on me, I might get annoyed and intentionally refuse to conform to his or her wishes in the most discomforting way possible. If the person made a plausible threat, but it was still necessary for me dot to conform to the demand, I would probably worry about it until the last minute, then enlist the help of friends who would oblige if possible, but be annoyed that I hadn't asked sooner. If I held the person in high regard, or admired the threat for its creativity and ingenuity, I might conform to the demand, or work extra hard at reaching an agreeable compromise.
Some example situations to go on would be helpful.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Some people cannot be reasoned with.

Enticements, or threats are all the same to me:
Sometimes you either need a carrot, or a stick to get a donkey to move it's dumb ass out of the way, or to do some necessary work.

In other cases, time permitting, the reasonable should be reasoned with.

 

[invisible]

i think it's best to respond to threatening situations and people with an appropriate level of love but that takes a lot of experience and a cool head to reach that point.

 

[Haven]

I'm not sure if this fits into the thread but.

Ive been working as a bouncer for the last month, the notion of having authority over other people, is really strange and almost ridicules to me. I think its my INFJ passive nature.