🚀 go-pugleaf

[From Kenny Kitzke (990504.1230EDT)]

<Rick Marken (990504.0900)>

PMFJI

<If you want to say
that, according to PCT, a coercee can stop coercion by simply
adopting the goals of the coercer, then you will be making PCT
very popular with people who want to control other people's
behavior (coercers).>

Come on Rick, can't you just give in to a different definition of coercion?
Or, can't you see coercion from the side of two people instead of one?  On
the other side of the coin, if a person already has the same reference as one
in authority, there is no need for coercion or the use of destructive force
by the one in authority.  Isn't that a valuable lesson?

Finding ways for authority figures to align references without using
coercion, will benefit both parties.  That is what the talk shows would
really want to hear.

When a person senses that someone wants to coerce them concerning actions
they control at high gain, they first usually try to withdraw from the
situation.  That thwarts the coercer when possible.  Soon, those who want to
be coercive have no one left to coerce.  Too bad for them.

A person who will not accept coercion in a relationship will resist until
they are dead.  This is called martyrdom (it may be another silly idea to you
which others find quite commendable).  The world often gives more respect to
coercers as heroes than to martyrs as heroes.  That encourages coercers too.

Being a martyr looks foolish to some.  Losing or giving in looks foolish.
Supporting Bill Clinton, my president, the top coercer in the whole world,
that is what is smart.  What will it take for the voices of the oppressed to
rise together against the coercers and say "Tread on me no more!" or we will
take your authority away and give it to someone else?

Kenny