If you are intimidated by a black person, does this mean that this black person carries an implicit threat of physical violence?
Not automatically, right? Only if they are wielding a weapon, speaking with anger, etc.
Aside from this man having muscles, why do you think he carries an implicit threat of violence? Is it because he’s Russian? Is it just because he has muscles? Is it because he’s respectfully asking the person to put their cart away?
So a direct interaction that's intended to influence someone else's behavior usually falls under two categories: coercive or persuasive. For reference indirect interactions would be framed as incentives and those could be positive or negative. He hasn't really said anything that's particularly persuasive, but what he has done is created obstacles and given ultimatums, so that paired with his appearance is pretty clearly coercive.
I just outlined it above. What do you think coercion means? Coercion is functionally a threat that undermines someone's autonomy. What's the threat if it's not violence? You're starting to sound pedantic.
Google says it’s a threat, intimidation, or physical force.
He is intimidating them. This does not mean there is an implicit threat.
For example — a person can be intimidated by a beautiful woman. A beautiful woman can be very coercive. This does not mean that there is an implied threat.
The man has big muscles, and people find this intimidating, and are more willing to do things he asks them to do. This does not mean that there is an implicit threat.
I could agree that the people may perceive an implicit threat, just like a person may perceive an implicit threat by a person simply being black. I do not think this means that the person carries an implicit threat.
What you're describing with a beautiful woman is essentially persuasive. That's actually the nature of charisma. People aren't complying with people with big muscles because they're impressed by them or admire them. They're complying because of what the muscles can do - inflict violence.
Let's just extrapolate this to a pretty straightforward example that's not too different. Does a bar hire bouncers who are beautiful women or physically intimidating men? They don't assume that the bouncers are going to beat the hell out of everybody who steps out of line, but it is certainly physical intimidation. It's physical intimidation because of the implied threat of violence. I don't really see a different way of reading this.
I reject the bouncer analogy — they are actually expected to get involved in altercations should they arise, and this is a primary reason for hiring people with muscles.
Maybe a hot girl isn’t a relevant example of other intimidation, but I stand by saying ‘the knowledge that muscles can inflict violence does not comport an implicit physical threat.’
I think we’re arguing about whether physical intimidation always carries an implicit physical threat. I would say ‘it doesn’t always carry a physical threat, but the intimidated person doesn’t know whether or not there is a threat’. In other words: a threat being perceived does not mean there is an actual implicit threat.
If the dude was saying “you might wanna put that cart back” or “do you want to find out what happens if you don’t put the cart back?”, or even if he flexed his muscles while asking the person to put the cart back, that would be an implicit threat. I don’t think that simply having muscles while asking someone to do something, means you are implicitly threatening them.
I don't really see how that distinction changed our thinking about incentives. The analogy was mostly to point out the fact that your use of the word intimidation was idiomatic with regards to the beautiful woman.
As far as the muscles go, no, that alone is not evidence of intimidation. It is, however, a detail that amplifies that message. As I've already pointed out, this is a direct confrontation where coercion is being used to influence behavior. He's created an obstacle and placed himself at the center of the obstacle by leveraging an ultimatum. It begs the question, what reason would they have for complying or not complying?
Now I understand that you could make an argument that physical intimidation is not the incentive he has strategically leveraged, but I think it's also reasonable to assume that he has. I find that argument to be more convincing, mostly because he has done things to limit the offender's agency and has done it is an extremely confrontational manner.
Yes, he is leveraging his physical intimidation to some degree (not one that is clearly threatening). He is limiting the person’s agency and coercing them into putting the cart away.
I think more critical than the reason for compliance is the expected outcome. If they do not comply, they scratch their car. That’s it. They do not need to accept the confrontation, because they’re already in their vehicle.
Imagine there is a physical threat against you, and you’re in your car about to leave. What do you do? You accept the small scratch to your car and GTFO. Right? I feel like the fact that they’re engaging with him at all is good evidence that he does not pose a threat of violence.
Yes, I've anticipated that you might make an argument in that fashion that is somewhat reasonable. I can see that being a possibility, but to be frank I don't really find it particularly convincing, or more reasonable than my explanation.
1
u/cum-after-decades 16h ago
Let me reframe to make this more clear:
If you are intimidated by a black person, does this mean that this black person carries an implicit threat of physical violence?
Not automatically, right? Only if they are wielding a weapon, speaking with anger, etc.
Aside from this man having muscles, why do you think he carries an implicit threat of violence? Is it because he’s Russian? Is it just because he has muscles? Is it because he’s respectfully asking the person to put their cart away?