A question

In my schema of female-forward consensus-seekers and male-forward hero-reverers I have always seen one major flaw/weakness/achillies heel for the consensus seekers: Someone who prioritizes winning by violence will always strike first, fast, and hard, doing as much damage as possible, because the point for them is *winning*.

Someone who values consensus is always a sitting duck because they assume their opponent will do them the courtesy of presenting their points in a logical measured oration, so while they sit with their hands in their laps, patiently listening, their opponent is busy lopping off their head.

Also, the hero-revering group thinks the consensus-seeking group is stupid beyond belief because they just sit there. They wait. They use their mouths when they should be using their hands. So the hero-revering group just gets on with using their hands and the words aren’t even static.

The idea of minding one’s business over here, leaving the violent ones to themselves over there never works because there hasn’t been anything yet that has kept out seriously determined violence.

The problem is that foregoing deliberation and debate in order to stick a sword in someone first means that the consensus-seeker must give up their words – which is rather a large oblation of identity to jump to from a sitting start.

Is there any way to remain a consensus-seeker without abandoning one’s belief in consensus-seeking with all, including those who seek to destroy the consensus-seekers, and then just succumbing to the delight of stabbing them repeatedly with a lethal object?

An answer - maybe

I think The Anonymous Collective and the Billings Bridge group have found a viable option: disrupt and destroy the weapons.

Here are links (that currently work) with meagre details:
https://www.uniindia.com/story/Anonymous-group-declares-cyberwar-on-Russia
https://breachmedia.ca/the-battle-of-billings-bridge/

Billings Bridge stopped a resupply group to the Ottawa Occupiers, and made them surrender their gas cans; and Anonymous is disabling Russian digitals tools, which is no small potatoes. Even ten years ago, if the internet was down, none of us could do anything in the office – other than filing physical things locally.

I can find nothing about Anonymous on my mainstream media right now, and only a brief blip once about Billings Bridge. But they are happening, and they make you wonder what other gnat bites might be going on below the Journalistic radar.

So while this debating and waiting does tend to fragment the consensus-seeking group, because it is a spectrum and not an absolute, consensus-seekers do act, but not uniformly or cumulatively. In general, I think that consensus-seekers have consensus about what needs to be addressed, but no consensus about how to bring action to the issues. This is effective because it is unpredictable. Also, finding and eliminating one group doesn’t stop the rest. And, even, one group can get tired and stop, but something else will be going on somewhere else.

I feel that I should feel more guilty about splitting hairs, because violence is violence, but I think violence against things is slightly more justifiable than violence against people (even jail). I think acting against the tools of the aggressors is an effective way to hinder them.