Fuck off, Jamie!
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
It means I’m a village idiot.
The only war is the war for people’s hearts and minds. The fight for our people. :mrgreen:
The only war is the war for people’s hearts and minds. The fight for our people. :mrgreen:
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
The Aussie way of stopping mod-war.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
The blimp should have Khan in a bikini.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:15 amHilarious that 13K pounds have been raised in about a day (so far) for a Khan baby balloon.
https://www.westmonster.com/campaign-fo ... 0k-target/
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Is that so baby and parent blimps can be separated?Brive1987 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:15 amHilarious that 13K pounds have been raised in about a day (so far) for a Khan baby balloon.
https://www.westmonster.com/campaign-fo ... 0k-target/
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
What are mommy Swedish long winded guy and daddy future man fighting so much?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Despite (possibly heartfelt) denials, Kirb is laying pipes for the globalists and is hence an enabler of SJWs. Given they are in the instructional ascendency - and wreaking havoc - this behaviour constitutes cultural treason.
I thought that much was clear. Catch up Com.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Instructional = institutional.
I hate this (((iPad)))
I hate this (((iPad)))
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
But you are clearly a socialist. Tommy shouldn't be free. The market should decide the price of Tommy.
In a month's time, this will make even less sense.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
https://i.imgur.com/Uerwh4S.jpg
:twatson: I feel supremely confident about Canada's future. :twatson:
:twatson: I feel supremely confident about Canada's future. :twatson:
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Daddy Kirb knows best, now, Lil' Brivey. Drink up your Vegemite and Tooheys, and go night-nights!
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Getting very, very ready to throw the Leftard insults, aren't we? You usen't not to be this way, you usen't...
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
... and more brilliance from Ape... :lol:
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
No shit. What a pair of clowns.dog puke wrote: ↑ https://i.imgur.com/Uerwh4S.jpg
:twatson: I feel supremely confident about Canada's future. :twatson:
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Kripes. That guy looks just like his brother. Is this one a crackhead too?dog puke wrote: ↑ https://i.imgur.com/Uerwh4S.jpg
:twatson: I feel supremely confident about Canada's future. :twatson:
-
- .
- Posts: 1471
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Steve Ditko is dead.
But as he always kept a low profile it was apparently two days before anyone noticed.
But as he always kept a low profile it was apparently two days before anyone noticed.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Don't be homophobic. Just because she's a short haired lesbian doesn't mean she can't sit like a proper lady.dog puke wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:32 pmhttps://i.imgur.com/Uerwh4S.jpg
:twatson: I feel supremely confident about Canada's future. :twatson:
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Ape wrote:
Canada and every other country needs better leaders/politicians.
If not he is pretty much stupid enough to be one.Kripes. That guy looks just like his brother. Is this one a crackhead too?
Canada and every other country needs better leaders/politicians.
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Brive has a thread for his Nazi shit but you are going to complain about Kirb for Brive bringing this here?
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Tommy's price is currently an ounce of snout but he'll depreciate as his sphincter loosens.comhcinc wrote: ↑But you are clearly a socialist. Tommy shouldn't be free. The market should decide the price of Tommy.
In a month's time, this will make even less sense.
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Why not just remove Mod status from Brive and Kirbmarc so people can put one or other on ignore?
Brive is determined to keep his spat on the main thread and the Pit is becoming a colossal pain in the balls.
Do we really need so many Mods?
What does a Mod actually do?
Brive is determined to keep his spat on the main thread and the Pit is becoming a colossal pain in the balls.
Do we really need so many Mods?
What does a Mod actually do?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I enjoy watching Brive piss on people, tbh. :) Must be a fetish.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.Shatterface wrote: ↑Brive has a thread for his Nazi shit but you are going to complain about Kirb for Brive bringing this here?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
They stand on a wall, and say "Nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch."Shatterface wrote: ↑ What does a Mod actually do?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
:lol: :lol: :lol:dog puke wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:32 pmhttps://i.imgur.com/Uerwh4S.jpg
:twatson: I feel supremely confident about Canada's future. :twatson:
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Brive1987 wrote: ↑We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.Shatterface wrote: ↑Brive has a thread for his Nazi shit but you are going to complain about Kirb for Brive bringing this here?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Just horsing around here people:
-
- .
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2014 2:05 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Is that diversity measurable in the number of active posters?
Do you think the Pit is going to make it to 7 years with the handful of us left?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Fort Zinderneuf ...Shatterface wrote: ↑Is that diversity measurable in the number of active posters?
Do you think the Pit is going to make it to 7 years with the handful of us left?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
What a man! What a beer! Foster's? ;-)Brive1987 wrote: ↑We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.Shatterface wrote: ↑Brive has a thread for his Nazi shit but you are going to complain about Kirb for Brive bringing this here?
Not that you're wrapping yourself in the flag or anything like that - speaking of identities ... ;-)
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
18th century castoffs to defend anymore Brutus wrote:
The UK doesn't need the 18th century castoffs they sent to infest Oz to protect their culture.
What's with the pick up a weapon thing ? Are you losing it?
Do wake up from your feverish dream Wallaboy.We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
The UK doesn't need the 18th century castoffs they sent to infest Oz to protect their culture.
What's with the pick up a weapon thing ? Are you losing it?
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Mate. It’s a fucking joke taken from crazy Colonel Jessup of a Few Good Men.
The meta is the similar argument in that film about civic virtue vs hard pragmatism.
If the Pit dies, it will die from stupidity.
The meta is the similar argument in that film about civic virtue vs hard pragmatism.
If the Pit dies, it will die from stupidity.
-
- .
- Posts: 11165
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
So the death of the Pit is going to come from people not being smart enough to recognize a quote from a movie that some douchebag trying to be clever quotes, and then is arrogant enough to make a statement like that.
Meta?
Fuck off.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Chill out, dickwad.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
LoL. You might consider adding a winkie or a link. Not everybody is going to have woven any particular movie into the warp and woof of their souls to the extext you have apparently done with that one. ;-)
Though I'll concede there's some merit in the concepts of "honor, code, loyalty", and related sentiments - at least if one doesn't go hog-wild. Similarly, I've periodically paraphased a quote of Francis Bacon - "I hold every man to be a debtor to his profession" - to include everyone, and to extend the obligation to one's culture and civilization.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Forget all this CH vs AU vs UK shit - what about BG vs FR? That should be fun.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Or is it BE? Whatever.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Rekieta Law is reading Google docs:
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
The dude was eloquent but ultimately he used his men to bully a poorly performing subordinate instead of just dismissing him, then when the subordinate died he crapped on them to save his ass and carried on lying until he was exposed and threw that famous temper tantrum.Brive1987 wrote: ↑We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.Shatterface wrote: ↑Brive has a thread for his Nazi shit but you are going to complain about Kirb for Brive bringing this here?
Not exactly a sterling example of courage, despite his speech. If he had been in Vietnam he'd have likely been fragged.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
If we can put assside (for the moment) what he says about healthcare - I found this comment by an American ex-serviceman interesting or at least pertinent...
If that's the truth - I guess I can handle it.
If that's the truth - I guess I can handle it.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
A Few Good Men was a Hollywood liberal wet dream. Right down to the loyal but betrayed hispanic and POC marines. The critical question of who does actually write the Libs freedom cheques and at what cost was never addressed. Certainly it isn't Tom Cruise or Demi Moore.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Dude's a liar. If he wanted to be like everyone else he would spell it "Mike".
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I guess that's what's known as a 'Mike drop'.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Just from looking over his twitter freed I think he only said that cause he wants to be with the cool kids on the left who are not big on "supporting the troops" I would also bet that he also had an issue with Trump's assertion that John McCain is not a hero for getting shot down in combat.
At least it looks like the guy could actually punch a Nazi if he had to.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I'd not checked out his feed.comhcinc wrote: ↑Just from looking over his twitter freed I think he only said that cause he wants to be with the cool kids on the left who are not big on "supporting the troops" I would also bet that he also had an issue with Trump's assertion that John McCain is not a hero for getting shot down in combat.
At least it looks like the guy could actually punch a Nazi if he had to.
Increasingly, I find that everyone has something to say that I disagree with - but that I'm less willing to disassociate just because I disagree on one (or a couple) of subjects.
Except for you of course Com - I agree with you on everything - even the suff that does not make sense.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
https://media.giphy.com/media/BmNqjRK4LGCWY/giphy.gifMarcusAu wrote: ↑I'd not checked out his feed.comhcinc wrote: ↑Just from looking over his twitter freed I think he only said that cause he wants to be with the cool kids on the left who are not big on "supporting the troops" I would also bet that he also had an issue with Trump's assertion that John McCain is not a hero for getting shot down in combat.
At least it looks like the guy could actually punch a Nazi if he had to.
Increasingly, I find that everyone has something to say that I disagree with - but that I'm less willing to disassociate just because I disagree on one (or a couple) of subjects.
Except for you of course Com - I agree with you on everything - even the suff that does not make sense.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
If you need authoritarianism to create freedom, the existence of freedom is a paradox.
Indeed this isn't surprising, since security is based on a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma: if two player decided to cooperate they'd have less need for authoritarian enforcement/show of strength, but if one is "strong" while the other is "weak",' the "strong" reap benefits.
So if two players don't trust each other the sub-optimal choice is one of an arms race. The examples from history are many, but more recently the Cold War arms race is the one where the sub-optimal choice had become a potentially existential danger in its own.
On the other hand you can leave the Prisoner Dilemma of having sub-optimal choices forces upon you with an elegant solution: increasing ties between the two parties so that cooperation is so advantageous, and betrayal so damaging, that the optimal choice is evident to all.
This is the aim of the EU which, let's remember it, started after a devastating war between France and the UK on one side and Germany on the other. Today such a war is seen as ridiculous as Paris declaring war on Marseille.
If you have rational players the cooperative choice, and so the optimal solution, doesn't require authoritarianism to defend freedom.
Of course unilateral actions without wide consent tend to decrease trust, and may lead to one player leaving the deal. That's not an optimal solution for either party.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Short enough that you could probably start reviewing movies on twitter.
-
- That's All Folks
- Posts: 11875
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
- Location: Nice, France
- Contact:
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
It happens all the time. It's either called P.S.G Vs O.M or O.M Vs P.S.G, depending on who provides the battlefield. And the fight continues via civilians outside the battlefield.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Perfect freedom doesn't exist. Liberal, democratic freedom requires a value system and virtuous people. The collapse of that value system or too many non-virtuous people will collapse a liberal democracy, not anything else.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
We have a winner. :clap:
Congratulations. Meat tray available on the way out.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
Didn't Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' point to things getting better, rather than worse over time?
If only we had an objective measure of the number of virtuous people there are in society.
Perahps someone could create an app where people could signal their virtue and the results then be collated for review.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I was a huge comic fan at one point in my life. In fact, at one point I pretty much made a living hanging out in a friend's comic shop, buying and selling comics. This has nothing to do with my name btw.
Anyhow over the years, I have drifted away from them more and more. Most of them are not that good (never were) and they have gotten to a price point that I cannot justify even buying trade paperbacks.
I still kinda barely keep up with comic news but it seems to have gone political like just about everything else so I don't even do that much anymore. Protip: Check out the youtube channel Comics Explained if you want to hear a very nice guy basically tell you the whole plots of most of the major storylines happening.
So for the last couple of months, I have been hearing about #comicgate the "fan backlash to SJWish in mainstream comics" I honestly just have never been that interested. Comics since the 60s have had a vein of progressive thought in them. Maybe not as aggressive but maybe so. I don't know and I can't be bothered to look into it. At the end of the day, the market has always dealt with comics. And I mean that. Outside of Action Comics featuring Superman, almost every other comic has either been canceled or been completely stripped of its creators and rebooted as something different. My point is I see no sense for anyone to do lazy hashtag activism when you can just vote with your wallet.
And for the most part, I agree with the backlash. This applies mostly to marvel comics. They have taken most of their main characters and swapped out the originals with diversity hires. In the last couple of years they have replaced Steve Rogers (Captian America) first with a black guy, then with a "Latino Lesbian" named "America". Tony Stark (Ironman) was replaced by a teenage black girl, Thor was replaced with a woman with cancer, and the Hulk became an Asian teenager. Now I have no problem with a change happens with it services the story. Tony Stark has been replaced before, most notably during the time that he was dealing with his alcoholism. That time it was his best friend James Rhodes who would go on to become War Machine( a black guy who if written correctly would come off as a NeoCon). This time around however it seems that most of these changes were due to the writers and editors find all the old white guys icky.
Anyway, this week after some reporter contact Pax Dickinson about this for some bizarre reason, I took a moment to look around again and see what was happening. It's frankly a sad, watered-down version of Great Athiest Wars out of which the pit was forged. Most of it seems to center around a youtuber that goes Diversity and Comics he makes shitty youtube videos where he reviews comics poorly while holding a phone to do his videos. Seriously, like in this video, from about a year ago he will literally praise the artist one moment and the very next words out of his mouth are mocking how bad the art is. Dude puts out a bunch of low effort videos a week and has petty arguments over twitter where his archnemesis is I kid you not "SJW Spiderman". From what I have gathered he is a veteran with mixed race kids who really just wants to write comics.
So this shitty youtuber is the big baddie mean white man and somehow he is winning. There are so many people that hate this guy. Major Writers like Mark Waid have attacked this guy. Seems he got some book the guy had set up to get published by some small publisher canceled so this guy just went and self-published and solid a mint. They seem to like to call the guy a Nazi and of course he has mixed raced kids (including one that is brown and a Muslim it seems). And the whole thing is frankly just a sad shit show. Not even full of any lolz.
Wait, what was my point...
Anyhow over the years, I have drifted away from them more and more. Most of them are not that good (never were) and they have gotten to a price point that I cannot justify even buying trade paperbacks.
I still kinda barely keep up with comic news but it seems to have gone political like just about everything else so I don't even do that much anymore. Protip: Check out the youtube channel Comics Explained if you want to hear a very nice guy basically tell you the whole plots of most of the major storylines happening.
So for the last couple of months, I have been hearing about #comicgate the "fan backlash to SJWish in mainstream comics" I honestly just have never been that interested. Comics since the 60s have had a vein of progressive thought in them. Maybe not as aggressive but maybe so. I don't know and I can't be bothered to look into it. At the end of the day, the market has always dealt with comics. And I mean that. Outside of Action Comics featuring Superman, almost every other comic has either been canceled or been completely stripped of its creators and rebooted as something different. My point is I see no sense for anyone to do lazy hashtag activism when you can just vote with your wallet.
And for the most part, I agree with the backlash. This applies mostly to marvel comics. They have taken most of their main characters and swapped out the originals with diversity hires. In the last couple of years they have replaced Steve Rogers (Captian America) first with a black guy, then with a "Latino Lesbian" named "America". Tony Stark (Ironman) was replaced by a teenage black girl, Thor was replaced with a woman with cancer, and the Hulk became an Asian teenager. Now I have no problem with a change happens with it services the story. Tony Stark has been replaced before, most notably during the time that he was dealing with his alcoholism. That time it was his best friend James Rhodes who would go on to become War Machine( a black guy who if written correctly would come off as a NeoCon). This time around however it seems that most of these changes were due to the writers and editors find all the old white guys icky.
Anyway, this week after some reporter contact Pax Dickinson about this for some bizarre reason, I took a moment to look around again and see what was happening. It's frankly a sad, watered-down version of Great Athiest Wars out of which the pit was forged. Most of it seems to center around a youtuber that goes Diversity and Comics he makes shitty youtube videos where he reviews comics poorly while holding a phone to do his videos. Seriously, like in this video, from about a year ago he will literally praise the artist one moment and the very next words out of his mouth are mocking how bad the art is. Dude puts out a bunch of low effort videos a week and has petty arguments over twitter where his archnemesis is I kid you not "SJW Spiderman". From what I have gathered he is a veteran with mixed race kids who really just wants to write comics.
So this shitty youtuber is the big baddie mean white man and somehow he is winning. There are so many people that hate this guy. Major Writers like Mark Waid have attacked this guy. Seems he got some book the guy had set up to get published by some small publisher canceled so this guy just went and self-published and solid a mint. They seem to like to call the guy a Nazi and of course he has mixed raced kids (including one that is brown and a Muslim it seems). And the whole thing is frankly just a sad shit show. Not even full of any lolz.
Wait, what was my point...
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I don't think people are inherently good. I think the point of civilisation is to make the range of decisions people think they have available largely "good". Hence most people go through life (or at least did in the recent past) never really having to test their character, but rather the choices they are "guided" into making are of net benefit to society.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
I agree, but that's the reason for liberal democratic institutions, to curb non-cooperative decisions by promoting interdependence of interests.Keating wrote: ↑ I don't think people are inherently good. I think the point of civilisation is to make the range of decisions people think they have available largely "good". Hence most people go through life (or at least did in the recent past) never really having to test their character, but rather the choices they are "guided" into making are of net benefit to society.
You don't need to be "good" to cooperate to a mutually advantageous goal, especially if the incentives are clear and the payout is tangible.
What's happening recently is that a new technological development, social media, is changing some of the institutions we established to ensure a degree of cooperation, and no one has figured out how to deal with it yet.
Also technological devrlopment has put people from non-liberal democratic areas in contact with liberal democracy without first setting up the institutions that laid the groundwork for liberal democracy, and no one thought about an explicit, gradual plan to deal with the aftermath.
Furthermore some groups and individuals have become too good at gaming the system, and they need to be curbed.
All these are important challenges, and it's easy to see them as prophecies of doom. But that's a defeatist attitude. There have been huge challenges before that have been dealt with. There are positive signs, if one can look for them instead of despairing.
Moreover there's no serious alternative proposal to the liberal democratic system, only short-sighted short term protests that end up being based on unworkable solutions.
Wrecking the system for the hell of it, just because things are tough, is not very productive.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
People aren't good or evil. They're good to those that fulfill some of their needs (economical, social, emotional, physical, etc), evil to these they see as a potential or actual threat, and indifferent to those they don't know we'll enough to classify as assets or threats.
In order for society to function both the perception of threats and the real threats need to be kept to acceptable levels. Dealing with real threats is important, but so is avoiding the spread of a paranoid perception of false or exaggerated threats.
Not everybody has to like or trust each other, but people need to feel relatively safe and have a space to fulfill their needs without becoming a threat to the needs of others.
In order for society to function both the perception of threats and the real threats need to be kept to acceptable levels. Dealing with real threats is important, but so is avoiding the spread of a paranoid perception of false or exaggerated threats.
Not everybody has to like or trust each other, but people need to feel relatively safe and have a space to fulfill their needs without becoming a threat to the needs of others.
Re: Fuck off, Jamie!
People like Elliott Rodgers (on a small scale) or the members of ISiS (on a large scale) are threats BECAUSE they see a disproportionate amount of people as threats to their perceived needs and values for spurious reasons, and their world view is so skewed that there's no way to come a rational or emotional compromise with them.
So violence is the only way to deal with those threats, either in the form of direct violence or through forced removal from society.
So there is a reason to have a police force, an army, and prisons. There is a need for justifying using deadly force in some situations, or depriving someone of their liberty.
However violence and force are instruments you have to be careful with. They have huge consequences and if you're careless they can cause moral social damage then they're worth.
There are other forms of disincentives and incentives that work better in other occasions.
The trick is to understand how to use a specific incentive or disincentive, and what, when, why justifies that use.
Also you have to avoid building structures that give TOO MANY ways for unscrupulous people to game the system in destructive ways.
A clever crook will always figure out a method to use any rule to their advantage. But if the system is built well enough they'll either have to be VERY clever or risk a lot, and certain systems can actually be built in a way that basically forces a non-cooperative, ambitious, greedy crook to work for a social good without wanting to.
One of the problems of today is that social media make it FAR too easy for social manipulators of all stripes to game the system and/or spread paranoid, destructive narratives that undermine social trust.
We weren't prepared for that and we naively assumed that the open access nature of social media would work it out on it's own.
So violence is the only way to deal with those threats, either in the form of direct violence or through forced removal from society.
So there is a reason to have a police force, an army, and prisons. There is a need for justifying using deadly force in some situations, or depriving someone of their liberty.
However violence and force are instruments you have to be careful with. They have huge consequences and if you're careless they can cause moral social damage then they're worth.
There are other forms of disincentives and incentives that work better in other occasions.
The trick is to understand how to use a specific incentive or disincentive, and what, when, why justifies that use.
Also you have to avoid building structures that give TOO MANY ways for unscrupulous people to game the system in destructive ways.
A clever crook will always figure out a method to use any rule to their advantage. But if the system is built well enough they'll either have to be VERY clever or risk a lot, and certain systems can actually be built in a way that basically forces a non-cooperative, ambitious, greedy crook to work for a social good without wanting to.
One of the problems of today is that social media make it FAR too easy for social manipulators of all stripes to game the system and/or spread paranoid, destructive narratives that undermine social trust.
We weren't prepared for that and we naively assumed that the open access nature of social media would work it out on it's own.