Culture Bring Back Dueling

So we live in an age where you can say whatever you want about somebody on the internet, or to their face with no repercussion. At best you can sue or respond with your own insults. This obviously isn’t making people more polite.

Lord Invictus, humbly presents a proposal to if not end, at least mollify are trash talk culture.

Bring back the duel.

In the old European aristocracy-honor was paramount, a man’s honor was more than his life. And if he valued his life more than his honor-he was a coward.

Did this mean people were being dragged off dueling grounds in caskets every Saturday? No, because duels were often either to first blood or were resolved without any violence.

Sometimes though people did die.

I propose that we bring back dueling. For every class in society. For all adults and people of good mental constitution and health-children, the disabled, and the elderly could have representatives in their place(though I wouldn’t be opposed to teenage duels-assuming both good health and consent from all parties including those involved and parents).

Someone insults you on Twitter? Challenge him(or her) to a duel. A location could be chosen and weapons chosen.

As well as a Second. Or other representative.

We need to bring back honor culture. People need an outlet to resolve their disputes that isn’t the overburdened and manifestly impersonal and faceless judicial system.

This would force everyone-politicians, pundits, activists and Joe Schmoe alike to be careful with their words. And to treat others even those they disagree with, respectfully.

Weapons could be swords, long knives, and pistols.

In legal terms, participants would sign a contract accepting responsibility for anything that transpired, including bodily harm and death. No lawsuits. Basically regulated legalized homicide.

Losing a duel would not bring shame, refusing one would. Look forward to being known as a coward and a pussy by everyone, not to mention someone with weak convictions. If you don’t accept.

You might respond, “well duels don’t prove who is right-whether Trump’s immigration policy is bad or good” or whether two and two make four or not. The point of a duel is not to decide on ideas, policy, or facts. It is to satisfy personal honor. You can be wrong in the facts and still have your honor. Or right and be a coward. If you think your obviously smarter than the other guy-then you should be willing to demonstrate your faith in your own superiority by dueling. Even if he wins-that doesn’t change the fact, it does demonstrate true conviction.

It will likely never happen. Due to the way society is now, I do think however it would force people to put their money where their mouths are. Because as of now, there is no real consequence for shit talking or insincerity. Much less tough guy posturing. Dueling forces people to either put up or shut up. Or make an effort at being nice.

So thoughts, rebuttals, agreements?

How about fist fights instead of using weapons?

LifeisTiresome said:

How about fist fights instead of using weapons?

Click to expand...

Too dirty, also too unequal. People vary widely in terms of muscle strength. With pistols-it’s not one sided, at least not near as much(and with rapiers, it’s a bit more skill based).

Rapiers are for faggots, real men duel with broadswords.

I was thinking spears and bayonets.

Or fuck, axes. That would be the real test of a man’s measure.

Halberds would be great dueling weapons. Have a standard design and mass produce them. They don’t weigh that much and aren’t too hard to learn how to use-stab, cut, parry, block, grab.

Lord Invictus said:

You might respond, “well duels don’t prove who is right-whether Trump’s immigration policy is bad or good” or whether two and two make four or not. The point of a duel is not to decide on ideas, policy, or facts. It is to satisfy personal honor. You can be wrong in the facts and still have your honor. Or right and be a coward. If you think your obviously smarter than the other guy-then you should be willing to demonstrate your faith in your own superiority by dueling. Even if he wins-that doesn’t change the fact, it does demonstrate true conviction.

Click to expand...

I don't think you have rebutted this point well enough. Ultimately, this could be exploited to basically batter people with different opinions, quashing free speech. Why should might determine right? Or why should might determine honor? It's not brave to beat up someone who you know you can defeat, so this will becaome a way for the strong (in regards to whatever method of fighting) can attack the weak.

How about chainsaws?

Abhorsen said:

I don't think you have rebutted this point well enough. Ultimately, this could be exploited to basically batter people with different opinions, quashing free speech. Why should might determine right? Or why should might determine honor? It's not brave to beat up someone who you know you can defeat, so this will becaome a way for the strong (in regards to whatever method of fighting) can attack the weak.

Click to expand...

Might is separate from right. It’s two independent subjects.

If you argue earnestly-two plus two equals five, and kill me who argues 2+2=4, that doesn’t make you objectively right. If I insulted you and called you a worthless moron for thinking it-you winning the duel proves your honor, that you are willing to defend it.

You can go on believing 2+2=5, with your pride intact.

Dueling isn’t about convincing the other party or even outside observers with no stake, it’s about maintaining face and upholding one’s personal pride and respect.

It’s not like trial by combat-where the winner is right by the will of God. In that case, something extraneous to the two people dueling and the outcome is itself being decided. In an honor duel-all that matters is maintaining one’s honor and avenging an insult.

As for the strong and the weak-that’s why I would normally favor pistols. As opposed to melee weapons. Some people are better shots than others, but it’s a lot more even than who is better with a sword.

It’s also a matter of conviction-if you believe what you say, and won’t take back what you say-then you should be willing to die on that hill literally.

People can say vicious hateful things to each other and not recant them for lack of recourse to the person insulted. In a dueling society-if your going to talk shit, you better be willing to stake your life on it.

No,there isn't enough separation between keeping honor and being correct, and time will blur these distinctions. In addition, duels will be used as a threat to silence people who disagree. It also mixes up conviction with skill at dueling. If you are very skilled, not much conviction is needed to agree to a duel.

There isn’t much skill at walking back twenty paces, drawing a pistol and shooting(so long as you know how to do that).

Duels also shouldn’t be intended to be arenas over ideological or policy disputes. But personal ones.

Saying something like, “I think Senator Z’s policies are bad for Y reason” is probably not grounds for a duel(unless Z’s honor is offended), saying “Senator Z is a total loser and his kids are definitely not his, how could his wife bare the children of such a pussy?” Is grounds for going to the duel ground that day.

The other aspect of dueling is that demonstrated above-it forces people to decide which issues and concerns they are willing to respectfully disagree and which they are willing to fight over.

Someone who is willing to go for frivolous reasons-either becomes very good and thus people don’t shit talk them, or they die rather soon.

Is a mild jab or taunt worth dying over? Is it worth killing somebody over? How hurt do your feelings have to be that vengeance is required to salve them?

Ideally-duels would often not happen as both parties would make up before hand, not wanting to die. Or you might have a first blood part.

Also if dueling permeates all of society-then those that agree to duels and survive will become better duelists over time. And people are free to train, or use representative staff on their behalf(who will be included under liability laws).

It doesn't change anything, just means the people more handy with a sword get to say anything they like and their targets either shut up and have everyone assume it is true, or they lose and don't force a retraction anyway.

You just end up with a cadre of master duellists who can say and do anything they want, see Count of Monte Cristo for an example of this.

How is that much different than people saying anything they want on Twitter or in RL? Except you can’t retaliate.

Sure-if the master duelist insults you, you duel and you lose. Your honor has still been satisfied. Because you considered his insult worth dying over.

It’s about self respect, as much as it is respecting others.

Lord Invictus said:

It’s about self respect, as much as it is respecting others.

Click to expand...

No, it's about creating a class of powerful that can't be safely criticized. This is why free speech and a culture of free speech is so important. Legal dueling would have a chilling effect.

Twitter people can be taken to court for libel or slander and forced to justify their position there, their guilt will be determined by facts by a dispassionate process in which everyone is equal. It is perhaps no coincidence duelling died out at the same time as effective policing started coming in.

Honour is of little use if you are dead, and victory in a duel does not determine who is right or wrong, simply who aims better and that probably isn't going to be the noble decent person.

Abhorsen said:

No, it's about creating a class of powerful that can't be safely criticized. This is why free speech and a culture of free speech is so important. Legal dueling would have a chilling effect.

Click to expand...

Explain to me, why it would limited to one class of people? In older times it was limited to the aristocracy, but a modern dueling system would be open for everyone. The state would provide weapons and heck maybe basic fresher courses. Or even provide representatives for people unable or unwilling to duel themselves.

Harlock said:

Honour is of little use if you are dead, and victory in a duel does not determine who is right or wrong, simply who aims better and that probably isn't going to be the noble decent person.

Click to expand...

On that point, I would respectfully disagree sir. Honor highly valued can be worth more than life. My honor means a lot to me. It may not be, but it can be. Victory and defeat are less important-than maintaining reputation and not allowing an insult to go unanswered. You may lose, even die. But if your willing to put your life on the line, for something more than your life, that's what really matters.

Lord Invictus said:

Explain to me, why it would limited to one class of people? In older times it was limited to the aristocracy, but a modern dueling system would be open for everyone. The state would provide weapons and heck maybe basic fresher courses. Or even provide representatives for people unable or unwilling to duel themselves.

Click to expand...

The class of people would be those who can duel well vs. those who can't. And involving the state in this just exacerbates the chance of political elites getting advantaged. Providing representatives would mean that the supposed conviction gained from dueling would disappear.

Abhorsen said:

The class of people would be those who can duel well vs. those who can't. And involving the state in this just exacerbates the chance of political elites getting advantaged. Providing representatives would mean that the supposed conviction gained from dueling would disappear.

Click to expand...

Ideally-anyone could challenge anyone. To use an example, the guy Biden got into a fight with over guns could have challenged him to a duel-"take it outside", "Yes Sir!". Of course in that case, it might be best to restrict representatives to those too poor or unfit. A rich politician gets no professional swordsman or gunslinger, an old grandmother on Facebook with less than $1000 in fixed income could have a representative provided. The state would regulate this strictly, and anyone who broke the rules would face life imprisonment(committing murder).

As for skill-it would be say, forty paces with modern handguns, twenty paces with older more inaccurate weapons. One shot each. That doesn't require much skill-you aim and shoot. If you've got poor eyesight, you either one don't shit talk people, or two get a representative.

I imagine there would be a "chicken out" clause, before a duel begins-both parties would be asked, "do you wish to concede or settle this dispute without final resort?", if not the duel proceeds. Once your at your spot-you can't back out.

Anyone who wishes to duel with melee arms would be free however to do so. There would of course be limits, no grenades, explosives, targeting sights, and so on.

Perhaps they could add elective classes in all schools-fighting techniques, that would be intended for anyone who wishes to at least have a modicum of competence.

Most people are not going to be master samurai or John Wayne-all you need for the results to be equal and fair more or less is for everyone participating to have at least some basic training, should they request it. And even master swordsman and gunslingers can bleed, they can die.

As long as they couldn't pay other people to stand in for them, I could roll with it. There's too many problems caused by the fanatically wealthy that have no sense of country loyalty and just pay off and manipulate and run away to another country or jurisdiction when the rules try and get them. If there was an actual risk of death for the ones that are malicious douchebags it might encourage them to actually be behave like decent human beings instead of far off alien gods, and decide that perhaps they do not need 10 yachts, can settle for a mere 9 and perhaps pay their workers another dollar an hour or not cut another aspect of their health insurance this year(to stay competitive aka get that 10th yacht).

People as of late have been getting destroyed by the media and social platforms because at large there are no real consequences for them. Either the "nobodies" aren't worth going after or the wealthy corporations can afford the fancy lawyers. The few times they actually get their due are few and far between.


Honestly the fact that lawyering is a profession means the laws or the judicial system has gotten fucked up. You have to actually pay to study, to fully understand the laws that you are subject to? If the legal system has gotten that bloated that a lawyer is required, as in their are prestigious lawyer universities compared to an "appointed lawyer", something has gone terribly wrong in a system meant to represent the "common" man.

I think ideally the law in such cases would be structured to favor the common man, and loopholes eliminated.

For example-someone with a networth over say $100,000 would be forbidden by law to hire a representative. Whereas someone who is at or falls under the poverty line would have one provided like an attorney.

Lord Invictus said:

On that point, I would respectfully disagree sir. Honor highly valued can be worth more than life. My honor means a lot to me. It may not be, but it can be. Victory and defeat are less important-than maintaining reputation and not allowing an insult to go unanswered. You may lose, even die. But if your willing to put your life on the line, for something more than your life, that's what really matters.

Click to expand...

I would rather an honourable life than an honourable death, something entirely within my reach without need of duelling There is no shame in losing to a superior opponent of course, but there's not much to be gained from it either. You risk creating a situation where someone who doesn't like you provokes you into combat and then kills you. At which point anything productive you may have done in the future will never happen. It is sadly a very effective way of deplatforming if you will.

While a decent person may risk their life for something noble, it is very easy for less scrupulous people to abuse that to put their opponents in a position where they must back down and be shamed, or stand up and die. Once dead they cannot argue their position anymore and it is discredited rather than being exalted.

The final word is what is remembered, and the winners will have it, for good or for ill.