Jump to content
Register Now
Jakeyjake

Would you want to rule benevolently or malevolently?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Jakeyjake said:

As to why domination would be my first choice: in that situation, I have a sense that such a tiny race would see a giant as an existential threat and would plot to take me out, which I would be insane to allow.  As well, if I were stranded, I'm not sure it would be even possible to cooperate or leave them alone.  Given limited resources and limited space, eventually I would get sucked into their own conflicts.  It would be a question of whether to interfere in their conflicts, or wait for them to involve you me them.   Why give up the upper hand by waiting?  

 

There is that chance as you mentioned that the little people will have conflicts among themselves and will try to involve you to take a side. That is a situation I am not sure of how to react. I sure would try to get them to make a treaty. The answer would be easier if one side was blatantly the offender.

As a giant, what would be your goal to exist there? Just live and dominate? The little people obviously reproduce and want a civilization. That would be a natural thing. The only unnatural thing would be a lonesome giant who has to masterbate and stomp the little people in frustration. If you were stranded on that planet, and if there was limited resources, then would you think your one life is more important than a whole civilization?

I wouldn’t want to starve either, but there would have to be a way to grow enough food and a way to drink enough water. Planets are usually big, so space is irrelevant. Unless it's a tiny planet you can jog around the whole thing in one day. If they aren’t that advanced yet and would take years to create a system to sustain enough resources, then there is an obvious choice. Me or them. And I personally would value all their lives over my one. They can feast on me when I’m dead and erect a monument out of my bones.

Realistically, the amount you would eat would compare to a couple thousand of them. So on a planet, pretty sure there would be plenty to go around. Look at all the different species on our planet we have to share food and water with.

Maybe they would just see you as a God and worship you without you having to subjugate them or make them fear you. Fear of God is fear enough. Then they would offer you all the food and let themselves die as a sacrifice to you. But the rest of your life you would be living a lie. And if that guilt doesn’t affect you, then you would be a cold blooded devil in disguise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 2:16 AM, Reality vs Adventure said:

There is that chance as you mentioned that the little people will have conflicts among themselves and will try to involve you to take a side. That is a situation I am not sure of how to react. I sure would try to get them to make a treaty. The answer would be easier if one side was blatantly the offender.

As a giant, what would be your goal to exist there? Just live and dominate? The little people obviously reproduce and want a civilization. That would be a natural thing. The only unnatural thing would be a lonesome giant who has to masterbate and stomp the little people in frustration. If you were stranded on that planet, and if there was limited resources, then would you think your one life is more important than a whole civilization?

I wouldn’t want to starve either, but there would have to be a way to grow enough food and a way to drink enough water. Planets are usually big, so space is irrelevant. Unless it's a tiny planet you can jog around the whole thing in one day. If they aren’t that advanced yet and would take years to create a system to sustain enough resources, then there is an obvious choice. Me or them. And I personally would value all their lives over my one. They can feast on me when I’m dead and erect a monument out of my bones.

Realistically, the amount you would eat would compare to a couple thousand of them. So on a planet, pretty sure there would be plenty to go around. Look at all the different species on our planet we have to share food and water with.

Maybe they would just see you as a God and worship you without you having to subjugate them or make them fear you. Fear of God is fear enough. Then they would offer you all the food and let themselves die as a sacrifice to you. But the rest of your life you would be living a lie. And if that guilt doesn’t affect you, then you would be a cold blooded devil in disguise.

 

Why do you call it a lonesome existence?  From where I stand, the chance to be worshipped as a god would be a fantasy too good to pass up. 😛

I appreciate your honesty in stating even you wouldn't be sure how to react if drawn into their internal conflicts.  Unfortunately, it probably would not be clear who the primary aggressors are in any of their conflicts .  Even on our own world, it is often unclear.  I'm pretty sure I can imagine how much harder it would be if I were the giant with them being so tiny and almost indiscernible from each other.   Think about it: they would have been living in a world far, far below mine: all of their internal "conflicts" that would be so crucial to them would be petty and small to me.  Their squabbles would seem ridiculous.  Their "ideological battles" that involve religion, race, economic class...their so-called culture wars: they would be utterly meaningless to me, each of them negated and made insignificant by my very existence.  Just by being there, I will have up-ended everything they ever knew and any sense of self-importance they thought they had.  

And while they would be living in a world far below mine, I would be existing in a world that is far above their perception: a huge, cold, and distant being who is unreachable -- unknowable even.  Towering over them, they couldn't possibly understand my motivations.  For example: say that a couple of their towns were threatened by a potential overflowing of their lakes and rivers.  These bodies of water would be nothing more than inch-deep puddles to me.  Even if I wanted to protect them, I could plant my foot down in front of one of their coastal towns to divert a potential flood... but being too tiny to recognize the danger they were in, they may just think I'm toying with or intimidating them by stomping their lake. Even traversing their sparsely populated or wooded areas, it would be all too likely that many would be stepped on and they would hate me forever.

Anyway: you ask what my goal would be as the giant among the flea-sized people.  Assuming that I'm stranded and I'm there for the long run.  Yes, my goals would be to live, dominate, and be worshipped as a god.  What else would you expect, though?   I'm a guy.  

I wouldn't need to rely strictly on masturbation to fulfill my sexual needs.  With a race of tiny people at my command, I would keep a batch as personal slaves in some sort of glass container I could fit into my pocket.  Then, whenever I want, I could force them to do the unspeakable, knowing that refusal meant I would stamp my feet on their towns even more than usual.  I could having them march up and down my penis shaft, causing all sorts of delightful sensations, until I ejaculate.  With sufficient technology, perhaps they could then fertilize all of their females with my spermatozoa. 😀

 

 

 

Edited by Jakeyjake
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2020 at 2:16 AM, Reality vs Adventure said:

 It is the devolved species of humanity that can't sympathize. It becomes animalistic, to kill, to dominate, to urinate around your territory. Higher intelligence makes all life valuable. And by intelligence, I mean the consciousness to know right from wrong. 

By the way, I agree with you more than you think.  But in my last post I stated what were my primary motivations for the demands that I would impose on the tiny people, if I were the giant.  Why do you believe they are objectionable, when they serve to fulfill needs that I have no control over?

By doing all I can to ensure my survival and even legacy on the alien planet in question, is that really "devolved" as you put it?  To seem it seems evolved: that's why survival is all about, after all.

You seemed to agree that leaving them alone might not be possible, and that even mediating their conflicts might not be possible.  So then what?  If you intervened on either side, you would have already used force and become something of an authoritarian yourself.  You would have only achieved what you achieved through having greater power.

Also, let's say even before I got to know the tiny people, they launched the full force of their military at me.   Would you still think I would not be justified in crushing their forces and then subjugating them?

Edited by Jakeyjake
Link to post
Share on other sites

Intervening is a responsibility if one side is clearly in the wrong and putting others in danger. That wouldn’t be authoritative of me. That would be a moral obligation. Giant or not. And if there isn’t a clear aggressor, then we have the full capability to try and understand both sides and see if you can diffuse it somehow. Taking a side at that point w/o a clear aggressor would not make me feel obligated to interfere unless of course they go to war and one side wants to torture, enslave, rape, and genocide the other. Then again, I would be obligated to interfere.

It seems your main argument is to control them first before they have the chance to attack you or involve you in their conflicts. That is a failed human perception. Paranoia. You have clearly shown paranoia and the need to subjugate out of fear and for pleasure. That is a package deal for you.

Fantasies need careful consideration. Usually fantasies are perfect. Reality isn’t. If you are loved and respected, attention can be turned to other important matters and be very productive. Your reign will last much longer and stronger if they respected you. You propose a life of quarreling. Subjugation from fear is nothing but opportunity for conflict. Your proposal invites conflict in order to justify your intentions.

The little people have feelings too and if it was their wife or daughter in that bottle stuck in your pocket, damn right some will retaliate. And a few can turn into many. And that is what I mean how you would justify your complete rule over them, by instigating it all. If they rise up, in return you retaliate back and crush them. Yes they will be afraid. In these situations, anger will boil over. Then peace of mind over abuse becomes more important than life itself. They would rather die than be subjugated to any more cruelty. You then lose the reign.

Once you reduce their population, there wouldn’t be many to rule over at that point. Or they will be so terrified and pissed, they will become scattered nomads in hiding and possibly even make an underground network to thrive, repopulate, and either outlive you, or take out your eyes while you sleep.

But let’s say they attacked you from the start without you doing anything. Would you be justified to counter attack? Of course you would. But like any unknown animal in it’s own habitat, you have to respect its boundaries because you don’t know what it is capable of. Honor those boundaries and try to offer a sign of peace or leave it be. But if they want to chase you to the end of their tiny world relentlessly, then sure, you have the right to slay the beast. And from there you have to make the choice to either rule benevolently or malevolently. Or not rule at all, that is a choice also.

Abusing others has nothing to do with survival. There is a difference between surviving and thriving. To thrive is to evolve. To survive is the fight or flight response. It isn’t rational. It doesn’t take the time to look at the whole picture. Being quick to react instead of being rational is a devolved sate. It is the most raw form of humans and other animals.  And since it is just you and your DNA can’t mix with one 1000 times smaller than you, then evolving is redundant. You become a basic animal just trying to survive. Your state of mind becomes devolved. That is if you choose to make the little people enemies or abuse them. But if you work together, maybe you can save your humanity and evolve and thrive together. You mark will be left for the rest of their future generations in helping them with things that they couldn’t ordinarily do given your strength. That would be a legacy worth having, instead of having them make monuments for you that they will want to tear down once you are gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At first I thought maybe I would do the same as you in reference to intervening in their conflicts.  But my hesitation is that I would always be wondering if I correctly picked who to intervene on behalf of, if it came to that.  Even a side that might seem aggressive at one point in time may be just reacting to the side that is truly oppressive.  At that point, I would likely have two armies who hate me.  In this history of almost every country on this planet, foreign intervention in internal conflict has nearly always resulted in either a civil war or a division of nations.  By enacting intervention immediately for what you think may be a violent conflict, you could just be precipitating way more conflict down the line.  Would you agree that there is no easy answer to this scenario?

Fear of a first attack by the tiny people isn't the primary reason I would want to gain control of them, so I think I misexpressed that.  While certainly I would love to be seen as a god, and I'm sure any psychologist would have a field day psychoanalyzing why, that would still be only part of the reason I would wish to assert dominance.   My motivation to gain control of them has less to do with thwarting potential attacks than it has to do with being able to influence, steer, and determine the course of whole civilization of people in any way I would like in order to explore the outcomes.  I would be just as much motivated by curiosity and fascination.

6 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

Fantasies need careful consideration. Usually fantasies are perfect. Reality isn’t. If you are loved and respected, attention can be turned to other important matters and be very productive. Your reign will last much longer and stronger if they respected you. You propose a life of quarreling. Subjugation from fear is nothing but opportunity for conflict. Your proposal invites conflict in order to justify your intentions.

The little people have feelings too and if it was their wife or daughter in that bottle stuck in your pocket, damn right some will retaliate. And a few can turn into many. And that is what I mean how you would justify your complete rule over them, by instigating it all. If they rise up, in return you retaliate back and crush them. Yes they will be afraid. In these situations, anger will boil over. Then peace of mind over abuse becomes more important than life itself. They would rather die than be subjugated to any more cruelty. You then lose the reign.

But I think people who live in a state of constant fear and paranoia will not organize.   From where I stand, being as cruel as possible and terrorizing them from time to time would do that.   Terrorizing them not because they did anything to anger me, but just to remind them what can happen, at any random time, for any reason -- or even better, for no reason at all -- depending on nothing but my mood. When the Nazis attacked France and crushed it, demoralizing the populace, there was no French resistance. Solid fact, because all people can be cowed and broken by somebody who attacks civilian structures. Hell, Britain conceded as soon as it was bombed. And as stated, I would go after their civilian structures.  

You say they would rather die than be subjected to cruelty, but I tend to believe the majority wouldn't.  Survival at any cost is what governs.  Keeping their wives, daughters, even small children, within a little glass bottle inside my pocket would undoubtedly enrage their fathers and husbands.  They would go absolutely crazy, never knowing how I was using them to satisfy my inexplicable whims and caprices, or as a focus to take out my frustrations upon. But since I would be absolutely titanic in size to them, there would be nothing they could do about it, unless they were prepared to repel another Attack of the Giant White Sneaker.   

For that reason, I think that maintaining those tiny captives and carrying within my pocket would demoralize the tiny race even further rather than incite them to retaliate.  Let's not forget that historically, rape has been used as an effective tool to demoralize subjugated foes.  Although I would be too massive in size for such a thing, this would be even more effective knowing it would take place in plain sight of all of them.  At that size, I wouldn't have to worry about image or perception. The thoughts of such tiny people would hold no weight over me when I could squash them like I would any bug.   Their entire race would be in a perpetual hostage crisis.  And that would prevent any uprisings.  

6 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

Once you reduce their population, there wouldn’t be many to rule over at that point. Or they will be so terrified and pissed, they will become scattered nomads in hiding and possibly even make an underground network to thrive, repopulate, and either outlive you, or take out your eyes while you sleep.

But let’s say they attacked you from the start without you doing anything. Would you be justified to counter attack? Of course you would. But like any unknown animal in it’s own habitat, you have to respect its boundaries because you don’t know what it is capable of. Honor those boundaries and try to offer a sign of peace or leave it be. But if they want to chase you to the end of their tiny world relentlessly, then sure, you have the right to slay the beast. And from there you have to make the choice to either rule benevolently or malevolently. Or not rule at all, that is a choice also.

Abusing others has nothing to do with survival. There is a difference between surviving and thriving. To thrive is to evolve. To survive is the fight or flight response. It isn’t rational. It doesn’t take the time to look at the whole picture. Being quick to react instead of being rational is a devolved sate. It is the most raw form of humans and other animals.  And since it is just you and your DNA can’t mix with one 1000 times smaller than you, then evolving is redundant. You become a basic animal just trying to survive. Your state of mind becomes devolved. That is if you choose to make the little people enemies or abuse them. But if you work together, maybe you can save your humanity and evolve and thrive together. You mark will be left for the rest of their future generations in helping them with things that they couldn’t ordinarily do given your strength. That would be a legacy worth having, instead of having them make monuments for you that they will want to tear down once you are gone.

I would not reduce their population to a non-sustainable size.  I agree there is a difference between surviving and thriving.  I wouldn't want to be reduced to living by a flight or fight response only.   However, rationality doesn't really apply to fight or flight, because it's an instinctive reaction that reason doesn't factor into.  Even so, that doesn't mean there isn't rationality behind why it exists and why it is beneficial.  

Correct, my DNA couldn't mix with people 1000 times smaller than me.  But that is why I mentioned it if they sufficient technology.  If they were similarly advanced to us, they could easily decode the sequence of nucleic acid chains in my DNA.  If they were just tiny humans, perhaps they could use that to artificially replicate that was suitably compatible using my genetic material.    😀  Obviously, we're talking about science fiction level technology, but that is what this whole thread is sort of based on. Would I really be devolving then? 

Edited by Jakeyjake
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, I fully understand your suggestion that I would be purposely instigating a situation where they would strike at me, because it would give me the justification to crush them into submission, and that may be true to some extent.  Any attack, regardless of how feeble, would result in me stamping my feet on them as a matter of principle, and I would enjoy every second of it.  What I am saying is I would want to test them to challenge me, until they reach a true breaking point.  Once broken, I would have total control. As I said I would degrade them further by using the tiny jarred slaves in my pocket to stimulate my penis until I ejaculate, or put them on toejam removal duty from time to time, further demoralizing and breaking them.  Do you really think they or their families below risk being eliminated than just complying my admittedly mostly harmless demands?

For the record, I'm not saying anything I would be doing in this situation wouldn't be brutally selfish or cruel of me; I'm just arguing the merits of what I think would be the most effective way to rule for the longest period of time.  

Edited by Jakeyjake
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had enough technology to create more giants, then they also have the technology to destroy one. So it would be a lot easier to take out one giant than to have to deal with many of them later. Look at the USA with the greatest arsenal in the world, but infiltrating its satellites and energy sector would cripple it and all that supreme artillery would be useless. They would have to fly blind and drop bombs directly over enemy territory because they wouldn’t be able to launch missiles from anywhere. Not from a carrier, jet, tank, or from absolutely anything, at least not with any accuracy. So with the right technology, your giant size would become irrelevant.

What exactly would be the best way to rule for the longest period of time? For this topic you give two options, but there is always a third to not rule at all. But in this situation, to rule by demoralizing them always ends violently. And through our own history, leaders like that usually create turmoil in their own sphere of power and can even fall from the inside. But since it’s just you and them, your reign to demoralize them can only last so long as they have something to lose. Once they feel they have nothing to lose anymore, whether it be population, pride, sense of purpose, then they will revolt. And you say you will try to keep them at bay and only take so much so they wouldn’t feel the need to retaliate. And that is a 50/50 chance you fuck it up and get too greedy, or take one too many women, or eat 100 too many cows. You have no idea their toleration levels.

You would think they would be too demoralized to do anything. But they aren’t all in chains under constant watch. You can’t monitor their every move. And remember, in those situations people would flee and go underground. From there they will build resistance. You can’t possibly keep an eye on every one of them so far above. And once they break away, you can demoralize the cities all you want, but that resistance will continue to grow. Reigns like that always go up in flames because there is no other way around it.

If you don’t rule in that manner and decide to rule another way, then you are ingrained in their society and become their protector. And it does take more effort and intelligence, but it will last longer. It lasts longer because their existence would mean something and they become productive. We are talking about one civilization right? Because if there were more groups spread out around the planet, there will obviously be conflict brewing eventually. And we can go on about that situation. But this is one group or civilization. Heck, maybe they have allies! That’s why you need to be rational from the start.

The intelligence that requires you to reign in peace is rational. It has purpose other than self, and becomes a very productive society. The easy way is to use force. That cripples rational thinking. There is no rational thinking when you openly desire to abuse them. Rational thinking starts when you look at all the options: stay away, help their civilization, try to peacefully assimilate? Rational thinking also includes what to do if they attack, what if they involve me in their conflicts? But all of the above rational thinking goes away the moment you decide to act first without any evidence of them plotting and subjugate them out of paranoia and pleasure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You propose peace, cooperation, and rationality as the best way forward, which aren't without merit, but here's a novel idea you may not have considered. What if it were possible to enjoy the best of both worlds?  Approach under the guise of peace, engage with their head of state or whatever gnats they call leaders, and in exchange for unyielding loyalty, unquestionable obedience, and total worship, I promise safety for themselves, their families and those closest to them, and most importantly, the military. Even better, shower favor and reward their elite so that they genuinely prefer the new status quo over the old by ensuring they become the ruling class.  Make it so they are no longer following me out of threat of force, but because I make their tiny lives even better for them.  Then with a police state enforced, I could have eyes and ears in the places too small for me to uncover and smite any unruly dissenters.  Eliminate the underground totally.  I'm not sure why I didn't think of this before.

would want to preserve their population to more than sustainable level, because without my tiny adorants I would be truly stranded and alone.  With the government and their military in hand, I would reduce my random acts of terror, something I imagine you would approve of, even while maintaining a very real and threatening presence to them.  I wonder if you would still find that cruel?  I think I agree that demoralizing them would be an effective method of suppressing rebellion only for as long as they feel they have something to lose. That is why by carrying a tiny glass jar in my pocket containing any number of their wives and daughters, I would be untouchable.  As a fairly virile male, I would wish to establish my machismo and dominance... and I think even you couldn't blame me for that.  By keeping a little batch of personal slaves on my person at all times, far above the reach of any would-be rescuers, they would not only help fulfill my sexual needs, but they would serve as my insurance against a surprise attack.  If my intentions may sound unethical to you, I would challenge you to state why.  Be aware that I would not needlessly cruel to my jarred slaves.  Actually, they would be afforded protection.  Would you still find it morally objectionable for me to maintain this little pocket prison then, and if so why?  Even the hardest of their jobs wouldn't be that hard -- which I stated before. If the tiny people can endure the tropical humidity of a guy's crotch and the smell of my feet, they'll be fine.  😛

When you mention the potential for other civilizations, you give me an even better idea.  You bring up the idea of allies, and while I can see the upside to to building these positive relationships that may help expand my influence, I wonder if you have considered the option of turning them against each other?   If there were far off lands, inhabited by similarly tiny people, I could gain favor with my subjects by stamping out their enemies for them.  I could my subjects enslave those I conquered.  In that case, it would ba win/win.  I would be #1 and I would have  fairly secure power structure supporting me.  

Edited by Jakeyjake
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of things I can propose that you haven’t thought about because you are not rational or sympathetic. And it isn’t anything new. Even things you think you can place in your favor, you will still underestimate the little people. I can pop many ideas into your head, and different scenarios, but it will come down to your unescapable authoritarian views that just aren’t realistic in any possible manner.

You jumped from ruling them abusively to proposing a spy network. So now you see your first proposal isn’t a reality? Tell me, how would you propose a realistic approach to infiltrate them? Do you want to move on to infiltration techniques?

The females you carry in your pockets, you will be untouchable for how long? Your days are numbered. They want their women back. Once again you propose retaliation. Everything you propose is a path to retaliation.

You are dreaming and fantasizing if you think you are the great persuader to turn tribe against tribe. And use a spy network after you admitted to wanting to rule them malevolently. So now we are discussing spy networks. After you have gained rationality? Intelligence?

First, you would have no idea which side to persuade. Like you said, they are nothing to you. Their ideas mean nothing. They are ants. Now you are considering them as being an equal? People you think you can persuade?

And your irrational behavior at the start to control them eliminates any possibility to gain any influence in the so called world if there are others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I concede that my first proposal was flawed.  You are assuming I am undermining the tiny people when it may not be the case in this new scenario.  There is a chance that my approach could be mutually beneficial.  We are both taking from each other, but we are both gaining something we wouldn't have had.  I would be getting the adulation and dominance I want, while they would be getting my protection from enemies and raw power.  It would be a legitimate way of ruling, if a bit harsh.  Not necessarily malevolent.    In exchange for their loyalty, I could protect them from all foreign threats.  I could crush their enemies, deliver enemy leaders to them, conquer in both our names.

As for establishing relations, there would be no need for me to infiltrate or be some great persuader.  I would just announce that I wish to speak to their head of state or whoever governed them, then locate where there they preside.  Before, my first instinct would be to just pick him up, hold him in front of my face, and say "You're going to do  everything I say, or I'll squash you like a bug."  However, I think there is a better approach, which would be to actually establish a legitimate relationship -- something I think you would support.  Tell them I want to come to an arrangement that will help us both.  In exchange, I want so and so.  Surely you would agree with that is fair, right?  It is rational and sympathetic, yes?

I wouldn't need to establish a spy network or infiltrate them. It would be more like their government would just deploy their military to stop unrest.  I wouldn't have to even tell them.  What I am talking about is currying the favor with their head of state, their lawmakers, their elite, and by extension, their military. Rather than command them to do what I say or be crushed, I could instead do favors for them and tell them that in return I expect undying loyalty.  I would make them genuinely want this new relationship because it benefits them.  How would it then be undermining them?  

As for the tiny females I would keep in the glass container within my pocket, yes some would want them returned.  So what?   What are they going to do?  Squeak at me from inside their prison?  It would fall on huge, deaf, and frankly uncaring ears.  Those who miss them would be outnumbered by the people who don't even know anything about the females I would capture.  And like I said, I wouldn't abuse the women.  That's the part you seem to be missing.  I wouldn't damage them or crush them for no reason.  I would need them as much as I would enjoy having them as company.  What makes you sure they would even be unhappy or want to be returned?   When not in the glass bottle within my pocket, they would have just a couple jobs: Marching along my penis shaft in order to arouse me enough me so that I ejaculate.  Women have been doing that for men for ages.   Also, to clean and scrub my sticky, smelly feet at the end of the day.  I'm a pretty active guy, and they probably have no giant showers.  You think they would revolt or break over that??

 

Edited by Jakeyjake
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems now you would rather get involved with their hierarchy of government which would mean that you place yourself into their conflicts. And giving them what they want in return to get things you want I agree would be a longer alternative to rule. But there would have to be a balance maintained. What if either side, you or them, weren’t offering enough or wanted too much?

That to me looks like more of a mafia racket by offering protection and in return they offer you pleasantries, whether it be gems, women, booze, or food. You are correct that it isn’t necessarily malevolent, but rackets like that could get violent very easily. That idea would be more rational, but to take women as an offer would not be sympathetic. To assume their lives would be better is just a tactical excuse.

From top down in their government, how would they acquire women for your pleasure? Would they volunteer? Would they be kidnapped? What happens when the public does find out? And do you stop at a certain number of women and expect nothing else? Cities usually have a brothel, maybe you can spend your resources to buy some ladies for the night if you become that desperate. How much of what rare foods would you want? Would you take all their silk for a soft bed and wardrobe? Would you pluck all the birds for a bunch of pillows? Would you harvest all their gems to shine on your body? That would mean to force labor camps into dangerous mines or working conditions to get enough. Would they then use child labor for extra help? These are consequences from what you propose. Is it that much different from all out forcing them yourself or get stomped?

How much is enough? These are the realities in rackets. Who does the dirty work to get what you want? The ‘little’ little people. And when those refuse to take that abuse, then who is gonna get what you want? Their government comes up short. You act in retaliation. Then the delicate balance becomes chaotic.

You would have to offer something for the people and not just their government bodies if you want to maintain rule and peace. The ‘little’ little people are just as integral to stability as their government and foreign influence would be. To satisfy them, you would have to grant them rights. So that would be the most rational, and in effect creates the most sympathetic way to rule, which also in effect creates a longer and more productive rule.

To help your case, if there was a time of war between the little people, then your proposal will shine the greatest. You will provide the protection and some would even be willing to sacrifice personal things for you. But I guess that would only work in a warring state. In a time of peace, I don't see how that would last that long. But even if there was war, and you abuse your leverage, they could defect. Always different scenarios playing and nothing set in stone. With force, there is always a cold response. When they all have rights, they respect you, their government, and would never defect. But once they lose that respect. All options are on the table.  

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maintaining the balance may be challenging, but worst case I have the upper hand as the superior being.  It is much like a mafia racket; you're spot on. And the mafia has existed a long time and many of the most prominent crime families have lived long, rich lives.  However, in this scenario the "racket" wouldn't be totally one-sided like before. I would offer protection from foreign threats, and if they wished, crush foreign rivals. 

Arbitrary symbols of "wealth" such as gems, precious metals, or currency would have no value to me as giant, nor would a luxury fabrics or extravagant wardrobes.  Wouldn't even need a t-shirt.  I'd good with a pair of shorts and running shoes, which ideally I would have brought with me before becoming stranded.  My greatest assets would be human capital and control over it: based on what you have told me (and I now agree with this) I would need to maintain an equilibrium with the tiny people in order to meet my physical needs and survive.  Taking a hundred cows (as you referenced) wouldn't be necessary when they instead agree to build a hundred factory farms, each with a workforce to match. Child labor laws are for them to work out not me.  Even if I wanted to, it would be unrealistic for me to regulate such things

3 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

From top down in their government, how would they acquire women for your pleasure? Would they volunteer? Would they be kidnapped? What happens when the public does find out? And do you stop at a certain number of women and expect nothing else? Cities usually have a brothel, maybe you can spend your resources to buy some ladies for the night if you become that desperate.

But you haven't come up with a better solution or even a suitable alternative than I have to the question: how else to satisfy male sexual needs as a lone giant amidst of race of people the size of ants or even smaller?   As a fully developed adult male with a healthy sexual appetite, masturbating wouldn't fulfill the totality of it, and like any guy, I would still masturbate a lot anyway.  Wouldn't you?  And wouldn't you take advantage of the situation, like any proper guy would? Top down orders to their government and volunteers (which includes a brothel) being out of the question, there would no choice but to crouch down and take what I need by force.  Gently pinching the tiny women in between my fingers and lowering them into my collection jar.  Any husband or father screaming in objections tempts fate by gaining my notice. With a hundred or so wives and daughters trapped in a glass bottle in my pocket, yes, I would stop at around that number.  Having enough tiny beings who can satisfy any inexplicable whims, caprices, and urges I have, at any time, by making them do any unspeakable yet stimulating thing on or to my penis to make me ejaculate -- that would serve both to satisfy my male sexual needs and fuel my sense of machismo.  As a male you imagine it as unpleasant because it's another guy's dick.  But they are women.  

Truth told, I would even keep second glass collection jar in my pocket, containing tiny men who I use as a focus for all my frustrations.  I could think of plenty of fiendish ideas to prank them that wouldn't be harmful: tapping my fingernail on the glass, shaking them.  I'm a pretty active guy; there would be no showers.  As mentioned, putting them to work cleaning my sticky, smelly feet at the end of each day would feel absolutely delightful.  And that scale, everything would be magnified to them, so they may want gas masks or hazmat suits.  But then, what fun is that for me?  😃  Again, you see it as probably cruelly unpleasant: is it that, or is it just harmless fun at their expense?

Edited by Jakeyjake
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have a superiority complex if you think you can gather any women you want for pleasure or harm men for fun. To cross species like that and just use them as a tool is an even more deep seeded complex. I don’t think it really comes down to you having needs alone as a giant. You have the need to objectionalize them.

To have any position of power with that mindset is always detrimental to society. Your mafia way of ruling doesn’t keep the public bountiful, just the ones in power. You wouldn’t even need to exist in their society if everything was conflict free. If it was run by a mafia racket, they would try to quell any disputes behind the scenes. So the majority of the people wouldn’t even feel they need your protection.

Like I mentioned before, you would only thrive in warring states. Pit groups against each other, offer one side protection for your pleasantries? Or be the crime boss of all the families and destroy any family that doesn’t pay up, even if there are no inter family disputes? Start a war with another civilization and offer a side protection?

So far subjugating them doesn’t work in the long run. And mafia style only works in conflicts. There is no decent way to rule when you objectionalize those you want to rule over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said:

So far subjugating them doesn’t work in the long run.

 

But Reality: look at North Korea.  The Kim dynasty has been in power since before the 1950s: three generations I think?   They have successfully held power through top-down control of the government, their ruling class, and their military.  Kim Jong Un routinely utilizes oppression, fear, and yes, secret police to stifle uprisings.  Every house in North Korea has a portrait of Kim Jong Un over their dinner table.  He is worshipped as being about equal to a god.  That method of control and brainwashing has worked for them for decades. The quality of life in North Korea is poor as a result of this, yes.. so production may be hurt.   But as far as we we know, there isn't much crime in North Korea.  Criminals aren't tolerated.  You say that eventually the people would rise up against an oppressive giant.. but look at North Korea, where there have been no uprisings and one of the most authoritarian dictators in modern history.  How does that fit into your theory about oppression, force, and brainwashing wouldn't work against the tiny people? From where I stand, it looks like subjugating can and has worked in the long run.  If it works in North Korea, why wouldn't it work in the scenario in question?  

The approach of a power broker which I have trying to float (even though I find it very imperfect) wouldn't work because that would cause too much internal rivalry, you think.  Then it seems that ruling as a god would: the tyrannical approach would be more effective and way more satisfying, and who wouldn't enjoy every second of it?   My ideal society would have one law, one punishment: "Worship me, or I will stamp my feet on your cities."  😃

You skirt over an important question still: how else to satisfy male sexual needs as a lone giant amidst of race of people the size of ants or even smaller?  You disapprove of my proposed methods (the taking of women) first because you believe the civilization would rise up to take them back.  Are you sure? Kim Jong Un and the North Korean government kidnap and "make disappear" political rivals on a routine basis.  Their families tend to go the same way.  No one over there makes a peep, or they're next.  And even I wouldn't just make them disappear utterly. In my case they would be protected inside a glass container and kept safely in the pocket of my shorts as I walk around, uncap their container whenever I want to use them to "take care of business."   You say it's wrong because it signifies a superiority complex... well, who wouldn't have a bit of a superiority complex, if they were giant? 

Are you that incorruptible? Are you that sympathetic, rational, and evolved? In your first reply, even you stated you would stomp around and spit on them for fun.... Do you think you would be any kinder?  Given enough time as a hulking titan, would your perception of them change?  Are you that incorruptible? Are you that sympathetic, rational, and evolved?  As for the tiny men I may or may not keep in another container: toying with them, how would what I described be harmful or unduly cruel?

 

Edited by Jakeyjake
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...