This is a question of competence. There's no dilemma for someone that has practiced competence and obtained resources via said competence. So the question isn't who the bigger threat is; the question is who's capable of executing said "threat".
This is also the answer to why people commit suicide and don't "take out some of them" instead.
The cold hard truth is it's not okay to be weak. Harmless means helpless.
This is precisely why whites are attacked in the street, legislated against and and sued for self-defense. Instead of fighting back they just try to survive. Only when whites realize that if you are attacked in any way you have to retaliate hurt the person more than they hurt you will the persecution end.
I'm assuming this question implies that both men are of equal capability.
I'm saying the bigger threat is the man with everything to lose. Unfortunately, worldly possessions are fleeting and they both mesh again in certain layers. On the surface, however, it's clearly the latter: the man that has exacted his plans and developed discipline, which garnered him the competence resources demand, is a much bigger threat. This is why it's not okay to be poor and enslaved. This is why it's not okay to be weak and helpless.
You either roll over and cry yourself to sleep or you pick yourself up, make plans, take aim and keep trying until you develop the competence to be useful.
Holy shit. I did not expect this caliber of answer.
Yes indeed. This needs to be stickied.
There's more to it though: the volume of the first group matters. When enough people have nothing to lose, that's when the threatened group will seek to benefit from organization.
(post is archived)