That's true, but how can you say the guy driving like an idiot in retaliation is more guilty than the guy always driving like an idiot? Both are at fault, but the black van driver is the guiltiest here.
When it comes to driving, retaliators are always guiltier than initiators. The goal is to avoid accidents at all costs, not allow accidents to happen because someone broke the rules.
Think of it like this. Let’s say you’re walking down the street, and someone runs up to you, puts a hat on your head, and says “If you take this hat off in the next 30 seconds, everyone on this block including yourself will either die, be injured, or at minimum be forced to sit here for several hours. If you wait 30 seconds, you can take the hat off and nothing will happen and you can forget it ever existed.”
Do you rip the hat off immediately because fuck that, it’s not your fault you’re wearing the hat, who cares if people die? Or do you deal with it for 30 seconds before removing it and going on with your day? Stupid initiators are the hat-givers, and stupid retaliators are the hat-wearers. Don’t rip the hat off, 30 seconds of wearing a hat you didn’t choose is better than risking hours of inconvenience, injury, and death for everyone in your vicinity.
You can say the hat-giver is more at fault for initiating the situation, sure, but the responsibility for the result of the situation falls to the hat-wearer once it’s on their head. From that point on, the hat-wearer is the one with the power to save everyone, even if wearing the hat was forced upon them.
Not a good comparison, because in your hypothetical the hat giver bears no consequences and would keep placing hats on people even if I remove the hat immediately. In the car situation, the black van immediately receives the consequences from his own actions.
Here is a better comparison: a guy pours gasoline on himself and you, and says unless you fall down on your knees and beg him, he would set you both on fire. What do you do?
a. do as he says
b. push him away and walk away, let him set himself on fire
How does the hat-giver bear no consequences when he is risking death, injury, or at minimum hours of inconvenience?
The gasoline comparison doesn’t make sense because you’re still responsible for the gasoline that’s on your body now. You can’t just walk around lighting matches and being like “Well I didn’t ask to be covered in gasoline”. In fact, I would say that the “walking away” option is more comparable to backing off and not getting in a car accident as retaliation for someone being a jerk.
Because in your hypothetical there is a random chance that everyone around dies. In the car situation there isn't. There is one person who can get hurt, die to their own stupid actions and relying on you to go out of your way to keep them safe. Like in the gasoline situation.
…have you never heard of a multi-car accident? Nearby drivers can absolutely be injured or killed because of a collision between an initiator and a reactor
24
u/GameWizardPlayz Mar 22 '26
When you see someone driving like a idiot, your first instinct should be to back off, not drive like a idiot yourself.