Talk:Coercion

message: Apparently some writers think that coercion is about preventing people from having a "free will" which is bizarre and not in accordance with the general understanding of what it means for an act to be coerced. If someone threatens to kill you if you don't fulfill his request, then if you ever had free will then of course you still have it. But, what you will is probably going to change because a threat of force from another person is now a factor in making a decision on what to do. That is what constitutes the "coercion." The person is making a choice that he would not have otherwise willed if the force or threat of force was not there. RJII 22:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what your point is. No-one's saying coercion removes a person's free will permanently; the argument is pointing up that free will remains even in the worst of situations; there are always choices, even if all the options are bad. Rd232 10:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Coercion and free will

message: I see little here about coercion made possible (even encouraged) via the legal system.  I don't mean by the state necessarily.  I mean individuals who use the threat of lawsuits to bully people into silence, saying what thay want, etc.; especially when the victim has little money to fight it.  Or plea-bargains as a form of coercion (the most blatent example I can think of is the person who plead guilty to avoid a death sentence -- the jury was about to find him not guilty.  A good example of how the system does not follow 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as it says it does:  even though the system did not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and though he may be innocent, he is spending life in prison).
It seems that coercion is a common, if not the most common, tool used in western legal systems.  Is there anyone who knows enough about it to add something to this article?24.64.223.203 07:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was removed by User:Aprock in October 2014. Should we restore this section, then? Jarble (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are any reasonable sources which establish the mainstream view of this, please add the content.  The sections I removed were unsourced essays and synthesis. aprock (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal coercion 

message: Under the subheading "Psychological effects", it says:
:The opposite view was however the dominant one within what Karl Popper (1945) has called the Platonic tradition, which included among other things both mainstream Christianity and Hegel’s philosophy, with its later polar developments of Marxism and Fascism.
Does Popper place "mainstream Christianity" within the Platonic tradition? If so, it should be made clearer. If it is just opinion that mainstream Christianity is psychologically coercive, I'd remove it. Has it not always been mainstream within the church to allege that without a change in desire (will) a person cannot be saved and that therefore salvation must be voluntary? Or is the doctrine of hell coercive? If it is true, is it still coercive? Srnec 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think of it like this; If I warn you that there is a waterfall at the end of the river, Does that make it coercion? Even if there isn't a waterfall but I THOUGHT there was one. Its still not coercion. Mainstream Christianity is trying to *warn* people, not force them to believe in the warning. Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream Christianity

message: Its stated that religious coercion is a predatory coercion were the selfish entity is a supernatural one. Couldn't also be a pedagogic coercion too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.55.195.217 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious coercion 

message: I am confused about this classification system. When classifying the varieties of coercion, there is indeed a relevant distinction to be made between physical and non-physical coercion.
But the further subdivision into psychological and economic coercion puzzles me, and the category of psychological coercion seems either misnamed or too broad.
Under this category of psychological coercion, only two examples are what i would describe as literal psychological coercion ('coercion of the mind'): 
#coercive persuasion
#Lifton's research on 'thought reform'
The other examples in the psychological coercion section differ from these two in that they involve the threat of real tangible action (though not physical action, at least not by way of physical force aimed at the target).  Here i refer to blackmail (threat to disseminate information) and the bit about plea bargaining.  Although this is off the main topic, I feel it necessary to add here that i don't think the plea bargaining bit is coercion.  The accused still has the freedom to choose to accept the bargain or not.  This really is negotiation or bargaining, isn't it?
Also there are examples which may not fit any current category.  What if the mode of leverage is not physical, mental, or economic, but one of authority over a particular area of space (this might be economic, but if so the economic coercion section should be clearer since the resources referred to are all commodities.  can these resources include labor or territory?).  For example, a bar patron has a discussion with a bouncer in that bar.  The bouncer forces the patron to concede an argument by threatening to never let the patron in the bar again if the patron continues to argue.  In which category does this belong?
Another possibly currently uncategorizable example is that of a police officer or government official who uses his authority corruptly.  By choosing when to look the other way, the official can coerce action.
My proposal for reclassification:
*physical coercion
*nonphysical coercion
**psychological coercion
**economic coercion
***information coercion (information is property or at least has value or is an economic resoure, right?) including blackmail.  possibly add something here about rootkitting etc.
***resource coercion
**legal authority coercion
i have no formal background, so i will not be bold and attempt a rewrite before awaiting comments.  if no one chimes in i plan to write something new within a week or so.
one last query: is the previous paragraph an example of coercion?  is it coercion only if the reader does not want a rewrite according to the above specifications?  does it deserve a separate category ('contingent coercion' or something)?
Timothy.lucas.jaeger (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Means section (physical, psychological, economic classification system) 

message: It would be interesting if we could have information somewhere about women who are forced to have abortions in a variety of situations. It appears to be one of the most common forms of coercion in modern society.  ADM (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Forced abortions

message: Can someone either explain what this sentence means, or rephrase it please:
:"The most typical example of a command system is a military organisation, which is typically called a government, but any large production team may easily fall into this category."
In particular how does "which is typically called a government" fit in with the rest of the sentence? Murray Langton (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: line no long in the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't understand this sentence 

message: Take a look at Coercion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) for a recent summary of academic philosophical thought about coercion.  Most of what I see here is just laypeople presenting vague ideas and libertarian ideology.
Mhuben (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link, maybe worth putting as an External link or Further reading.  If you can see a way to improve the article please be bold and make those changes. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article ignores academic philosophy of coercion. 

message: This line is problematic-
Physical coercion is the most commonly considered form of coercion, where the content of the conditional threat is the use of force against a victim, their relatives or property.
Maybe there is a better word than victim for the person who is threatened.  Also, the threat of violence can be aimed at anyone they care for, not just directly or for relatives. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coercion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308180431/http://ptw.uchicago.edu/Anderson02.pdf to http://ptw.uchicago.edu/Anderson02.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ???!!!??? ..... ... .... ... ... ... SVS BSc RCN (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  COERCION AND SUICIDE 

message: methods of abusers: 1.Isolation · 2.Monopolization of Perception · 3.Induced Debility and Exhaustion · 4.Occasional Indulgences · 5.Threats · 6.Demonstrating Omnipotence / Devaluing the Individual · 7.Enforcing Trivial Demands
https://cultrecovery101.com/cult-recovery-readings/bidermans-chart-of-coercion/ 
--2.247.253.49 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biderman’s Chart of Coercion