I think retribution is an appropriate act where injustice is concerned, because only then can justice be maintained.

The problems occur invariably whenever the collectivist mindset seeps in to the equation. It introduces a host of fallacy and bias, like guilt by association, and it isn’t long before vengeance is sought on those who are innocent.

So I don’t agree that revenge is something we ought not to do. We ought to do it in the service of justice, and refrain from being unjust while doing so. We cannot let people get away with tyranny and injustice if we are to survive as a species.

... if we are to survive as a species. — NOS4A2

How collectivist of you ... :mask:

Speaking your language.

Do you not think that just as it's true of local political gangsters like Hamas, it's also true of the economic terrorism and the economic horror employed by an organised globally nefarious, abominably rich elite? — universeness

I don't see how the two are associated, even in the dictionary.

I could offer my choice of quotes and a brief personal summary of the other article: Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful. I will, if you think such might be of use, but it seems to me that the Chimpanzee use of 'vengence' is very localised, and does not ever become 'vendetta.' What is your opinion on this? — universeness

I think being complex beings, we are going to have complex responses. We have the ability for deep compassion and deep rage and horrific acts.

Were the Vikings terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Huns terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Mongols terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
And on and on.

Who is worse, the Hatfields or Maccoys?
Who is worse, the Trojans or the Greeks? Helen of Troy was kidnapped...

I would say in all cases you need to demonize the enemy for you to do atrocious acts but I don't think that's all of it.. Besides individual psychological makeups of individuals who might have tendencies for anti-social behavior, you have cultures that simply downplay the ethics of suffering when it comes to its enemies. By what means did the Vikings and Mongols justify how they conducted war, for example? It wasn't necessarily that they de-humanized the other. They simply never thought of their tactics as wrong perhaps. It was what a warrior did.

The problem with such "preparation" is that the very same people "preparing" others that way are probably also themselves the perpetrators of "horror and terror". — baker

You keep jumping to these extremities of possibility, in an almost knee-jerk manner imo.
From claiming that 4 year old human wisdom, is capable of understanding nefarious human manipulation of horror and terror, to perpetrators of horror and terror being the ones who would be chosen as the teachers of how to defend yourself against such!!

Like when kindergarden nurses beat children in order to "teach" them to be kind and not to beat children. — baker

What exactly is it you are trying to warn against here? Bad kindergarten nurses or preparing people to defend themselves against terror and horror tactics by terrifying them and horrifying them? I don't see the need to teach the dangers of fire to others, by burning them a little or a lot. I agree that 'experience is the best teacher,' but it is not the only effective method. We have plenty of memorialised horror and terror examples recorded on film and testimony. We don't need to have people physically and mentally experience the extremes of horror and terror to train them to deal with it better.
In this under 2 min clip from Babylon 5, the character Marcus, talks a little about his Minbari training.
What do you think of his brief mention of 'terror'?


How can we better defend a population against the nefarious use of horror and terror?
I think the answer lies in learning how to be much better at surgical removal, as opposed to being very good at using a blood axe or a large bludgeoning war hammer, on anyone who has the same or similar religious/race/societal etc, profile, to your perceived 'enemy.' Is this not happening in Gaza right now? Just like Hamas wanted and expected? They were surely not so dumb as being surprised at Israels response!

Such preparation could be effective only if the preparer and the prepared would be in a relationship of mutual trust. For the most part, this is not possible, though. So people learn a double moral standard from early on. — baker

So , do you truly believe the words I have underlined above? Have you no positive experiences of being in a relationship, of any kind, where mutual trust was employed and was not abused or taken advantage of in a nefarious way, by either side? As a classroom teacher, of over 30 years, I had many such positive 'mutual trust' experiences with individual pupils.

Could she have had better results and outcomes, if she had taken wiser actions?
— universeness
And what would such "wiser actions" be? Submitting to the Romans? — baker

There was no notion of nationhood in the Island of Britain, during the days of Boudica. She is described as leading the Iceni. I doubt that is what they even called themselves. Iceni is a Latin/Roman name.
Many other local tribes joined her resistance against the Roman invaders, yes, probably to protect their own areas, resources and people, but, the fact that their tactics were ultimately totally defeated by Rome, for me, demonstrates not that they were wrong to resist Rome but that their method of doing so, proved wrong headed. That's the main point I am making, and the main question I was asking, is, did Boudica make too many mistakes, because her leadership was blindsided by her need for personal vengeance against Rome? Is there not an important lesson for us all to understand about such stories, even though they are mostly mythical and based on the unreliable reports, produced mainly by historians, who came from the side of the victors?

Isn't it also showbiz? A snuff movie? Explosions, screams, fire, ruins, dramatic footage of people suffering in the aftermath - this guarantees notoriety, being talked about, filmed, covered by journalists, discussed by taxi drivers, parsed on philosophy fora... — Tom Storm

So, if what you suggest here is true, then are the news reports we receive about such global events, our own governments attempt to control it's population by exemplifying the horrors happening elsewhere, so that we remained terrified that that might happen to us, if we don't 'appreciate' the efforts our 'beloved' leaders employ, to protect us against such terrorists as Hamas and their like, Putin and his like, Netanyahu and his like, etc? Are we being irrational conspiracy jerks to think that our government is colluding with the media to employ horror and terror in these ways or is this just the news media accurately reporting what is happening on the ground, or is the truth somewhere between these two possibilities? How important do you think it is for all of us to understand what's really going on, better than we do at present? Historically, we seem to keep making the same mistakes again and again Tom. This happens at a personal, local, national and even international level. Imo, this produces nihilists, misanthropes, doomsters and burned out dreamers, by the bucket load. Quite a few of such folks post on TPF, imo. Surely we can't just hand wave them all away.

Most of our foundational stories, our religions and myths showcase acts of vengeance, so perhaps we are primed by generations of such storytelling. But I don't find this behavior surprising given our capacity for creativity, story telling, design and forethought - isn't it just the shadow side of human competence? We demonstrate our love of others by offering them care and resources. We demonstrate our hatred of others by wanting to harm them. — Tom Storm

Yes, I think the words I have underlined above, are true.
I need a little more regarding the words I have italicised. What do you mean by 'the shadow side of human competence? Is this a reference to the range of individual levels of human ignorance displayed or demonstrated, regarding what is really going on or is this a reference to those humans who hold nefarious intent behind their actions? My questions are more about the desperate need I perceive, to direct 'hate' in far more accurate and precise ways. To learn the use of the surgical scalpel, rather than the indiscriminate blood axe, war hammer or missile strike.

It seems horror (i.e. cruelty-betrayal, oppression, dispossession, murder) breeds terror (i.e. anxiety-trauma, vengence, resistance, despair). In many regards, including this one, h. sapiens only differ in degree, not in kind, from other higher mammals. — 180 Proof

I am not sure which mammals you are referring to with 'other higher mammals' and in what sense you are employing the notion of 'higher.' Apart from that, your agreement with @Vera Mont, that human law has performed quite well in bringing peddlers or manipulators of horror and terror to justice, does not fully hold for me. Such laws fail completely as often as they succeed imo. I would not be without them but we need to do far far better. In the 'Culture is Critical' thread. Both Vera and I agreed (I think) that a far more robust and reliable 'grievance system' was required at all level of human existence. I think this is sooooooo essential, at these more extreme levels of individual or group experiences of being the victims of any deliberate horror/terror campaign.
We cannot keep making the same wrong-headed and knee-jerk responses that we have been making during, since, and even before, the days of Sparta. It causes many people to turn misanthrope.
How would you respond to a poll question like:

Ignoring any bias from being one, do you think the universe would be a better place without humans?

How would you respond to a poll question like:

Ignoring any bias from being one, do you think the universe would be a better place without humans? — universeness

It was just fine without human beings during the 13.8 billion years prior to a quarter million years ago so I suspect – consistent with the mediocrity principle – that the universe would be neither worse nor better off without us.

I am not sure which mammals you are referring to with 'other higher mammals' ...

I'm referring to
- primates
- cetaceans
- elephantidae
- (also) "domesticated" canines, felines, etc

I think retribution is an appropriate act where injustice is concerned, because only then can justice be maintained. — NOS4A2

I broadly agree but the devil is in the detail of that word 'appropriate.'

The problems occur invariably whenever the collectivist mindset seeps in to the equation. It introduces a host of fallacy and bias, like guilt by association, and it isn’t long before vengeance is sought on those who are innocent. — NOS4A2

Again I agree with the 'problem' you identify but we cannot just 'accept the inevitability' of your last sentence above, as that is a completely unacceptable outcome. Do you have no conviction whatsoever that your last sentence can be prevented more and more often, until it becomes almost unheard of?

So I don’t agree that revenge is something we ought not to do. We ought to do it in the service of justice, and refrain from being unjust while doing so. We cannot let people get away with tyranny and injustice if we are to survive as a species. — NOS4A2

We also cannot accept the fallout from the methods we currently use to respond to acts of horror and terror. The death of so many innocents is an 'end justifies the means' approach that results in a perpetual brinksmanship that may destroy our species for the stupidest reasons there is.
The links provided by @schopenhauer1, had this entry:

Humans have a pretty strong taste for revenge, even when it costs them dearly. — universeness

I think this is a very important danger to highlight, in the words I have underlined, as I think they point to a clear and present existential danger, to our entire species.

But, the same article also offered:

In real life, whistle-blowers risk their careers to call attention to corporate wrong-doing, even when they are not harmed directly. This kind of “altruistic punishment” is thought to play an important role in the evolution and maintenance of cooperation in large groups. — universeness

I find this much more hopeful for us all.

Do you not think that just as it's true of local political gangsters like Hamas, it's also true of the economic terrorism and the economic horror employed by an organised globally nefarious, abominably rich elite?
— universeness

I don't see how the two are associated, even in the dictionary. — Vera Mont

Which two? Gangsters like Hamas and an organised globally nefarious abominably rich elite or horror and terror. I suspect its horror and terror but if that is the case then I don't follow your meaning. Are you suggesting there is no association between horror and terror?

that the universe would be neither worse nor better off without us. — 180 Proof

I just do not understand how you arrive at that. I know you can be a bit cryptic at times but I assumed, that you have previously agreed, that humans create meaning and purpose in ways that no other existent we know of, can or does. Do you disagree with that? or is it more that you don't think that our ability to demonstrate and assign meaning and purpose etc, is of great value in the way I propose it is?

I think being complex beings, we are going to have complex responses. We have the ability for deep compassion and deep rage and horrific acts. — schopenhauer1

Agreed.

Were the Vikings terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Huns terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Mongols terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
And on and on.

Who is worse, the Hatfields or Maccoys?
Who is worse, the Trojans or the Greeks? Helen of Troy was kidnapped... — schopenhauer1

All good historical references that exemplify a point I am proposing. All the examples above are humans in full competitive mode imo, and all feeding from the primeval 'rules of survival in the wilds' experience. Horror and terror have been used by all the example you cited above. Eventually one group 'conquered' another and then they were in command for a while, and to some degree or another the conquerers and conquered 'merged.' Cooperation at some point, is also employed and the proposal that 'lets forget all the past horror and terror between us, lets cooperate instead for our mutual benefit.'
That to me seems like a very long bloody road to reach a conclusion that could have been practiced from the start. The Vikings, Huns, Mongols, Trojans, Greeks, Hatfields and MacCoys, were also capable (and demonstrated that capability) to trade and tolerate the existence of different cultures. Does this not suggest that humans are capable of doing so much better when dealing with each other that our bloody history or current local wars and use of horror and terror tactics suggest?

I would say in all cases you need to demonize the enemy for you to do atrocious acts but I don't think that's all of it.. Besides individual psychological makeups of individuals who might have tendencies for anti-social behavior, you have cultures that simply downplay the ethics of suffering when it comes to its enemies. By what means did the Vikings and Mongols justify how they conducted war, for example? It wasn't necessarily that they de-humanized the other. They simply never thought of their tactics as wrong perhaps. It was what a warrior did. — schopenhauer1

Do you think the words I have underlined were a wise approach to the circumstances you describe of those times?
Also the did 'dehumanise' imo, because they always taught their own that they were superior in all the ways that mattered to the people they targeted for conquest. Would you agree that 'fascist' approach was always prevalent in the words of those who led bands of raiders/conquerers?

I don't know if you have ever watched Babylon 5, but I have always found this extract very interesting:
What do you think of this depiction, its around 3 mins long?

Which two? Gangsters like Hamas and an organised globally nefarious abominably rich elite or horror and terror. — universeness

Religious nationalists and greedy capitalists. How you characterize groups of people depends on which side you're on and what you believe the fight is about.

Apart from that, your agreement with Vera Mont, that human law has performed quite well in bringing peddlers or manipulators of horror and terror to justice, does not fully hold for me. — universeness

I really wish you would not misrepresent my remarks!

Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all. — Vera Mont

was in response to:

After my initial thoughts, it seemed so 'correct' to me that the 'kill, kill kill the bastards, and 'I must take total revenge on all they care about!' was what we must learn not to do, if we want to survive as a species. — universeness

I said nothing at all about how well the law performs against horror and terror, nothing about peddlers or manipulators or justice.

I said nothing at all about how well the law performs against horror and terror, nothing about peddlers or manipulators or justice. — Vera Mont

Yes you did! you typed:

Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. — Vera Mont

In what way is this not a comment on:

how well the law performs against horror and terror, — Vera Mont

So, if what you suggest here is true, then are the news reports we receive about such global events, our own governments attempt to control it's population by exemplifying the horrors happening elsewhere, so that we remained terrified that that might happen to us, — universeness

I think that's sometimes a consequence, sure. What I meant is that terrorist acts and retribution are a form of showbiz - a vulgar calling card of the protagonists who can rely upon world media to build or amplify their notoriety and power. Those who seek to gain their revenge can also demonstrate their power and credentials. I make no comment on accuracy of media reports and I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think the problem is that parties feel they need to put on bigger and better bangs and flashes and produce higher bodycounts to demonstrate their commitment to a cause, along with their might.

How important do you think it is for all of us to understand what's really going on, better than we do at present? Historically, we seem to keep making the same mistakes again and again Tom — universeness

I don't see how we can gain a pure understanding of what is going on. It will always be an interpretation subject to a set of values. In many instances the why may not matter as this becomes a justification and we shouldn't be able to justify the mass murder of innocents.

What do you mean by 'the shadow side of human competence? Is this a reference to the range of individual levels of human ignorance displayed or demonstrated, regarding what is really going on or is this a reference to those humans who hold nefarious intent behind their actions? — universeness

They were two small points and you may not agree. The flip side of our capacity to care and nurture is our capacity to harm and destroy. I am never surprised by our willingness to do the latter. I think cruelty is a reality of human nature. A primitive impulse to destroy lies just below the surface. Throw in tribalism and age old blood feuds and it no longer seems to matter who gets hurt.

To learn the use of the surgical scalpel, rather than the indiscriminate blood axe, war hammer or missile strike. — universeness

I agree this would be desirable.

It was just fine without human beings during the 13.8 billion years prior to a quarter million years ago so I suspect – consistent with the mediocrity principle – that the universe would be neither worse nor better off without us. — 180 Proof

I tend to agree. Humans may frequently strike each other as marvellous creatures, but I don't think we can say that our presence on earth has made the place any better.

In what way is this not a comment on: [how well the law performs against horror and terror] — universeness

In the way I indicated. It was about how we, humans in societies, have learned to suppress the impulse for personal revenge and defer to socially constituted legal mechanisms. I didn't evaluate the efficacy of those mechanisms. And there was a second sentence, which appears to have escaped your notice:
"In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all"
If my answers cause so much confusion, perhaps I am unable to communicate clearly enough. Perhaps I should suppress the impulse to respond.

Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all. — Vera Mont

FWIW, I found your meaning perfectly clear. :up:

I just do not understand how you arrive at that. — universeness

Reread the preceding two-thirds of the sentence in question in order to grok the last third.

I assumed, that you have previously agreed, that humans create meaning and purpose in ways that no other existent we know of, can or does. Do you disagree with that? 

We "create meaning and purpose" for ourselves, that's all we "know" – which is merely parochial and anthropocentric – so big whup! Evidently, the universe doesn't care one wit. Copernicus' principle is consistent with Zapffe-Camus' absurd. On a cosmic scale, universeness, the whole of our quarter-milluon year young species is infinitesmal in significance (though that might change ever so slightly with the advent of our "last invention": AGI—>ASI). H. sapiens is only a few footprints in a cosmic surf which postbiomorphs might 'rediscover' as an anomalous fossil worthy of study. Apparently you've repeatedly ignored my stated position: We – all human civilizations – are just a cocoon, mate, not the butterfly. Denial of our manifest cosmic insignificance is, to my mind, religious. :sparkle: :pray: :eyes:

I didn't evaluate the efficacy of those mechanisms. And there was a second sentence, which appears to have escaped your notice:
"In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all" — Vera Mont

By suggesting that most individual humans defer to their legal system you imply they do have an efficacy that is sufficient for most but perhaps not fit for purpose for all concerned. To suggest you are not implying that is a bit bizarre to me. It was not an effort to read your second sentence, so it did not escape my notice. I agreed with its highlighting of the group or mob mentality but I disagree that a group or mob cannot be stopped in their tracks by robust, just and fair counter measures that allow for democratic protest, but not mob violence.

If my answers cause so much confusion, perhaps I am unable to communicate clearly enough. Perhaps I should suppress the impulse to respond. — Vera Mont

Now you are just hissing at me Vera. Respond to my posts when you feel compelled to do so, or/and you enjoy doing so. If I need you to clarify a point then I will continue to ask you to. If you feel frustration or impatience towards me, then feel free to take as long a break as you wish, from responding to my posts. Especially if you feel I consistently:

misrepresent my remarks! — Vera Mont

I enjoy our exchanges, including the times that your posts cause me to feel frustration and confusion.
That's all part of the fun of debate imo.

We "create meaning and purpose" for ourselves, that's all we "know" – which is merely parochial and anthropocentric – so big whup! — 180 Proof

So the meaning and purpose we create for ourselves has no commonality with many many others?

Evidently, the universe doesn't care one wit. Copernicus' principle is consistent with Zapffe-Camus' absurd. — 180 Proof

We are of the universe, yes? So why do you choose to isolate the meaning and purpose we each generate from that which we are part of and are a product of? I have never suggested that 'the universe,' 'cares,' about anything, other than through lifeforms such as us.

On a cosmic scale, universeness, the whole of our quarter-milluon year young species is infinitesmal in significance (though that might change ever so slightly with the advent of our "last invention": AGI—>ASI). H. sapiens is only a few footprints in a cosmic surf which postbiomorphs might 'rediscover' as an anomalous fossil worthy of study. Apparently you've repeatedly ignored my stated position: We – all human civilizations – are just a cocoon, mate, not the butterfly. Denial of our manifest cosmic insignificance is, to my mind, religious. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

No I have not repeatedly ignored your stated position, I have just disagreed with it. The cosmos is indeed vast but what does vast mean, without a creature such as we, who can wonder about what vast means?
The human ability to generate meaning and assign purpose is far, far more significant that you suggest, and is as significant as the 'vastness' of the cosmos. Even using your 250,000 years ago or the majority of the 13.8 billion years it took for your cocoon imagary to burst open. We did not become something as pretty and primitive as a butterfly but we did became conscious, sentient and probably the most advanced intellect we know of. I agree with you that I am far more anthropocentric than you are. I think by now, you know that I celebrate that difference between us, and I would love to convince you to be less misanthropic than I think you are.
I enjoy the tussle between us from the positions we hold, however, as it helps to air the debate.

By suggesting that most individual humans defer to their legal system you imply they do have an efficacy that is sufficient for most but perhaps not fit for purpose for all concerned. — universeness

I the remark was addressed solely to the ability of humans to control their natural impulses for the sake of social cohesion. What you infer is outside my purview.

If I need you to clarify a point then I will continue to ask you to. — universeness

I don't mind that. I do mind being misrepresented; I do mind having my statements interpreted as something quite different from what I actually said, whether it's done consistently, haphazardly or selectively.

I don't mind that. I do mind being misrepresented; I do mind having my statements interpreted as something quite different from what I actually said, whether it's done consistently, haphazardly or selectively. — Vera Mont

So, keep complaining about it and keep clarifying and correcting where you feel you need too.
I will keep interpreting what others type, in the ways that I do, as I have found my methods to be, in the main, quite successful and accurate. I am ok that some would completely disagree. I would be very surprised if that were not the case. If I misrepresent you again, then I am sure you will again make your position clearer. I have no significant concerns here.

I am not sure which mammals you are referring to with 'other higher mammals' ...
I'm referring to
- primates
- cetaceans
- elephantidae
- (also) "domesticated" canines, felines, etc — 180 Proof

Thanks for the clarification, I thought you might be suggesting that some 'other' mammals were 'higher' in some way than humans. That's why I also asked what you meant by 'higher.' But I think I see what you were getting at now.

It seems horror (i.e. cruelty-betrayal, oppression, dispossession, murder) breeds terror (i.e. anxiety-trauma, vengence, resistance, despair). In many regards, including this one, h. sapiens only differ in degree, not in kind, from other higher mammals. — 180 Proof

The degree of difference is very significant indeed, between humans and the other 'higher mammals,' you mentioned imo. No other species on Earth, demonstrates anything that comes anywhere near, the ways in which humans can manipulate the notions of horror and terror, imo. Do you agree? If not, do you have a clear example of a study that demonstrates a notion such as vendetta or using horror or terror as a deliberate part of an overall, often long term plan, to subjugate/conquer another group within any animal or insect species?

So, keep complaining about it and keep clarifying and correcting where you feel you need too. — universeness

As you wish.

Do you agree? If not, do you have a clear example of a study that demonstrates a notion such as vendetta or using horror or terror as a deliberate part of an overall, often long term plan, to subjugate/conquer another group within any animal or insect species? — universeness

You seemed to admit that ape hierarchy is an example of this. How it is that the alpha male dominates by intimidation and alliances, whilst forming alliances to keep him in charge.

“Terror and horror are so far opposite, that the first expands the soul, and awakens the faculties to a high degree of life; the other contracts, freezes, and nearly annihilates them.”
(Ann Radcliffe) — universeness

From Dictionary.com
Horror:
"1. An overwhelming and painful feeling caused by something frightfully shocking, terrifying, or revolting; a shuddering fear."
"2. Anything that causes such a feeling"
Terror:
"1. Intense, sharp, overmastering fear"
"2. An instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety"

From Cambridge Dictionary
Horror:
"A strong feeling of shock or fear, or something that makes you feel shocked or afraid"
Terror:
"A feeling of being very frightened"

Any dictionary and encyclopedia you open, you will find very similar meanings.

Anyone can see that these two words, not only they are not opposite --in any logical way-- but they are
instead quite close to each other. There's no space for a different interpretation between them.

This gal, Ann Radcliffe, like a lot of "intellectuals" need to feel they make a difference by inventing their own definintions, meanings and interpretations of words and terms, far from wat us the norm, so that they seem to stand out, be "special". Don't get attracted by this kind of shit.

Just think this: When someone reinvents the meaning of words and is using them as such and is even promoting these meanings to others, what s/he actual does is promoting misinformation putting his/her stone in the building of a Tower of Babel and create confusion in people.

I'm very strict about this. For me, this is a literary crime, and hence an information and communication crime.

Does anyone know of any example of human style 'vengeance,' being sought by any other species on Earth, other than humans? — universeness

A friend's cat which I had teased and annoyed a lot wreaked vengeance on my person whenever I visited. Quite justifiably.

Crows apparently sort out humans into "friendly" and "not-friendly" categories and take such vengeance as they can on not-friendly people.

Inanimate objects can be quite malicious and will take vengeance on the animal kingdom, especially our species, but others as well.

More seriously, though, what facilitates human vengeance are extensive cognitive resources to carry out the impulses of the emotions. Most animals lack the capacity. Animals are equipped for self-defense, territorial defense, off-spring defense, food defense, and so on. But when the defense is over, it's over. With humans, one never knows whether it's over or not. Years can pass before vengeance is taken.

I agree 100%. Off with her head!

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.

Ha! Nice.
(I love these two characters!)

What is a word but an idea? It can be a jumping off point to explore deeper meanings contained in its potential.

I can see the use of the distinction between terror (fear of the unknown or the future) and horror (fear or revulsion of what has happened). I can see one leading to the other.

The horror of Viking tactics strikes terror on their enemies. But it might not. It might provoke feelings of retribution or justice. Justice might be revenge but it might be a resolve to stop the horror from continuing- to lick the Vikings at their own game.