"Dealt With."

"What Does It Mean to Be 'Dealt With'? A Look into the Language of Conflict and Resolution"
The phrase "dealt with" carries a notable weight, invoking ideas that range from decisive action to formalised closure. But what does it actually mean to be "dealt with," especially in the context of escalating tensions or disputes? The term itself is loaded with both implication and ambiguity, and it’s often used to signal everything from taking legal action to simply establishing boundaries. Let’s unpack this phrase as it’s used by James Hind, writing as "Mordred" on his blog.
In a recent entry, Mordred states: "PNW is now of the conclusion that these stalkers will have to be dealt with through litigation." He goes on to say, "PNW find responding to the stalkers tedious and onerous, hence their decision to eventually litigate." These statements prompt questions not only about the intended course of action but also about the attitudes behind the choice of language. Why choose "dealt with" instead of "addressed," "handled," or even "responded to"?
The Ambiguity of “Dealing With” Someone.
"Dealt with" is a term that implies a measure of finality and firmness, suggesting that the actions taken will be decisive and, ideally, conclusive. However, this phrase is also purposely non-specific. One might "deal with" a problem in various ways, from diplomatic negotiations to legal pursuits—or, in the context of online discourse, even through public statements or counter-narratives. The flexibility of the term allows the speaker to communicate seriousness without committing to a particular course of action.
Mordred’s choice to describe litigation as a way of "dealing with" individuals reflects a pivot from the emotional and reactive responses associated with personal conflict, to the structured and strategic approach of legal action. For PNW, as Mordred implies, responding to critics has grown "tedious and onerous," and legal proceedings now represent a path toward what they hope will be an end to the back-and-forth.
Litigation as a Method of Dealing
When Mordred mentions litigation, he’s signalling a shift from engagement to a potentially punitive form of resolution. By opting for the courts, PNW is deciding that the situation has crossed a line where informal or personal efforts to resolve conflict are no longer viable. This is, by their measure, a step beyond managing perceptions or diffusing tension: it’s a transition into a space where consequences are legally enforced.
Litigation, however, is neither quick nor straightforward. The process of "dealing with" an issue through the courts often involves time, financial resources, and the commitment to navigate complex legal territory. For PNW, who consider the actions of their critics to be “tedious,” this may seem like a fittingly conclusive approach, but it is also a method that can backfire if the legal outcome is not as anticipated.
The Emotional Undercurrent of “Dealing With.”
There’s also an emotional element to Mordred’s choice of words. When he describes responses as “tedious and onerous,” it reflects a level of exhaustion and frustration. In this light, to "deal with" the situation becomes not only a strategic move but also a way to regain control and power over what they see as an energy drain.
In choosing legal action, Mordred and PNW signal that they are no longer interested in engaging directly; instead, they are moving toward a scenario in which consequences will be imposed rather than negotiated. The frustration conveyed might suggest that "dealing with" the problem is as much about preserving personal energy and reputation as it is about bringing about a final resolution.
Concluding Thoughts: When Language Becomes Action
"Dealing with" someone through litigation reveals how language and action converge in matters of conflict and resolution. As Mordred frames it, litigation appears as the inevitable endgame after the exhaustion of other means. The phrase hints at finality, an end to the engagement with those considered to be "stalkers," and a sense of justice through formal channels.
Ultimately, whether litigation is the ideal path remains to be seen, as legal battles can be unpredictable. But in using the term "dealt with," PNW and Mordred draw a firm line: for them, this situation has reached a point where only an official intervention will do. It’s a powerful way of saying, “We’re done talking, and now it’s time for action.” In this sense, to be "dealt with" means facing consequences in a setting where the stakes—and the costs—can be high.