Pacifism

[PsychicTaco115]

Recently, I read in this forum that pacifism was "pathetic, pretentious, cowardice" and as someone who staunchly believes in this topic, I felt I had to say something .-.

I hate harming people. I don't know why but I always imagine that person as a kid, that they have a family too that would feel their pain. I can't "dehumanize" another human because they ARE human.

Violence begets violence and all that sort of thing. It reminds me of Elizabeth from Burial at Sea: Episode 2 when she says

"It's like a wheel of blood spinning round and round."

I don't want to raise my hands to hurt because doing that kind of thing is like a drug; adrenaline rushes and shit are hard to get without an equal stimulus and it can potentially become an addiction if not handled correctly.

So yeah.... That's how I feel about it

How do you?

 

[Thaluikhain]

There's a big difference in not wanting to harm people, and not willing to harm people under any circumstances.

Harming people is very far from the first resort, but it's something that is depressingly commonly necessary.

 

[Zhukov]

Well, I have nothing against the principle.

I have tasted violence, both given and received, and I really, really didn't like it. It's ugly and it's scary. If someone wishes to live their life in such a way as to avoid ever inflicting it, then I earnestly wish them the best of luck.

Thing is, I don't think it's entirely practical. Not for everyone. Violence, or at least the threat of violence, underpins organised society. Laws exist and are followed because, when you boil it right down, we direct violence towards those who do not follow them. If you are able to live entirely free of violence then it's either because you're very lucky or because someone else out there is doing the occasional violent act on your behalf.

 

[Drummodino]

I detest violence, I haven't attempted to physically harm someone in years. When I was a young stupid teenager I did several times, but I always felt terribly guilty afterwards, no matter the reason or outcome.

Don't get me wrong, if I was put into a situation where I feared for my or other's safety, I would fight back. I wouldn't enjoy it though, far from it.

I don't have a problem with fighting for sport, competition, exercise or personal defence. But when the intention is malicious, that is where I draw the line.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

True Pacifism is incredibly courageous. "Turning the other cheek" means getting slapped twice. You have to be willing to risk everything, sacrifice everything in the hope of touching the humanity in those who would oppress you.

I couldn't do that, because I actually am a coward and don't have either the faith or courage to do that, and am glad I probably wont ever have to.

 

[JoJo]

I'm in two minds about violence, I dislike the idea of attacking someone who poses no physical threat to anyone but I wouldn't feel bad at-all about using violence to defend myself or someone-else. I wouldn't call true pacifism (refusing to fight even in self-defence) cowardly in the slightest, rather illogically selfless. I have no desire to hurt any living being but if there's a choice between myself and/or an innocent and an aggressor, I know which I'd choose.

 

[tippy2k2]

People that say that pacifism is "pathetic, pretentious, cowardice" are either:

A. Children who have never had to actually fire a shot in anger (or more importantly, have never been fired at in anger)
B. Psychopaths
C. In war torn third world countries where violence is the only answer; However I don't expect that they are on the internet arguing about whether hitting a girl is justified or if children should fight a bully or tell the teacher.

Now that's not to say that pacifism can't be criticized. For example, I feel "True Pacifism" isn't a good idea for if someone was walking over to my mum to slit her throat, a "True" pacifist would try to talk them out of it rather than brain them like I would but calling it "pathetic, pretentious, cowardice" is silly.

I may not always agree with pacifism but there have been some big changes made using it by people who made the ultimate sacrifice in order to prove their point and to call that "pathetic, pretentious, cowardice" is spitting on their sacrifice.

 

[Barbas]

Time heals all wounds. People are afraid to talk to one-another, to "lose face" or to have their fragile pride wounded. They slowly kill themselves holding grudges. They wantonly dismiss one-another to try and justify the most callous of acts. They try to dehumanize one-another in an attempt to justify the cruelest and most brutal of wrongs. People are afraid to cry or to say things like "I love you", "I'm sorry" or "I was wrong". They try to shield the finite and fallible person they are with the armour of arrogance and zeal.

Hatred, anger and violence may be the worst of addictions. They lead to mistrust, paranoia and suffering. I think I understand better what a curse is now: it is an act of the most supreme arrogance; it is to assert that you know all you need to about a person by attempting to encapsulate all that they are within a single word. To do so is an insult to the intricate nature of human beings.

I can't remember any time that striking out at someone made me a happier person. On the contrary, I seem powerless to remove the memory of their faces. For the foreseeable future, I will have to live with them. That's all anger did for me. The more I fed it, the more it built up and the more horrifying the realizations were. The high doesn't last.

 

[Salus]

I'm an "emotional pacifist" if that makes any sense.

That is, I can't argue that violence is not sometimes the only option, when it comes to dealing with people like Hitler who are conquering Europe then sending the ethnic minorities of the nations they just conquered to death camps where they are murdered with poison gas, including women, children... Not to mention the incredibly cruel torture and experimentation. I couldn't say that I wouldn't pull the trigger on those responsible if it were up to me. However, beyond ending their lives (and thus power) I wouldn't have any desire to torture them or otherwise inflict any kind of "poetic justice."

What I mean by "emotional pacifist" is that some of the cruelty that really gets me in my bones when I see it being inflicted on others, is the emotional cruelty, which is incredibly insidious and painful. When people say something to someone to put them down, and hit them at their emotional weak spot and everything... I'm like, completely INCAPABLE of doing that, no matter how angry I am. Yes, I can think of many things to say to someone's face that would tear them to shreds in seconds, but I could never in a million years do it.

I just really, really hate when people are cruel to each other like that. I can't stand it, I wont stand for it... Some people are GOOD at it too, emotionally wounding people and then twisting the knife with comments about their appearance, or their disability, or whatever... I saw a lot of that when I was at school, even though I thankfully evaded it myself, I simply CAN'T do that to someone, or let someone (even random strangers) suffer through that kind of abuse. I will like, go over to you and make sure you're okay and stuff.

 

[CloudAtlas]

So yeah.... That's how I feel about it

How do you?

I will ask you just one question: How do you deal with people who don't share your attitudes towards violence, who have no problem with using violence against peaceful people themselves?

I believe in fundamental, universal human rights. And when these rights are violated, as they regularly are in egregious ways, then I believe we should not stand idly by, that we have a 'responsibility to protect'. If necessary, with violence. Sadly, that is sometimes the only option that remains.

 

[bauke67]

Of course it would be best if there were no violence inflicted to anyone(outside of situations like sports where it is done with consent of both parties) ever, but since we can not trust everyone to behave in a pacifist manner, the closest to it which we can put into practice is not to ever strike first. So if someone is behaving violently towards you or someone else it is acceptable to resort to some violence to prevent more from happening. Would anyone truly not resort to violence if it were the only way to stop someone like Hitler? I don't think anyone would and therefore that true pacifism is not feasible.

 

[Saltyk]

Okay, I have no problem with pacifism on a smaller scale. I have never been in an actual fist fight (beyond sparring) and hope to keep it that way. However, there is a difference between refusing to fight and allowing yourself or others to come to harm.

Where I think pacifism fails is when life and/or limb are in danger. If someone breaks into your house, I fully feel you have the right and even the obligation to fight back and even kill them (if someone breaks into your home while you're there, they have no concern for your safety and you should assume they mean to rape and/or kill you). If you have reason to believe that your life is in danger, you should fight, or at least run away.

I think war can be necessary and the correct path. World War 2 springs to mind. Imagine what would have happened if the allies choose not to fight. It is a necessary evil. One we don't like, but sometimes can't avoid.

That's not to say I think we should have boots on the ground in Syria or the Ukraine. However, I wouldn't rule such a thing out completely, as that would only encourage others to push further. Sometimes the threat is as important as the action. To quote Theodore Roosevelt, "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

However, I have no problem with pacifism as an ideal. But, like many ideals, it is impractical. Even if there have been some great victory's for pacifist action, like Martin Luther King Jr's civil rights movement. It would be great if everyone were a pacifist. But that's not reality. Pacifism won't work to dissuade bullies. They only see an easy victim.

 

[verdant monkai]

I can't "dehumanize" another human because they ARE human.


So yeah.... That's how I feel about it

How do you?

You cannot dehumanize someone with violence. Violence is a core part of what it is to be human, its the darker side of our nature. But its like Ying and Yang, you can't have the lighter side without the darker side.

Humans have been violent since before we could talk to each other (or after we stole gods fruit if you are a creationist) its in our nature. To try and deny violence is to unrealistically idealize humans.

Violence also isn't as bad as you are making out. Violence can be used to protect yourself and those you love, violence can be used to achieve great good and justice. I don't think pacifism is cowardly or pretentious, but I admit that I do find pacifists a bit pathetic, to me it means you are just admitting weakness and signing yourself up as a victim for anyone who feels like exploiting you. It also means you are saying that you can't protect anyone like your partner, your children or even yourself.

However I can appreciate that you are probably a very good person, and it is usually braver to not be violent than to give in and strike out, but violence CAN be the right thing to do. Unfortunately I dont think that pacifism will get you very far if you get into trouble. I hope you will reconsider if in the unfortunate event anyone you love comes into danger and you have the power to help them.

 

[spartan231490]

Pacifism is stupid. The only way to stop violence is to use violence. The whole idea that violence begets violence is stupid. Some kid just killed 6 people and injured 7 others, are the families of these people going to go out and hunt 22 year old virgins? No, of course they won't. Violence only begets violence from those willing to do what is necessary to stop that violence. History is full of incidences when violence was necessary to stop violence. It is equally full of times when violent aggressors were allowed to pursue ever greater acts of violence because pacifists were unwilling to stand up to them. Despite this, for some unholy reason, people continue to tout "violence begets violence" and "violence never solved anything" like they have real meaning.

Also, it would be pretty damn hard to become addicted to violence. Sure adrenaline is released, but addiction requires repeated and frequent exposure. You'd need to be in violent situations almost every day for an extended period.

Thrill seeking behavior with regards to violence is possible, but there are so many easier ways to get a rush that You really don't need to worry about it. Not that it doesn't happen, that's your typical serial killer, which is why you get the constant escalation, but it's not likely enough to worry about. It's like worrying about getting cancer. Sure, it might happen, but it's not something to keep you up at night.

 

[Candidus]

Pacifism is aberrant. It's not a feature of ordinary human nature. You want to engage in it, do it on your own bat and don't inflict it on anybody else. Your children included, if you give a damn about them.

It has no place in education and no place in a system of law that mandates it.

Whether it's the law, or a set of campus rules or whatever: if it makes no allowances for violence then it has no business governing human beings.

I say that as one of the many people damaged in their youth by the zero tolerance policy. By pacifistic scum trying to make their armpit scratching, wild rolling eyed, frothy-mouthed, shit flinging hysterical fear of violence a part of MY fucking upbringing.

Pathetic, pretentious cowardice is precisely how I'd describe pacifism. And harmful to boot.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Humans have been violent since before we could talk to each other (or after we stole gods fruit if you are a creationist) its in our nature. To try and deny violence is to unrealistically idealize humans.

Pretty much how I feel about it. The principle of pacifism is admirable, but when the chips are down, very few people are willing to stand by that principle until the very end. If someone is stamping your brains out, you're not going to lay still and utter "violence is wrong, violence is wrong!" Luckily using violence to solve problems is thankfully rare in modern first-world society, but I'm not going to pretend for one minute that I wouldn't be capable of truly horrifying things if the circumistances were dire enough. I remember in Shutter Island the police chief told the protagonist that he, the protagonist and everyone in the world "is about as dangerous as they come", referring to the inherent violence in human nature.

 

[Salus]

I say that as one of the many people damaged in their youth by the zero tolerance policy. By pacifistic scum trying to make their armpit scratching, wild rolling eyed, frothy-mouthed, shit flinging hysterical fear of violence a part of MY fucking upbringing.

Pathetic, pretentious cowardice is precisely how I'd describe pacifism. And harmful to boot.

Hm, no bias in this post. Remember to please pick up your baggage at the baggage claim.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Not a satire thread? Colour me impressed Taco.

I describe myself as a pacifist. I have come to hate violence with a passion as I've seen it ruin the lives of my closest friends and family. My fascination with war history has engendered a deep dismay at how easily humanity can slide into a cycle of killing for reasons that ultimately are not worth the loss in blood. How many artists, musicians, philosophers, scientists have been lost before their time because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time? Where would we be as a people both socially and scientifically if we had not lost these people? That loss due to war is rarely considered and I hate the dehumanizing of the enemy, thinking that no such people could ever exist outside our realm of understanding.

While I'm not afraid to pick up a weapon to defend my own life or that of someone who is being threatened, I will not advance upon someone with the intent to kill or injure. I could never pick up a gun and shoot someone just on politics alone. I'm a patriot yes but Canada would have to have enemy boots on its soil for me to go to arms. I know my odds of surviving a war are limited and it is my belief that the greatest thing I can do to honor those who fought and died for my freedom in the great wars of the past is to simply live my life the best I can. Life is more rewarding when you seek happiness, sharing in someone else's happiness and when you manage conflict without resorting to fists. I'm not blind to the fact that a lot of humanity still runs on hit first, think second philosophy and that my personal way of living will not change that. I'm just doing what makes sense to me.

Now that said, I don't think violence is totally without purpose. Violent sports like boxing or UFC are thoroughly entertaining, American football is at its core about managing the muscle on the field in a way that brings victory. What's more is that I would not be opposed to my nation going to war over something wrong overseas, say if Putin went full Nazi and ate up Poland. I would not personally enlist but I would not raise my voice in loud protest. I'd keep trying to learn more about the situation... Maybe make a documentary or write some articles after doing some research. I could not participate immediately though. If things got horrible enough, I would invest into war bonds. Maybe even join the red cross.

I will not fight until the people I love most are directly threatened.

SNIP

Pacifism run amok is pacifism that thinks it can cure fear and violence with hard, fast rules. I think that having an upbringing that highlights talking things through and using your brain to work out problems is not a bad thing. Having education that tells you that you should never defend yourself or that violence is an uncommon way of others interacting is just patently wrong and ignoring reality. I shake my head at the new rules my nephew has to abide by on the playground. No ball tag? Because the projectile of the soft dodgeballs they used to give us might injure? Ridiculous! Let the kid have a childhood, run around and get a bloody nose after falling from too high up. That's how I learned my limits and the playground with its supervision is the safest place to do that.

I am however going to raise my children to not seek conflict as I was raised. Understand conflict absolutely but to desire it? Never.

[sub]Not a pacifist in the truest sense of the term but others have called me a pacifist because of this way of looking at things.[/sub]

 

[lacktheknack]

Pacifism is much like Communism: Desirable, but rarely practical.