What does it mean to be a "pacifist"?

[20000Aggro]

I'm curious what others think on this topic. I've heard that if you're simply not violent and don't believe in violence that you're a pacifist, but how does that actually live out in practice? What ideals would you need to realistically have to be considered genuinely a "pacifist"? Can you make the mistake of hitting a person if you're not otherwise violent a majority of the time, if it's for a seemingly justified reason, like standing up for another person who is being victimized and doesn't deserve the treatment they're getting? Can a person still be a pacifist if they lose emotional control and make a mistake, but make up for it after? Would them advocating against violence even if they made that mistake, the mistake of hitting a person, make them not a pacifist, or could they still be such?

And what about verbal hatred? Obviously racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc.. would be obvious examples of things that aren't pacifist, but if a person is simply hateful in a verbal manner, without being obviously hateful in those ways, can they still be a pacifist? If they aren't even obviously hateful, as in they don't say the N word or advocate for hurting gay people, but then in a personal situation they argued that a person deserved to be hurt, even emotionally, for a more seemingly moral reason, like supporting someone who humiliates others and hurts them in that way, maybe by being just excessively and relentlessly overly truthful to the point of hurting them all the time, in front of a group, can a person still be a pacifist in that circumstance? Or would abusing or supporting an abuser in that context make them not a pacifist? Do you consider that mild?

What about victims of physical abuse? If they were otherwise non-violent and advocated for political views that were inherently not hateful, if they were then in an abusive relationship and came out the other side completely changing because of the abuse, but still barely hanging onto old ideals of non-hatefulness and opposition to violence, trying very hard to restrain themselves despite their emotional trauma and the issues they received from the abuse, could they still come out the otherside, in your view, being a pacifist? Or would they just not be such anymore even if their situation makes it forgivable? Would it be forgivable?

What world views or political views would a person need to have to be factually considered a "pacifist"? Could a person naively or foolishly contradict this and still be a pacifist?

[Ailes]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Holografix:

snakefist is advocating for killing another human being and justifying it via some crazy law. that's against TOS and I am leaving this thread before it gets locked and snakefist gets banned.

Why are you still here? You entered this thread saying you don't even want to participate in it, all the while insulting pretty much everyone who so far took part in the discussion. If you have nothing meaningful to say just don't say anything at all?

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Pavlov:

What does it mean to be a "pacifist"?

Opprinnelig skrevet av Pavlov:

...

So, I might have missed some things (that's kind of long, especially for an OP) but it sounds like some of your questions are trying to justify non-pacifist behaviors because someone was a victim.

That's not how it works. If trauma changes you then you change, there's no "allowances" for morality - perhaps for moral intention there can be allowances, as well as tolerances of people for their circumstances, but not for morality itself.

There are plenty of situations where it's fine for someone not to be a "total pacifist" anyways but words often have very specific meanings and you either meet the definition of those words, or you don't.

That doesn't mean that the victim who behaves poorly because of their trauma is just as bad as the person who simply did it out of wickedness, malice, or arrogance - because they're not the same, one is definitely worse - however, the act itself is the same. The only question between differences of circumstance, is whether others should consider forgiving or pitying someone for being hostile. ...and perhaps whether they're even capable of being rehabilitated.



There is, however, some flexibility when it comes to being a pacifist. Just because you are a pacifist, it does not mean you can not still be a big jerk. Those are different character metrics.

Opprinnelig skrevet av Pavlov:

...
Can a person still be a pacifist if they lose emotional control and make a mistake, but make up for it after? Would them advocating against violence even if they made that mistake, the mistake of hitting a person, make them not a pacifist, or could they still be such?
...

This part is a pretty interesting point to consider.
One's values can be in conflict with their actions.
and
One can be different things at different points in time.

This can be the subject of much debate (& mockery).

For example, if one eats meat, they aren't forever incapable of going vegan but if you're only a vegan for 23 hours per day then you're arguably not a vegan at all.

[Holografix]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Pavlov:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Holografix:

this description reads like a pretty decent human being. i like them already.

Which part? The first part or the seemingly passive aggressive bit about someone telling others to die? Because the two don't go hand in hand, which I think was their point.

The second paragraph doesn't make any sense, so I disregarded it.

[Holografix]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Ailes:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Holografix:

snakefist is advocating for killing another human being and justifying it via some crazy law. that's against TOS and I am leaving this thread before it gets locked and snakefist gets banned.

Why are you still here? You entered this thread saying you don't even want to participate in it, all the while insulting pretty much everyone who so far took part in the discussion. If you have nothing meaningful to say just don't say anything at all?

why are we still here?
just to suffer?

Here's a comprehensive survey of the term: Pacifism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pacifism/

But generally, pacifism is thought to be a principled rejection of war and killing. I understand principled as being tied to reason and not emotion.

[crunchyfrog]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Li77lehorn:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Pavlov:

According to some it does. If people fight in wars to stop others from hurting people, than how isn't that pacifying someone or something worse? Not everyone is pacified with words. Which I think is why people who think they can stop a line of soldiers with a flower get mocked.

I'm not sure what "according to some it does" is about(I'm guessing the verbal hatred part?). And people fighting in wars is a bumpy road. I was answering your question about fist fighting, so stopping fights by restraining the attacker. Not talking them down(because it's already past that stage).

Well, you can be pacifist but have some leeway on defence whether it's personal defence to ultimately stop furhter and worse esclation or on behaldf of others.

Still pacifism. The thing is it doesn't just cover IMMEDIATE actions.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Once you start talking about a pacifist being able to use violence to “stop further escalation” an unspecified way down the line, it just seems like a pretty useless word at that point. Could practically make Cheney and Rumsfeld “pacifists” that way.