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 ♥♥♥ 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?

[20000Aggro]

Diposting pertama kali oleh NepNepNepu!:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pavlov:

That's still vague. A dictionary definition isn't what I'm curious about, how would someone live that out? How something exhibits in practice can often be far different from how it sounds on paper.

Well I'm sure if there is a great way to explain it. From what I can understand most people that were claimed by others (not themselves btw) as this were those that tried to find means to resolve a situation by peaceful means only. In a way of thinking about it Idk if its a life style as much as it would be a term given to someone who resolved a situation without violence. A group I know of actually is called FreeHugs who, while small, has been known to go to riots going on around the globe and stand in front of police lines and hold their arms out.

I actually got a recording of a man in New York (I think?) during a riot some time ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSrbkPHC6Fo

As you can see he didnt even attempt to raise his voice against the shouting rioter, he even said that the police were simply doing their jobs, they are human but just doing a job. Now I wont get on the whole situation but this man could be in a way classed a pacifist as he attempted to halt a moving riot simply by using nonviolent words and offering literally hugs.

But you are correct yes. To me when I hear of pacifist I think of a situation where either a battle was resolved with no violent means, not even swearing or aggressive speechs which really are so uncommon anymore even when you include the nonphyical violence on just speech

Well, that specific example in that short video is a good example, assuming the man lives the exact same way in all areas of his life. When put so plainly and obviously it's clear that's what pacifism is, but I'm also talking about murky areas where it might not be so obvious. What kind of idealisms should a person personally advocate for that would make them truly a "pacifist"? Anti-war is a good example, but even though that sounds clear, it could become confused in a real situation, and there are other topics of discussion that could suggest one way or another. What if that man had some view in his life that isn't shown in this video that would contradict this otherwise nice video? Would that suddenly invalidate his actions here, or could he otherwise own up to his mistakes and come out the other side owning up to it and as long as he showed genuine remorse and respected the boundaries of others, he could be forgiven, as long as he didn't break laws? What about the other people in the video, who likely feel as though they are justified in fighting for the lost loved ones they've lost, or just the people that never knew them that they passionately felt didn't deserve what they got in life? Could those people be pacifist, as long as they don't commit acts of violence? Even despite swearing, or screaming anger at those cops, could they still be objectively pacifist in nature because they aren't trying to commit real acts of violence? Because if the only definition is physical non-violence, what about verbal hatred? If a person is racist but otherwise doesn't advocate for going out and hurting people of other races, would you say they could still be considered a pacifist because they're not being physically abusive?

[20000Aggro]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fosty:

Those people who would rather die in a home invasion than kill the intruder.

So, more passiveness, then. What about the people that would get a gun or a weapon to try and protect their family, friends, boyfriend/girlfriend, or loved ones? If they're only in that situation out of it being forced on them, and otherwise don't want to hurt the intruder, and don't go out of their way to create harm unless it's imposed on them, even if they did create harm under castle doctrine, would you argue they could still be a pacifist if they otherwise would only do so in self-defense? Genuine self-defense, not self-defense as in... the person surrenders or walks away after seeing a gun, so the homeowner chases them down as they're running just to shoot them because they invaded their home. Could those people still be pacifist as long as they would call an ambulance and try to save the person as long as they only responded to a physical attack, and otherwise if the intruder left once warned to leave, they did nothing to try to harm the person? And would only do so out of need of protection?

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fosty:

Those people who would rather die in a home invasion than kill the intruder.

LOL. Deep into the fantasy and will never break free. Sad.

[Yavin Shikanoko]

It's the same as a centrist. They are most likely in a comfortable position where their rights, integrity, or life are no threatened by oligarchs, governments or violence so they choose to play the hippie route and the "can we all just get along" bs

[20000Aggro]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Fosty:

Those people who would rather die in a home invasion than kill the intruder.

LOL. Deep into the fantasy and will never break free. Sad.

What are you even talking about? What "fantasty"?

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pavlov:

Diposting pertama kali oleh NepNepNepu!:

Well I'm sure if there is a great way to explain it. From what I can understand most people that were claimed by others (not themselves btw) as this were those that tried to find means to resolve a situation by peaceful means only. In a way of thinking about it Idk if its a life style as much as it would be a term given to someone who resolved a situation without violence. A group I know of actually is called FreeHugs who, while small, has been known to go to riots going on around the globe and stand in front of police lines and hold their arms out.

I actually got a recording of a man in New York (I think?) during a riot some time ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSrbkPHC6Fo

As you can see he didnt even attempt to raise his voice against the shouting rioter, he even said that the police were simply doing their jobs, they are human but just doing a job. Now I wont get on the whole situation but this man could be in a way classed a pacifist as he attempted to halt a moving riot simply by using nonviolent words and offering literally hugs.

But you are correct yes. To me when I hear of pacifist I think of a situation where either a battle was resolved with no violent means, not even swearing or aggressive speechs which really are so uncommon anymore even when you include the nonphyical violence on just speech

Well, that specific example in that short video is a good example, assuming the man lives the exact same way in all areas of his life. When put so plainly and obviously it's clear that's what pacifism is, but I'm also talking about murky areas where it might not be so obvious. What kind of idealisms should a person personally advocate for that would make them truly a "pacifist"? Anti-war is a good example, but even though that sounds clear, it could become confused in a real situation, and there are other topics of discussion that could suggest one way or another. What if that man had some view in his life that isn't shown in this video that would contradict this otherwise nice video? Would that suddenly invalidate his actions here, or could he otherwise own up to his mistakes and come out the other side owning up to it and as long as he showed genuine remorse and respected the boundaries of others, he could be forgiven, as long as he didn't break laws? What about the other people in the video, who likely feel as though they are justified in fighting for the lost loved ones they've lost, or just the people that never knew them that they passionately felt didn't deserve what they got in life? Could those people be pacifist, as long as they don't commit acts of violence? Even despite swearing, or screaming anger at those cops, could they still be objectively pacifist in nature because they aren't trying to commit real acts of violence? Because if the only definition is physical non-violence, what about verbal hatred? If a person is racist but otherwise doesn't advocate for going out and hurting people of other races, would you say they could still be considered a pacifist because they're not being physically abusive?

Those are some good questions and honestly Idk if I'll be able to awnser them myself because alot of those apply to nearly everyone or even just one to most humans at this time, I'm not really sure what even the qualifications would be either to be called that or earn the nickname for it..

[Castyles]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pavlov:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Castyles:

They don't start ♥♥♥♥, basically.

Okay, well, what do you consider to be "not starting sh*t"? A lot of people might do that for what they feel are good reasons.

Take the shaolin monks. They're known for being reclusive and they've been known for not partaking in any external conflicts whatsoever, for ages. If worst comes to worst, however, they protect themselves.

In other words, a pacifist never throws the first punch but they still defend something from any sort of attack, if required. With or without violence. Take that as you may.

And, even if they hide behind a moral code, those who don't lift a finger, regardless of the circunstances, are, in the end, just passive cowards, to put it harshly. Very different.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pavlov:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

LOL. Deep into the fantasy and will never break free. Sad.

What are you even talking about? What "fantasty"?

The fantasy that guns are needed for "protection". They must be carried everywhere at all times. There are 7858563574e8567474 armed break-ins per year.
Reality: An armed intruder breaks into your house. A 0.0001% chance per lifetime. You are on the computer and your gun is in the bedroom. It is of no use and will be stolen from you.

[20000Aggro]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Yavin Coyote 69% More Cheese:

It's the same as a centrist. They are most likely in a comfortable position where their rights, integrity, or life are no threatened by oligarchs, governments or violence so they choose to play the hippie route and the "can we all just get along" bs

So you're saying all centrists are non-violent? Isn't that generalising a bit? Otherwise not sure how you can claim all centrists would be non-violent when you simply can't know all centrists to know they are. Obviously it wouldn't be "bs" to ask people to get along assuming they aren't doing anything to instigate bad situations in the first place, which I guess the best way to know would be to simply stay away from any bad situation in the first place rather than taking jabs and baiting responses, as is sometimes seen in rioting. Since being in a heated situation can sometimes get out of hand and even the most civil person can sometimes lose their temper. Although from my view there are people whose view of instigating means that taking shots at a person on someone elses' behalf or even when they're not the person who started it all in the first place somehow justifies them to treat others badly. Not sure how personal responsibility plays into pacifism but obviously if pacifism means walking away because you know someone else will make personal attacks on your behalf that's kind of different. Could allowing others to do that for you by not speaking out against it be pacifism? On that point, can mild aggravations by a person be considered antagonization, and can that be considered pacifist and "not instigating"?

[20000Aggro]

Diposting pertama kali oleh NepNepNepu!:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pavlov:

Well, that specific example in that short video is a good example, assuming the man lives the exact same way in all areas of his life. When put so plainly and obviously it's clear that's what pacifism is, but I'm also talking about murky areas where it might not be so obvious. What kind of idealisms should a person personally advocate for that would make them truly a "pacifist"? Anti-war is a good example, but even though that sounds clear, it could become confused in a real situation, and there are other topics of discussion that could suggest one way or another. What if that man had some view in his life that isn't shown in this video that would contradict this otherwise nice video? Would that suddenly invalidate his actions here, or could he otherwise own up to his mistakes and come out the other side owning up to it and as long as he showed genuine remorse and respected the boundaries of others, he could be forgiven, as long as he didn't break laws? What about the other people in the video, who likely feel as though they are justified in fighting for the lost loved ones they've lost, or just the people that never knew them that they passionately felt didn't deserve what they got in life? Could those people be pacifist, as long as they don't commit acts of violence? Even despite swearing, or screaming anger at those cops, could they still be objectively pacifist in nature because they aren't trying to commit real acts of violence? Because if the only definition is physical non-violence, what about verbal hatred? If a person is racist but otherwise doesn't advocate for going out and hurting people of other races, would you say they could still be considered a pacifist because they're not being physically abusive?

Those are some good questions and honestly Idk if I'll be able to awnser them myself because alot of those apply to nearly everyone or even just one to most humans at this time, I'm not really sure what even the qualifications would be either to be called that or earn the nickname for it..

Okay, well, get back to me if you find or think of an answer.

[20000Aggro]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pavlov:

What are you even talking about? What "fantasty"?

The fantasy that guns are needed for "protection". They must be carried everywhere at all times. There are 7858563574e8567474 armed break-ins per year.
Reality: An armed intruder breaks into your house. A 0.0001% chance per lifetime. You are on the computer and your gun is in the bedroom. It is of no use and will be stolen from you.

Well, there are a lot of people who disagree with you. Obviously not everyone thinks that self-defense means simply arguing civilly against an intruder, because a lot of people feel that is how you end up dead or worse, physically tortured and held hostage, kept alive so you can be raped or something else equally sinister. On the chance that you or your loved ones could end up being killed by an intruder, a lot of people feel that the only way to survive is to fight fire with fire. Otherwise people don't like the idea of dying in the time that it takes for police to get there. People who think you can just run off to a room, close the door, call the police and hide until they get there tend to be incredibly naive and are most likely the kinds of doormats that would get their door broken down and shot because realistically this isn't a cartoon world where everything turns out okay in the end, if you don't shoot first even at risk to yourself and potentially also getting shot than who knows what could happen in the time you chose to be passive? Since most people have guns, especially in the country where police don't have a quick time getting there, it makes the question of if police are even needed brought up.

I will admit that people get a bit power hungry over flaunting their guns. Why would anyone need to take a rifle to a grocery store? Do they think they're going to get mugged while buying groceries? Otherwise, yeah, if safety regulations could completely eliminate human error and kids shooting themselves in the faces because their parents bought a gun, I'm sure everyone would have guns. It almost makes you think pacifism in that regard is a delusion. It's like bringing a pool noodle to a gun fight and expecting not to get shot out of some make believe kindness that an intruder might have in the person's mind. Obviously you can't expect someone breaking into another's house to be a pacifist, because they really would be naive.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pavlov:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

The fantasy that guns are needed for "protection". They must be carried everywhere at all times. There are 7858563574e8567474 armed break-ins per year.
Reality: An armed intruder breaks into your house. A 0.0001% chance per lifetime. You are on the computer and your gun is in the bedroom. It is of no use and will be stolen from you.

Well, there are a lot of people who disagree with you. Obviously not everyone thinks that self-defense means simply arguing civilly against an intruder, because a lot of people feel that is how you end up dead or worse, physically tortured and held hostage, kept alive so you can be raped or something else equally sinister.

That is the fantasy. Just fantasy. There is a 0.0001% chance of that ever happening in your lifetime. But what does happen is that you get into an argument with your partner and they shoot you. Because the gun was right there. That happens a lot.
And your nonsense about arguing with them is all BS. Just leave the house.
Tortured, hostage? What make you think anyone cares about YOU that much? Just fantasy.

[Doomerang]

It’s so easy to be a pacifist till someone punches you in the face then lies to the cops and says you started the fight. F pacifism, I’ll always take care of myself

[20000Aggro]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pavlov:

Well, there are a lot of people who disagree with you. Obviously not everyone thinks that self-defense means simply arguing civilly against an intruder, because a lot of people feel that is how you end up dead or worse, physically tortured and held hostage, kept alive so you can be raped or something else equally sinister.

That is the fantasy. Just fantasy. There is a 0.0001% chance of that ever happening in your lifetime. But what does happen is that you get into an argument with your partner and they shoot you. Because the gun was right there. That happens a lot.
And your nonsense about arguing with them is all BS. Just leave the house.
Tortured, hostage? What make you think anyone cares about YOU that much? Just fantasy.

I wasn't specifying myself, but since you asked, I'll answer. I don't think I'm important, that's the point. I don't have to be important to piss others off. Obviously why else would anyone hate someone who is some seemingly polite to others? Because I tend to not think about whether telling a person if what they're doing is wrong might end up making me a target so I think I'm being helpful and even with innocent intentions people tend to think I'm a problem. I don't even have to intentionally hurt people because I'm a ♥♥♥♥ up.

Outside of that, not sure how that relates unless I was targeted out of revenge because I pissed off the wrong people. That doesn't apply to a break in situation, though. But since you asked about me that is the only way I think I as a person would be targeted. Although, admittedly, would people even need a reason? I mean, just look at the nature of the internet. Trolls do bad things to others for a reaction alone because they tend to be attention seeking. 4chan is widely known for being a bastion of both great evil and great good because the anonymity allows both depending on the situation or individual(s). All people need to want to mess with someone is that it's fun, that's it. They don't even need to genuinely hate the person even though that would help to motivate them. Obviously it doesn't take much to make any person hate another.

In regards to break ins? Break ins are usually out of some desire for objects like money or information. Rarely is it done out of revenge, but sometimes people are just curious and don't care about not breaking laws. It doesn't make it right but people have different motivations. 4chan literally SWATS people and yet a lot of people love and hate that site, 4channers have harassed people en masse for something stupid, there are even posts about trolls trying to trick others into doing dangerously stupid things and those people listening to it and getting hurt.

In regards to partners? Uh, well, maybe they should have chosen to break up rather than sticking around to put up with whatever would have pushed them to it. It's not a good excuse, clearly, to stick around in an abusive situation just to cry poor me and then end up allowing yourself to become even more hateful and abused than before. Move out, find a new spouse, get therapy, take pills, yada yada. That is how you take personal responsibility and deal with your emotions in a healthy manner. There is no situation where any person should be stuck in a situation to allow themself to get that far.

My upward inflection is annoying me so clearly a spouse coming directly at you with a real attack is a real danger, not a fantasy. If it was otherwise a pacifist who makes death threats and tells others to kill themselves than obviously that wouldn't be dangerous at all, since "danger" is physical. Otherwise not sure what you're getting at. Do I make sense at all? Not sure if I explained this well enough. Sometimes I can be a bit convoluted with my explanations.

[20000Aggro]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Doomerang:

It’s so easy to be a pacifist till someone punches you in the face then lies to the cops and says you started the fight. F pacifism, I’ll always take care of myself

Well... I would agree except for the idea of why were you punched? Most people find it kind of unrealistic to be pacifists in the first place, which is why they aren't. Not everyone has the emotional self-control for it, and it also involves personal choice, too. Like in that video someone else posted earlier. What kind of life did that guy lead that allowed him to be completely calm in such a situation? Most people can't really know the answer to that. Most people aren't able to be that calm in the same situation. You could almost attribute it to psychotic disassociation if you were an a-hole, otherwise that guy is truly a god among men to have the emotional restraint to be so neutral without doing any wrong himself.