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?

[20000Aggro]

Originalmente postado por Ailes:

No war I guess. No soldiers, no army. Like what the left-winged party here keeps on demanding - leaving NATO, abandoning all foreign missions and somesuch.

But that seems super idealistic, too much for my taste. With people like Putin constantly threatening their neighbors it seems silly to completely neglect the own military, as much as one could probably admire people like Mahatma Gandhi. But what he has done in which ways isn't necessarily exemplary for how the entire world works. Maybe he just got... lucky? I wouldn't really know that much about him though.

At the end of the day I suppose I can sympathize with people who feel opressed and >cannot< bring up the patience and self-sacrifice to renounce any kind of violence. But I also acknowledge that it can be a fine line. Most people have family, most have someone they love. Hatred and desire for revenge can be a very bad thing, and violence on a greater scale than one person vs. another person rarely seems to cause >no< collateral damage.

Yet some people "deserve" to die, some people shouldn't exist, some people should have been killed earlier/more quickly. At least if the greater picture of lives lost and societies, cities and entire countries shattered is the benchmark for it. I doubt anyone who isn't very right or very left would advocate for persons like Hitler or Stalin to live on, even if we of course cannot say how history might have unfolded otherwise and what other wars or dictators might have emerged instead. But I prefer not to follow such thoughts as much, because they really aren't leading nowhere - nobody can look into the future, it shouldn't make us entirely apathic creatures.

Well, yeah. That would speak on actual militaries and how they're run, which might not directly relate to pacifism.

Not sure why Mahatma would have been lucky, but no one is perfect, I guess.

Well, yeah, when you're on the outside looking in it's easier to look objectively at a situation since you're not the one in that situation, but people who have been in that position know it's never as easy as just saying "don't do it". That is part of how scary some situations can be, finding out if you're smart enough to maintain your own principles, or whether or not you're able to catch yourself before you completely lose all of who you are. Sometimes all it takes is the wrong people trying to trick you into lashing out for you to become someone else entirely, and for you and others to completely question if you truly were the kind of person you felt you were or if it truly was a fabrication all along, with you just being completely oblivious to your own true nature. No one wants to see themselves as violent, but people are cruel.

See, that is the rabbit hole that people tend to fall into. How does a person ever deserve to die? I used to argue about this all the time, there is no such thing as a person who "deserves" to die, no matter how bad they are. Which is likely why so many states and countries have made corporal punishment illegal. People not deserving mistreatment has never stopped hate crimes from occurring, sadly. When you think of any person throughout history who has been part of genocide, if you knew people who were changed or murdered, it would become truly hard to not feel anything except compassion for the lost loved ones, which is why people find it easier to be hostile. It would be very hard to look passed that to be objective. Arguing that even the worst kind of criminal deserves to die would be ignoring their humanity, but still.. being objective is difficult. Criminals have rights, too, and despite what they've done, no matter how bad it is, people deserve the chance to redeem themselves. Personally my own view of redemption is jail time, but other people would rather argue for more personal forms of punishment. If a person breaks a law though, then it's only fair they get consequences for it, it wouldn't be fair to expect anyone to suffer simply because they don't want to accept responsibility for their actions. It's for the greater good that people who choose to do bad things don't get enabled and protected from consequences of their actions.

In Hitler's case, he took his own life, so no one had to actually give him "what he deserved". Most people I doubt would argue he only deserved jailtime, though. How many could objectively set their feelings aside and argue he deserves nothing else?

I don't know, personally I view apathy as simply not caring. I see it more as fence sitting rather than actually desiring and enjoying the pain and suffering of others. If a person is apathetic to pain they didn't cause I don't personally view that as unempathic. Plenty of apathetic people mind their own business and don't cause trouble for others, even if they're also not passionate about the world's problems. I often wonder if you would have to be completely emotionally numb to be able to not be biased to someone trying to hurt you in the first place. Otherwise not sure how a person can put up with any kind of long-term mistreatment and walk away unscathed. It's more understandable to be fine in short bursts because as long as you can counter an balance it, it should never become imbalanced. I can't even begin to understand how it would feel for some of the families in that video posted earlier knowing that an entire system of people could be supportive of people who helped to murder someone they loved. Angry, maybe? I can only imagine it would hurt more to see the murderers of their loved ones supported and protected despite what they did.

I don't know, I guess a pacifist would be anti-gun, not sure if they would support gun control. Hitler was obviously not a pacifist.

[TwisterCat]

Originalmente postado por Pavlov:

Well, I guess when you put it that way, yeah. As far as I was aware the point of sports isn't to hurt people so much as just exercise. They're more physical games with teamwork than actual attempts to hurt people. Some sports are more harmful than others but excercise is supposed to be good for you and lots of people still love to keep track of scores and the temperaments and backgrounds of the players. Some sports players end up having problems with abuse in their personal relationships and others end up having the emotional restraint not to hurt others intentionally and end up developing really good social skills because of it.

Violence is an inherent part of some sports, and there's no getting around it if you desire to play them. It's a different kind of violence though, which is part of something I've thought of reading this post.

Perception. It changes a lot. What makes somebody a pacifist? Is it the actions of a person, or what they they believe that define what they are? That's a deep question, because somebody can be a pacifist at heart, but if they don't follow what they believe, are they really a pacifist? After all, if violence was unjustifiable, and they willingly took part in violence, where's the line drawn? That's something I can't even begin to come up with an answer to, as their actions under those circumstances would be irrational.

As for Canada's gun laws, even regardless of the crime maps and per-100,000 homicides involving firearms, which would indicate Canada as the far safer country, I'm concerned about mass shootings. They will increase, they're a bigger threat to me as a person, and given that nowhere in this country can you carry a concealed firearm on you, last I checked, meaning that I wouldn't be able to defend myself from them, it might be something that's preventable. If not, then our Quebecois government in disguise, the Liberal Party, will lose support for pushing a useless change. It's a win-win.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Originalmente postado por TwisterCat:

meaning that I wouldn't be able to defend myself from them,

Sigh. The big lie "I can protect myself". Fear and fantasy. If you get what you want there will be many more to "protect yourself" from. Every other person could become a threat. You-all ignore that part.

[TwisterCat]

Originalmente postado por Out Of Bubblegum:

Originalmente postado por TwisterCat:

meaning that I wouldn't be able to defend myself from them,

Sigh. The big lie "I can protect myself". Fear and fantasy. If you get what you want there will be many more to "protect yourself" from. Every other person could become a threat. You-all ignore that part.

Well, that's the hope, that banning guns would reduce gun crime. In a country like Canada, I have reason to believe it would, but we'll see.

[Holografix]

Reasons why I want this thread locked:

1. because the inanity of posts specifically written for a scoring system that rewards bonus points for typing long dead military leader names;
2. because of the false belief that post length (number of words) means actual real knowledge and wisdom being imparted;
3. because no one has posted the etymology of the word to discover and discuss root meaning and usage which would shed real light on OP's question instead of the Spongebob & Patrick discussion that's happening here instead;
4. because if i read another reference to a war that happened almost a century ago....

[20000Aggro]

Originalmente postado por TwisterCat:

Originalmente postado por Pavlov:

Well, I guess when you put it that way, yeah. As far as I was aware the point of sports isn't to hurt people so much as just exercise. They're more physical games with teamwork than actual attempts to hurt people. Some sports are more harmful than others but excercise is supposed to be good for you and lots of people still love to keep track of scores and the temperaments and backgrounds of the players. Some sports players end up having problems with abuse in their personal relationships and others end up having the emotional restraint not to hurt others intentionally and end up developing really good social skills because of it.

Violence is an inherent part of some sports, and there's no getting around it if you desire to play them. It's a different kind of violence though, which is part of something I've thought of reading this post.

Perception. It changes a lot. What makes somebody a pacifist? Is it the actions of a person, or what they they believe that define what they are? That's a deep question, because somebody can be a pacifist at heart, but if they don't follow what they believe, are they really a pacifist? After all, if violence was unjustifiable, and they willingly took part in violence, where's the line drawn? That's something I can't even begin to come up with an answer to, as their actions under those circumstances would be irrational.

As for Canada's gun laws, even regardless of the crime maps and per-100,000 homicides involving firearms, which would indicate Canada as the far safer country, I'm concerned about mass shootings. They will increase, they're a bigger threat to me as a person, and given that nowhere in this country can you carry a concealed firearm on you, last I checked, meaning that I wouldn't be able to defend myself from them, it might be something that's preventable. If not, then our Quebecois government in disguise, the Liberal Party, will lose support for pushing a useless change. It's a win-win.

Well, I guess it would be a different kind of violence. I don't think the intentions are to hurt others for the sake of hurting them, though, so I guess even if it might seem contradictory that a person could be in sports and advocate against violence. It's not like humans aren't full of contradictions anyways. I always figured that's part of being human.

Well, there are times that peoples motivations for what they believe they're doing and why they think it's right can confuse things, as I said earlier. If a person believes they're doing something that is technically wrong but they believe they're justified because their reasoning is more sympathetic, would that mean they're not a pacifist? I mean, not many people would argue that a person who wants to murder others for sadistically malicious reasons, like simply enjoying it, is going to be a pacifist. But most people don't do bad things for that reasoning, even if they sometimes do enjoy hurting someone they feel has hurt them or others. Situationally enjoying the pain of someone who hurt you or that you simply hate isn't the same as wanting all people to hurt because you're incapable of any kind of real sympathy for others. Most people tend to do bad things for different reasons, like an example I used earlier, murdering a pedophile. How many people would think of the humanity of the pedophile rather than the pain of the innocents who suffered at their hand? Not many? That still wouldn't change that they're a person despite the awful things they did. Would we be somehow more just if we ourselves were to do something like that to them? Would the result really be worth it, justified by the reasoning?

I mean, most people use more murky reasoning. If I could just repeat your own arguments back at you to aggravate and hurt you, would that make me a pacifist even if it could annoy you? What if I got everyone around you to do it to your 24/7, to the point that you couldn't form normal relationships even when you tried, and you no longer had normal healthy conversations. Would that still just be annoying, or would it become worse, and could I still be technically a pacifist because it wasn't me who is directly hurting you even if I was the reason why others were doing it to you? It wouldn't be very clearly hateful, but would you say that's nice? Depriving another human being of normal social interaction is kind of abusive. It's not obviously hateful though, but I mean, at least you could easily do something about it seeing as if I was obviously doing that to your face you could just report me and not have to suffer for it. So many people don't get the opportunity for that kind of peace of mind, especially when there are people getting away with what they've done. Depriving any person of any kind of normal life is inhumane, don't you think?

Yes, perception can also be used against people to make them believe things to trick them into abusing someone who otherwise might not have deserved it, but that doesn't stop people from thinking they're justified and hating that person afterwards, even if it's sneakily underhanded. Some people end up saying hateful things and get away with it and it's not them who suffers. Isn't that the point of bringing up the riot videos? Innocent people suffering at the hands of corrupt officials? Unless you're going to argue that tormenting rioters and black people suddenly means they're not victims just because they could act out after years of mistreatment from the government. Obviously if all it takes is simply not being violent than a lot of people would be pacifists for seemingly mean or cruel verbal acts as long as they didn't commit any kind of physical violence.

Well, it's a good thing that Canadians don't have any kind of illegal usage of firearms then. I guess being a golden utopia means they also are on the ball about catching criminals and stopping illegal activities, as opposed to the rest of us, who have such huge holes in our legal systems that criminals fall through the cracks all the time.

[20000Aggro]

Originalmente postado por Holografix:

Reasons why I want this thread locked:

1. because the inanity of posts specifically written for a scoring system that rewards bonus points for typing long dead military leader names;
2. because of the false belief that post length (number of words) means actual real knowledge and wisdom being imparted;
3. because no one has posted the etymology of the word to discover and discuss root meaning and usage which would shed real light on OP's question instead of the Spongebob & Patrick discussion that's happening here instead;
4. because if i read another reference to a war that happened almost a century ago....:styx3:

Okay, then enlighten us. Someone already gave a definition but that's not what I asked. I wanted practical examples, not a dictionary definition. If that was what I wanted this thread would have been over a while ago. A dictionary definition helps but how would a person who is a pacifist live in practice? What would they believe in? The other questions have been answered.

[Holografix]

Originalmente postado por Pavlov:

Originalmente postado por Holografix:

Reasons why I want this thread locked:

1. because the inanity of posts specifically written for a scoring system that rewards bonus points for typing long dead military leader names;
2. because of the false belief that post length (number of words) means actual real knowledge and wisdom being imparted;
3. because no one has posted the etymology of the word to discover and discuss root meaning and usage which would shed real light on OP's question instead of the Spongebob & Patrick discussion that's happening here instead;
4. because if i read another reference to a war that happened almost a century ago....

Okay, then enlighten us. Someone already gave a definition but that's not what I asked. I wanted practical examples, not a dictionary definition. If that was what I wanted this thread would have been over a while ago. A dictionary definition helps but how would a person who is a pacifist live in practice? What would they believe in? The other questions have been answered.

because of all those reasons i listed, I'm already turned off by the thread, so good luck with the other users.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Originalmente postado por Holografix:

because of all those reasons i listed, I'm already turned off by the thread, so good luck with the other users.

You'll be back :)

[Adversary]

Personally, I took an oath during the 2000s to not strike anyone outside of self defense. Because I committed a violent crime, and me being slapped in the ♥♥♥♥ by the long arm of the law was a wake-up call of sorts.

May not be the purest form of pacifism, but it's as close as I'm going to get I guess.

Words aren't violence, by the way. Neither is silence. If someone says something you don't like it's better to either ignore them or debate them. If someone doesn't say anything you dislike, but you're still mad because they didn't say anything at all, that says more about you than it does them I think.

May not agree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it.

[Volfogg]

I lack violent intent by default. Does that makes me a pacifist, if I'm not capable of hurting even in self-defense?

[Barney, from Black Mesa.]

Originalmente postado por Volfogg:

I lack violent intent by default. Does that makes me a pacifist

If you don't wish to resort to violence then welcome to the Passivism club because unlike a minority of people, most people don't actually believe in Pacifism anyway. Almost all people are going to prefer a more peaceful solution over a violent one to solve their conflicts because war is never usually waged out of desire as within all warfare everyone has something to lose, and no one likes to experience loss.

War happens out of necessity between the conflicting interests of opposing factions for whatever it may be. Warfare and conflicts happen because usually negotiations between the two parties for a mutual outcome isn't always a realistic option that'll hold both party interests as interests can often conflict, hence it puts the meaning of conflict in warfare by its exact definition.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

You don't look for conflict and prefer situations being sorted peacefully. But remember, just because you are a pacifist doesn't mean you are harmless.

[SMIFFY]

Originalmente postado por • Sigfodr •:

TL;DR the nonsensical political rant, so I'll sum up your question straight to the point and give a strictly apolitical answer because I despise politics (and it's a banned discussion anyway).

---

What is a Pacifist?: A pacifist is a modern philosophy popular with altruists (usually hippies) who are pacified to the actions of any physical resistance and all other conflicting forces. A pacifist wants to imagine that they can change the attitudes of people (and tyrants) with a vase of flowers, a few white doves and a beg to appeal whereas failing to realise that the reality of the world outside of a civilised society is not moved by floral crowns and their attitudes of philanthropical submissiveness.

While an actual majority even within a civilised society do not follow such a fantastical concept, there are many of those among them who have never faced such transgression and civil conflict outside of a sheltered life of first-world problems and comfortable high-tech living. Such a concept even goes as far as in a few (and only a few) delusional Survivalist / Prepper communities who think that they can pacify any aggressors through love & kindness when like the third-world people who would purposefully target & maim such people for their emphasises for cowardice and being easy generally lacklustre targets.

Pacifism is by all means a logically flawed concept (born out of modern philosophy) because at one point when more serious (and uncivilised) matters hits a pacifist in the face they'll soon find themselves robbed of all their worth in trying to convince other people that you must fight swords with words and to ask just to please "play nice".

Finally, a final note addressing a few users among us here: You people do not understand what it means to be a pacifist because the point of pacifism by definition doesn't mean to "favour pacifism", it means to not use violence at all and settle matters through peaceful means.

If you're just going to say that "I'm a pacifist" but I'll fight back, then that defeats the whole point of being a Pacifist. Pacifism means to pacify and a pacified person does not fight back. You might as well be saying that you're a vegetarian but you'll still eat meat! Here's the Oxford definition of "Pacifism"[www.lexico.com], don't kid yourselves with falsities that some among you don't understand.

. . . Some of you people are just looking for another fancy title-name so you can wear it like a badge of pride without understanding what it means, you know who you are and I couldn't care to talk names but it's painfully obvious that some among you are trying to use this as an opportunity to try and "feel special". Bah!

Congratulations on failing do do what you said within the first paragraph.

[Psychlapse]

I consider myself a pacifist, in and around that I will not knowingly seek confrontation, cause harm or distress, or engage in any chain of events that causes such.

HOWEVER

1 - The world is not a black and white place, and it is not a utopia. If someone attacks me in a simple physical sense, I will defend myself. Does that mean I am no longer a pacifist? Hell no. I am still someone who does not seek confrontation. I just don't want someone to stamp on my face on account that it hurts. Once I've neutralised my attacker and they no longer pose threat I will leave.

2 - What if someone else is being attacked and I have to intervene? Well, you could argue that now I am in instigator of violence, therefore I am no longer a pacifist. Still hell no. I will also not knowingly allow someone to be harmed for what I may perceive to be no good reason.

3 - If my country is under attack from a foreign army - would I join the the domestic defence force and potentially kill people? Of course. Am I still a pacifist? Yes. See point 1.

In all counts, I do not seek out the confrontation. It is forced upon me, and I have to act in such a way that I have to in order to stay alive and whole, then I will go straight back to not seeking out confrontation.

You may argue "True Pacifism" as in should I stand and allow myself to be knifed to death in the streets while trying to hug my attacker and tell them it will be ok? That doesn't exist and never will. Your instinct to survive is stronger than any moral stance.