What does it mean to be a "pacifist"?

[40000Aggro]

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?

[Out Of Bubblegum]

The world is not back and white. Many shades of gray. This question has no absolute answer.

[Castyles]

They don't start ♥♥♥♥, basically.

[40000Aggro]

Publicado originalmente por Out Of Bubblegum:

The world is not back and white. Many shades of gray. This question has no absolute answer.

So you have no personal opinions on what I've asked about, specifically?

[40000Aggro]

Publicado originalmente por 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.

[Zoomii]

Publicado originalmente por Pavlov:

Publicado originalmente por Out Of Bubblegum:

The world is not back and white. Many shades of gray. This question has no absolute answer.

So you have no personal opinions on what I've asked about, specifically?

What they meant is that pacifism can mean different things in different scenarios. A person who wholly opposes violence would probably still fight for their life if someone with murderous intent attacked them for example.

[Affronter]

You're partial to one ocean only,

[Mute Negotiator]

The meek (Ghandi levels of self-control).

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Well the original meaning is someone who sees violence and war as unjustifiable. In this case its not that they wont fight, they are completely against the idea of violence and war altogether. An example is indeed Ghandi who still in many claims said to have fought for what he believed in but he didnt do it violently or cause a war, thus he would be a pacifist

[40000Aggro]

Publicado originalmente por Zoomii:

Publicado originalmente por Pavlov:

So you have no personal opinions on what I've asked about, specifically?

What they meant is that pacifism can mean different things in different scenarios. A person who wholly opposes violence would probably still fight for their life if someone with murderous intent attacked them for example.

Right, and rather than giving an example of a time that would fit what they would say, they instead opt to give no opinion and give a non-answer and waste my time. They're not even right about that belief, either. All they have to do is clarify, and they won't.

[BanOphobia My Struggle]

What does it mean to be a pacifist? I would screwed when it comes to self defence probably? Pass on that BS I am going down a swinging.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Publicado originalmente por Pavlov:

Publicado originalmente por Out Of Bubblegum:

The world is not back and white. Many shades of gray. This question has no absolute answer.

So you have no personal opinions on what I've asked about, specifically?

No I don't. It means too many different things. The Amish are an extreme version of Pacifist. A person that laughs at a bully and walks away is also one. At that time.

[40000Aggro]

Publicado originalmente por NepNepNepu!:

Well the original meaning is someone who sees violence and war as unjustifiable. In this case its not that they wont fight, they are completely against the idea of violence and war altogether. An example is indeed Ghandi who still in many claims said to have fought for what he believed in but he didnt do it violently or cause a war, thus he would be a pacifist

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.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Publicado originalmente por Pavlov:

Publicado originalmente por NepNepNepu!:

Well the original meaning is someone who sees violence and war as unjustifiable. In this case its not that they wont fight, they are completely against the idea of violence and war altogether. An example is indeed Ghandi who still in many claims said to have fought for what he believed in but he didnt do it violently or cause a war, thus he would be a pacifist

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

[40000Aggro]

Publicado originalmente por Out Of Bubblegum:

Publicado originalmente por Pavlov:

So you have no personal opinions on what I've asked about, specifically?

No I don't. It means too many different things. The Amish are an extreme version of Pacifist. A person that laughs at a bully and walks away is also one. At that time.

Someone who laughs at a bully and walks away is passive, but that says nothing about their actual views or if they believe that bully would deserve to be hurt. What about a person who chases an innocent person down to bully them over something they weren't actually doing, and then lies to portray that person as bad and got people to harass them for years on that basis while playing victim and denying things they did? If that person wasn't trying to physically hurt the person, but was involved in trying to instigate others into hurting them, emotionally or otherwise, do you think that person would be a pacifist? What if they only verbally vented harm on them in a moment of anger, but otherwise had no actual desire to hurt them and otherwise never physically acted on it, even if they were intimidating, do you personally feel that telling another person directly you wish them to die would be pacifism? If they admitted they did it, do you personally view that as forgivable and of them being remorseful, or do you view it as proof of their own personal smugness and confidence in getting away with their own malicious behaviour, knowing people will forgive them endlessly no matter what wrongs they've committed? Do you think it's wrong or undermining someone elses' experiences to portray yourself as kind if you knew you did something immoral or illegal, especially if it made others believe you did nothing wrong, and abused someone else under that assumption even if that assumption was on the basis of omission of information? Do you think it's lacking in empathy to lie about something that is being done to a person? Is lying technically non-violent, and could a person who lies be a pacifist, even if it's wrong to lie? Would it matter what they're lying about?

[Fosty]

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