Pacifism and other 'sissy' things

^ If that is what you got out of my posts, you clearly haven't been reading them attentively enough. As for your historical backup, I see not a single shred of evidence that wars are fought and movements started by numinous/primal/moral/higher drives when there are notable concrete and pragmatic reasons for their catalysts.

They are caused by both; however, if you look at wars throughout history, you will see a pattern of ideological dogmatism running through most. Some of it is more understated than others, however, there is always a higher, more dramatic reason for waging a war beyond the mere concrete, practical terms. I will not deny that there are practical, pragmatic reasons for waging war; however, I will also never deny the fact that the ideological aspect of war is just as, if not more important, and it is also why we will never see an end to it as long as humanity remains on this planet.

edited 5th Sep '11 11:39:40 PM by tropetown

Okay, then explain Switzerland.

Both are required for a war to be entirely successful.

Vietnam had many ideological reasons for intervention but was short on practical reasons.

Iraq similarly has little obvious practical reasons and was therefore opposed as well.

QED, ideology doesn't mean shit when it comes to whether the war is actually fought or not.

I'm not saying ideology isn't a useful tool when it comes to manipulating people into fighting, but it usually functions along the lines of "you need to protect your children's safety" as opposed to "this will give you the heroic edge your life has been missing."

edited 5th Sep '11 11:44:12 PM by kashchei

Swiss neutrality is done out of mere survival and the luck of recent history; every country has had a history of warfare if you look far back enough, and the Swiss are not pacifists, since if they were, they would have been overrun long ago. If the Nazis invaded Switzerland (which they likely would have done after they were finished with the Soviet Union and Britain), would the Swiss people be immune to wanting to get involved in saving their country? Or, to look at it a different way; the attraction that people have to war (undeniable, otherwise War Is Glorious would not have prevailed for so long (and don't say that this was only due to propaganda; war inherently carries a certain drama about it, which is why we have Truffaut Was Right as a trope) if there wasn't any) can be tempered by the necessity of survival; however, once the situation seems imminent and the purpose (whether for defence, glory or other reasons) is established, few people are immune to the attractive pull that war tends to have. Is it a good thing? Not necessarily. Is it an inherent thing? Yes. Giving people a dramatic edge isn't consciously the point (the exact ideology may vary from nation to nation, and from war to war); however, that is exactly why it does carry an appeal.

edited 5th Sep '11 11:58:03 PM by tropetown

I consider it very unrealistic to be a pacifist.

There will always be other people who want to use force to manipulate, control, and coerce others. The only reason anyone even has the option to be a pacifist is because there are others out there who realize this and are willing to fight to stop those aggressors.

That isn't an opinion, it's a simple fact. Even Switzerland isn't a pacifist country, their entire country is designed militarily to become a guerilla warfare hellhole to any country that ever was stupid enough to invade them.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." rings true here. If everyone sits back and takes the pacifist approach, then evil will triumph. Being resistant to violence and using it as an option after diplomacy and subterfuge is ideal, you limit the violence until it becomes necessary, but people need to know that sometimes it is necessary.

Some people talk about, for instance, how you should turn the other cheek towards bullies and stuff, because eventually they will get theirs. You know the type of person who is going to give them theirs? Someone who gets tired of their shit and punches them out, or if they get older and the shenanigans continue, a police officer. People who are not pacifists are the only thing that stands between tyrants and peaceful folk.

edited 5th Sep '11 11:50:10 PM by Barkey

If the Nazis invaded Switzerland (which they likely would have done after they were finished with the Soviet Union and Britain), would the Swiss people be immune to wanting to get involved in saving their country?

I'd wager that they would not, but once again, it would be because of personal safety, not because of ideology.

And yes, there is drama present in war, and when we depict war in fiction we glorify it just as we glorify everything else. That does not mean that this is a major motivation in real life. Talk to people who have actually been in war, either as fighters or its victims. The glory takes an absolute back seat to the desire for peace and stability.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." rings true here. If everyone sits back and takes the pacifist approach, then evil will triumph. Being resistant to violence and using it as an option after diplomacy and subterfuge is ideal, you limit the violence until it becomes necessary, but people need to know that sometimes it is necessary.

Pacifism isn't "doing nothing." You can resist without hitting back. You can organize peaceful protests. You can explain your thinking and recruit others to your ideology. You can make the enemy reconsider his stance by not fighting back; you cannot do that by fighting.

edited 6th Sep '11 12:02:07 AM by kashchei

@kashchei When you are directly involved in a war, you will be concerned mainly with your own survival, though the reason many people have joined in the past is because of an ideological devotion to their state, to the conflict, to protecting their homes, or defending their homeland. Being surrounded by suffering and death invites either nihilism, or it forces you to strike back against it, rebelling against the meaninglessness of it.

As for your next point; what do you do if the enemy decides to simply crush you behind his feet? At some point, violence will be necessary.

Also, as I said before; the concept of good and evil is not an accurate descriptor of human morality; rather, it is framed more as: high purpose vs. nihilism. Denying that there is any morality is either nihilism or evidence of the failure of good and evil to accurately describe morality as a whole. You don't strike me as a nihilist (a nihilist would not ascribe any value to the notion of pacifism, since a nihilist values nothing), so I will assume it's because you haven't found a satisfactory definition of "good". What I am going to tell you, before I leave the debate for the night is that good and evil has restricted yours, and many others' view of the world to the point that you cannot see outside its lens. However, this has meant that, in being unable to find a definition of "good", you have also cast out the idea of "evil", since evil is defined under traditional morality as being the opposite of good. You still have a moral compass, not being a nihilist, and I would find it extremely difficult to believe that, if you were given a higher purpose and calling that moved you, you would not want to follow it. With that said, the lens of traditional morality has caused you to percieve my point of view as "evil"; however, if you take a long look at yourself, I think you will see my point. Searching for "good" will not satisfy you; searching for meaning and purpose will.

@Thatguythere: That's exactly right, though what I would also add to that is that the ideological reason behind Vietnam did not affect ordinary Americans; they did not feel as though the drama was relevant to them, so they did not feel that their involvement was necessary. Eventually, there was no ideological or practical reason to remain, and so, they left, defeated. Iraq is also suffering the same fate; unless there is an ideological reason (such as, say, the Iraqi insurgents leading an attack on American soil, which would move many people to anger) and a practical reason to continue, the US will eventually see this end up being a Vietnam-type situation.

I'm trying to find a fairly good condensed version of what I'm getting at here; I posted it on another forum, but I can't quite find it.

edited 6th Sep '11 12:46:14 AM by tropetown

I see someone's been eating their Nietzchebix .

Its an interesting idea dude, and I can see where you are coming from, but I am none too sure about its accuracy.

And the "problem" with pacificsm as a political standpoint is the fact that it only really works if you KNOW the regime isn't going to openly start firing into the crowd/running people over. It can only work when the regime has some form of morality and doesn't want to look too gittish to the international community, otherwise they will simply send in the tanks.

edited 6th Sep '11 1:11:30 AM by JosefBugman

And what good does that do if the "enemy" still decides to be violent? Not all problems can be solved through words (surprisingly few actually can when talking the prospect of avoiding war) and peaceful demonstrations mean nothing without the means to back it up by force.

Take a look at Syria. Assad has been protested and demonstrated against for months but do you see him stepping down or even so much as listening to the opposition? No. Instead thousands of Syrians have been killed with very little organized defensive capability of their own. Pacifism in this case is getting a lot of folks killed for no positive benefit.

Thread Hop: I don't few it as a "sissy" thing, I view it as a "stupid" thing. Much like preferring to demolish things with headbutts instead of a sledge hammer.

I don't really consider pacifism as "problem solver", so I would have to disagree about it being stupid o-o However, you probably meant in the "Pacifism vs violence, violent person shoots the pacifist, the end" way or that it causes more causalities in some cases when opposite doesn't care about slaughtering people who don't resist.

Pacifism amounts to self-destruction in a non-pacifist world.

Morally superior self destruction

@OP:

Short answer: Yes.

Slightly longer answer: It'd be out of job if we were all pacifists.

Long answer: Yeah....

The only thing Pacifism really succeeds in doing politically is to bring the eyes of the world on the plight of a group that is being coerced by violence.

The reason this is valuable, is because it's up in the air as to if other nations will sit idly by and let another commit atrocities.

Every pacifist owes his ideology to people who are not pacifists. The intent is good, but in practice, it's a failure of an ideology en masse.

OP: As for the sissy thing...probably due to the fact that most pacifists/proponents of disarmament/anti-war supporters are liberals and/or dirty hippies.

The problem is that nothing is never as simple as "war = bad, peace = good". Yes, war must be avoidable, but not always "at all cost": If someone invades your country, the population needs to stand up and fight the agressor. If I think pacifism is a good ideal, but as well as other "-ism's", it works in theory, but it is a lot more complex in the real world.

edited 6th Sep '11 8:21:05 AM by Anthony_H

And exactly what does being a liberal or a hippie have to do with being a sissy? Unless your meaning is that those labels are all looked down upon in certain quarters and so get conflated...

Anyway. I think it doesn't solely rely on other people fighting for you. It can also be useful in the sense that most folks have a more difficult time justifying hurting people who aren't putting up a threat or fighting back. Most people want to think they're in the right, and that hurting people who aren't a threat isn't right. Thus you instill doubt in the instigator, demonstrate that breaking a cycle of violence is in fact possible if they're willing to put down arms and negotiate, etc.

Now, for aggressors who don't or won't care in the least that you aren't fighting back and are advocating peace... this other aspect of the game won't work.

edited 6th Sep '11 8:29:38 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

Yes, pacifism as an ideal is good, although foolish. However, it's too damn unrealistic and overly idealistic. A desire for war and struggle is a part of the human nature. Even if that's wrong, humans in general are way too violent to refuse to respond to any threat with vioence. Non-agression is desirable, but what in case somebody holds a gun to my face? There's no fucking chance that I'm going to stand there and let him kill him for the sake of a foolish ideal.

From a practical standpoint, pacifism will not work because it will not prevent your opponent from doing what he likes with you. Look at the difference between Syria and Libya, for example. The Syrian protesters (who have decided to peacefully protest, though with destruction of property naturally coming along) have done nothing to directly solve their problem; the government is cracking down on them, and nothing has been gained. Libya, on the other hand, is now in the middle of a civil war; the government has been ousted from Tripoli by the rebels, and is in the midst of defeat. The pacifist option, in this case, has done nothing, while the violent option has.

My argument was looking at war from a moral/ideological standpoint: it isn't the entirety of my philosophy, but it is how it applies to warfare. Humans are not naturally drawn towards peace and pacifism; you could even argue this from a biological/evolutionary standpoint as well.

edited 6th Sep '11 8:37:14 AM by tropetown

The only people I know with long hair and beards that aren't against fighting..aren't hippies. Though you do have a point; both of those groups aren't regarded that highly.

Just out of curiousity (though I think the answer is obvious at this point): how many people here actually do support pacifism?

I hope you all realize that pacifism isn't synonymous with nonviolence? You can be a pacifist and most certainly strike back in defense. Not every pacifists holds to the dictum that there is no cause for which they are prepared to kill; I hold that if you see life as intrinsically valuable enough to be worth protecting at almost any cost, you should view your own life with the same regard.

^ I do.

edited 6th Sep '11 8:54:10 AM by kashchei