Follow TV Tropes
Also this. It nearly happened when the British (unsuccessfully) brought Indian National Army officers to trial (these were Axis collaborators).
I would also argue that part of the problem was Gandhi influencing the Hindu part of India to refuse to participate in World War II. They still did, in huge numbers, but it instilled the perception in India's Muslims that they were bearing the burden of fighting the Axis alone, and strengthened the Muslim League politically.
Harry Turtledove (who is Jewish) wrote a short story "The Last Article" about an alternate history where Gandhi tried his pacifist strategy against Nazis.
Spoiler: it doesn't work out so well.
I canít see any value in just letting yourself get killed by an oppressor out of a commitment to absolute pacifism. You gain nothing and lose your life.
Absolute Pacifism is a nice idea that falls apart utterly in reality.
Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 8th 2018 at 9:53:49 AM
Harry has an extremely evocative mind but the Nazi regime also functioned because people chose to go along with it. How much of their regime would function if people refused to give their warrior master race bullshit the time of day?
But then again, my view is that you have to destroy the idea of violence if you want it to stop.
I also note that plenty of great peacemakers have ended up assassinated because they favored peace over violence. It's a hard road.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 8th 2018 at 9:54:57 AM
We've got a Real Life section in the Suicidal Pacifism page for a reason.
Yes, and Don't Create a Martyr.
In the end, I believe its much more effective but I also don't judge people for believing otherwise.
I've mentioned many times I'm an Actual Pacifist.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 8th 2018 at 9:56:21 AM
You canít ever ďstopĒ violence, and you probably donít really even want to. Like anything else, it serves its purpose.
Pacifism is utterly ineffective when your enemy has already committed to violence. Thatís the cold hard facts of the matter.
Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 8th 2018 at 9:57:24 AM
But none of those examples are about victims of genocide.
People who are committing genocide generally don't give a shit if they kill prominent members of a group of people they are already trying to wipe out anyway.
Edited by M84 on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:59:25 AM
That is basically my definition of evil, yeah.
I hope in a few centuries that violence is an Old Shame of humanity and we never have to engage in it again.
I also believe it is something we'll be able to eradicate out of the species and it will be the best day of humanity.
Frankly, the only way to eradicate violence is to eradicate humans. As competitive organisms itís part of our nature, it cannot and will not disappear.
The problem with that is the argument doesn't actually work. Because violence isn't a magic wand that eliminates someone trying to eradicate you. The Real Life examples, for example, pretty much point out people whipped themselves up to fight the Mongols...and the Mongols exterminated them.
People have also raised up violence against persecution—and found out it caused the enemy to intensify their attacks or turn something into centuries-long conflicts. Other times, enemies who have attacked and slaughtered have ended up stopping—because of negotiation or peaceful interaction.
See Vikings. The attempted defeat of them militarily was complete failure.
I favor peaceful protest and working against evils to undermine and collapse any and all evil regimes. And running for your life. However, again, if it's a choice between dying and killing then I choose dying. My greater moral concern is one that keeps me up at night is the difference between killing and SOMEONE ELSE DYING.
Where my answers are murkier.
Could I do something so vile to protect another? Probably. I have gotten in fights and my principles have not always head. Which doesn't make me feel good about myself as it means I've failed to find another way.
Yes, purging this idea and the heroism of war is definitely part of what we'll have to do.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 8th 2018 at 10:04:57 AM
The point is that referencing the Don't Create a Martyr page doesn't really help your argument.
You could have at least picked the Badass Pacifist page.
Edited by M84 on Nov 9th 2018 at 2:10:20 AM
Utterly hopeless, pointless idealism.
As much as we might all dislike the fact, violence is inherent to the human condition. That doesnít mean we shouldnít work to avoid it, as unnessecary violence is a obvious evil, but thereís simply no way to get rid of it entirely.
Thereís not always another way. There was no diplomatic solution to Nazism, for example. As I said, like with anything else violence does serve a purpose.
Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 8th 2018 at 10:14:10 AM
Which isn't to say that any of us need to get violent personally. If a home invader breaks into your house, calling the police is an option.
To bring this topic back to Racism, I'll point out that the option of "call the police" is not necessarily the best one if one is black. Not for nothing is calling the police being seen as a manifestation of white privilege in the USA.
Edited by M84 on Nov 9th 2018 at 2:21:03 AM
Eh, believe what you want man.
I'll hold to mine.
And my home invasion example does not have a option for the police since imminent danger is an issue.
Unless they are right at your bedroom door or in the room with you and you have no phone at hand, you can still at least make a phone call to the cops.
And as for your "I'll delay the home invader so my wife can escape"...how exactly would you delay them without resorting to violence of any kind?
Edited by M84 on Nov 9th 2018 at 2:28:40 AM
Offer myself up as a potential victim to hold them from going after my loved ones.
But off topic.
Thanks for discussing the issue with me.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 8th 2018 at 10:29:49 AM
You would already be a victim in that situation. You can't offer yourself up if you're already in their power. Seriously, what would you have to offer them that they can't already just take at that point?
We might find it distasteful and impractical to defend our family with a weapon, but ideally we'd still prepare for the possibility of violent intrusion with security investments like cameras, barred windows, alarms and heavy-duty locks. Invoking the threat of state violence via the police is also an important tactic - aggressors are less likely to press on if they believe that the authorities are on the way.
The post-WWII world order is a bit like that. There are still flashes of horrible violence all over the world, but the threat of a true global conflict is kept in check by the existence of defence blocks like NATO that hold a monopoly on violence and discourage other violent actors from engaging in aggressive actions in the first place. In declaring that Americans would die for Berlin, the system made sure that nobody had to die for Berlin - including the Russians and the Berliners themselves.
Linking this tangent back to the thread's subject: marginalised groups by definition have little to offer in terms of positive persuasion. They can't bribe the aggressor into treating them as equals, or offer some cultural or technological feature that they couldn't just seize by force. Political opposition, whether violent or non-violent, is by default destructive. You're aiming to degrade and destroy the other side's capacity to wage war on your people - whether by sinking their leaders' political careers, crippling their economic activities, sabotage their alliances or visiting violence on their soldiers. Obviously not every struggle needs a violent wing, but the threat of violence is sometimes required for de-escalation. The state of California enacted a bill in 1967 banning the public wielding of loaded guns after Black Panther members held an armed protest on the State Capitol. The most successful movements were all adept enough in peaceful tactics to gain widespread support, and comfortable enough with violent ones to leverage them for maximum political gain.
Edited by eagleoftheninth on Nov 9th 2018 at 12:05:07 PM
x6 Itís beyond a shame that access to law enforcement is so heavily segregated in the US. It creates self-reinforcing loops in those minority communities that just end up making crime issues worse.
x5 Absolute Pacifism is a position held with the privilege of having had others fight for you. It falls apart completely on contact with reality, and Iíll point out that the issue isnít with the ďpacifismĒ part but rather the ďabsoluteĒ part, because there are no absolutes.
If it wasnít for conflict and violence, none of us would be sitting here discussing this topic on this forum. There are points in time where violence is just and necessary, the problem that faces us is finding those times and making sure we donít overstep the bounds of whatís reasonable.
Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 8th 2018 at 10:33:37 AM
Absolute pacifism is not a privilege, it is a burden. Monsters thrive on the argument for necessary force and always use it to abuse those weaker than themselves. It is a constant and neverending series of justified slippery slopes and the idea that soldiers fight for pacifists is bullshit. Especially given the religions and philosophies of the world I most respect didn't end in "privileged" ways.
No, they died.
They died by the thousands. The tens of thousands. Murdered for their faiths, murdered for their principles, and murdered for their refusal to fight.
Which makes them heroes, not fools.
We all die eventually. We should die for peace.
A pacifist's worth is not found in being peaceful when there's no danger. A pacifists worth is being shot to death and refusing to kill. To love thy ENEMY not thy friend.
And people walk the walk all the fucking time. Because they know that doing so might and probably will get them killed—and accept that as the price of living the way they believe.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 8th 2018 at 10:40:26 AM
Itís an incredibly privileged position, make no mistake. Someone holding it has the luxury of being able to think theyíd die before theyíd fight, and many do not have that luxury. What it says is that personís right to exist has never been challenged the way so many have been.
Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 8th 2018 at 10:43:50 AM
Might be a radical position, but I'd argue that letting violent aggressors lay their hands on the people you love isn't strictly a heroic action.
If they can do it without letting harm come to their families and dependents (who might be less personally invested in the idea), then they're benefiting from the protection given by state violence.
Very relevant video.
Edited by eagleoftheninth on Nov 9th 2018 at 12:15:36 PM
Your argument is that people willing to be beaten, raped, tortured, and killed because they believe in it as a moral ideal are privileged.
Yes...okay, sure, you win.
Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 8th 2018 at 10:51:18 AM
Charles, how many people in the BLM movement (or their equivalents) do you think are holding onto this lofty position of 'absolute pacifism' as you are?
Community Showcase More