Your opinion on pacifism

[Corporate Collective Salvation]

To say that violence should not be your first option is to be wise.
To say that violence should never be an option at all is to be dangerously foolish.

Life is a just a series of choices, none of which are new, and among the oldest is the decision to be a victim, or not.

[The UwU Federation]

Pacifism is all well and good, until a threat comes, that can't be avoided
it's natural to want to avoid conflict, but it being totally avoided is impossible, and at that point action and force is required

[Exarkyon]

Pacifism is all well and good, until a threat comes, that can't be avoided
it's natural to want to avoid conflict, but it being totally avoided is impossible, and at that point action and force is required

To say that violence should not be your first option is to be wise.
To say that violence should never be an option at all is to be dangerously foolish.

Life is a just a series of choices, none of which are new, and among the oldest is the decision to be a victim, or not.

Never choose violence, but do not back down when violence chooses you.

[Past beans]

Pacifism is all well and good, until a threat comes, that can't be avoided
it's natural to want to avoid conflict, but it being totally avoided is impossible, and at that point action and force is required

To say that violence should not be your first option is to be wise.
To say that violence should never be an option at all is to be dangerously foolish.

Life is a just a series of choices, none of which are new, and among the oldest is the decision to be a victim, or not.

Never choose violence, but do not back down when violence chooses you.

Meanwhile I think “choose violence, but be ready for their violence.”

[Floofybit]

I've been told I'm a pacifist by members of my family even though I am okay with self-defense and just war theory.

So, now I am somewhat confused.

That would be technically inaccurate by the strict definition. Pacifism usually refers to an absolute rejection of the use of force. Pacificism (notice the extra "ic") refers to a rejection of force except if necessary or justified. Perhaps your family was calling you that? Or maybe they were just using it inaccurately as a label.

Pacificism is just west coast representing and putting their hands up

[Floofybit]

Pacifism only works when everyone follows it. Otherwise you are just easy, weak prey. And people love to be predators.

Better that than being a predator. But prey have defenses

[Past beans]

Pacifism only works when everyone follows it. Otherwise you are just easy, weak prey. And people love to be predators.

Better that than being a predator. But prey have defenses

But, will pacifists use them? No.

[Ankoz]

My opinion lies somewhere in between just war and total pacifism I suppose(?), any act of aggression is unacceptable, and can never be supported for any reason, and the only time violence can ever be permissible is if it is done with as little harm as possible for the purpose of stopping it when no other option is available.

For example, one time I was being strangled with my back against a wall, so I bit them, shoved their arms off of me and ran, in that case I felt it permissible because it was
A) An act of unwarranted violence against me (I still have no idea what caused them to attack me)
B) I used as little force as was necessary (they had only very minor bleeding as the bite was to cause shock not to injure) and
C) It was done for the express purpose of preventing further violence and allowed me to get the proper authority to deal with it.

If you want a real-world example, then take resisting an act of aggression from a foreign power (e.g., Ukraine, French resistance, Spanish guerrillas, the partisans, etc.), I believe this is morally acceptable due to the very extreme nature of the circumstances, but should only be done as a last resort and with as little harm done as possible, and any harm coming to civilians/unaffiliated parties/those who have surrendered is absolutely unjustifiable.

[Neanderthaland]

From the beginning there have always been classes of people who do not fight, and are taboo to attack. Sometimes this has to do with gender roles, sometimes it is for religious reasons, but whatever the case it is important that these people exist. They enable a degree of stability and continuity even in the face of war. They can preserve art and culture, act as sanctuary, and often play an important role in shaping peace.

You can tell when a society has failed in some meaningful way when these groups are denounced, enlisted into the conflict, or targeted.

[Melrovia]

I solve all of my problems with violence.

[The Great Nevada Overlord]

The best system of foreign policy.*

*Unless violence is neccessary, like the killing of Saddam Hussein or World War Two.

[Floofybit]

Better that than being a predator. But prey have defenses

But, will pacifists use them? No.

Most pacifists will.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

Well it means you can't use conquest as an excuse against civilisations with similar values.
E.g. if George W. Bush is a Christian, Iraq couldn't be occupied because Islam is similar (more similar than the secular morality of Sweden, for example, is to Christianity).

So it would be fine for the USSR to invade Italy, since the communists were atheistic while Italy was strongly christian?

No because the USSR were the ones who were wrong.

[Scots-Rhodesia]

pacifism is a weakness and i support Good Imperialism but i believe we should also end Bad Imperialism

[Past beans]

pacifism is a weakness and i support Good Imperialism but i believe we should also end Bad Imperialism

what defines bad imperialism if I may ask?
I draw my line with civilian murder.

[Fan-T Pashtunistan]

pacifism is a weakness and i support Good Imperialism but i believe we should also end Bad Imperialism

Is non-white imperialism justified as well?

[Picairn]

pacifism is a weakness and i support Good Imperialism but i believe we should also end Bad Imperialism

>Good Imperialism

I hope you are not referring to the "Civilizing Mission" that 19th-century Europeans liked to brag about.

[Scots-Rhodesia]

pacifism is a weakness and i support Good Imperialism but i believe we should also end Bad Imperialism

what defines bad imperialism if I may ask?
I draw my line with civilian murder.

when Russians, Americans & Chinese try it

[Scots-Rhodesia]

pacifism is a weakness and i support Good Imperialism but i believe we should also end Bad Imperialism

Is non-white imperialism justified as well?

i support Japan reclaiming all of Asia

[Scots-Rhodesia]

pacifism is a weakness and i support Good Imperialism but i believe we should also end Bad Imperialism

>Good Imperialism

I hope you are not referring to the "Civilizing Mission" that 19th-century Europeans liked to brag about.

only Britain & Japan are good at Imperialism

[Risottia]

Violence is never good unless in cases of self defense. Safety is a priority.

So, you would let someone else beat to death a 3-year-old kid next to you. Because that's "self defense": defending oneself, not other people.

[Risottia]

No because the USSR were the ones who were wrong.

So you support invading other countries.
Because, you know, it was Italy that invaded the USSR, not the other way around.

[Floofybit]

What about defending other people (in the case of individual use of force) or allies (in the case of nations)?

Alright, I'll broaden my terms. Not self defense, just defense

Violence is never good unless in cases of self defense. Safety is a priority.

So, you would let someone else beat to death a 3-year-old kid next to you. Because that's "self defense": defending oneself, not other people.

[Portzania]

Violence is never good unless in cases of self defense. Safety is a priority.

So, you would let someone else beat to death a 3-year-old kid next to you. Because that's "self defense": defending oneself, not other people.

H-how did you come to that conclusion?

[Past beans]

what defines bad imperialism if I may ask?
I draw my line with civilian murder.

when Russians, Americans & Chinese try it

I mean bad imperialism in the terms of when something takes it too far. not based on when a certain race invades.