You don't get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it's your own fatherland, which in this case I'm assuming it's not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I'm a Roman Legionnarie out fighting in Gaul, but I'm a "staunch pacifist," you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I'm out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome's honor. But I'm a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does "pacifism" mean to you?
Here's how Google defines it:
the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances, and that all disputes should be settled by peaceful means.
I've read works by actual pacifists such as Tolstoy, whose views reflected that definition. Can you cite any "pacifist" who thinks supporting a war, even a defensive one, is consistent with pacifism?
This take is so stupid, it doesn't warrant a response.
What does the word 'take' mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use..
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I'm sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You're being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn't warrant a response?
Well I don't talk like that because I'm not an insufferable redditor. If I have a problem with something someone said I don't make a smug meta comment about how I'm not going to engage despite engaging. I'm going to directly address the problem I have.
That dude's comment was 100% troll baiting. No one makes such braindead arguments in good faith. Why would I waste my time? Now, I'm curious.. why are you so upset about my response to a blatant troll?
What a child. Now quoting to you the meaning of a word is a 'braindead argument'? Speaking of someone's brain not working, your only arguments are to handwave with thought terminating cliches.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you're pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I've read further shows that I'm obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I'm a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don't. Pacifism.
you’re pro-war, actually.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I'm sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I'm not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn't want any punches thrown in the first place.
That's nonsense. If "pro-war" means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I'm not "pro-war" because I don't actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I'd say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly "pro-war", as they went in without provocation and the justification of "WMD" was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it's weird to characterize self-defense as "pro-war" or "being a war hawk". One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it's wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as "pro-war".
For example, I haven't thrown a punch in decades, I don't want to throw a punch and I'll avoid doing so if there's a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse
This is the main point I was making. In the context of discussing pacifism, which condemns all war, supporting any war is pro-war, at least relative to the actual meaning of pacifism.
Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers
Then provide me with a source to these pacifist philosophers who support war.
Also, 100 years seems way short. In the Bible, Jesus taught, "turn the other cheek," and "be good to those who hurt you," and chided one of his followers when he attacked a Roman and is said to have healed his wound. If pro-war pacifism counts as part of the tradition, then surely that would as well.
(and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have “do no harm” as a tenant)
Do you mean, for example, the Jains? Because they also belong to the type of pacifism that is opposed to war.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
No, because I'm not a pacifist. I just know what the word means.
Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.
As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.
The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.
If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.
If you’re not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
This is nonsense. Suppose I eat meat, but I call myself a vegan. If you're not a vegan, then should you defer to me on how to define what a vegan is?
If pacifism does not mean opposition to war, then sure, I'm a pacifist, why not. We're all pacifists. It means literally nothing.
Your first link actually provides a neat little term for people who want to tell everyone how much they love peace while supporting war - "Pacificism." "A useful term to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace." I don't think I've ever met a single person in my life who doesn't meet that description - except, I suppose, actual pacifists. Dick fucking Cheney is a "Pacificist." Completely meaningless.
Your second source I can't access beyond the first page. Your third source does raise a valid point, I stand corrected.
I do not support the war in Ukraine, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I'm a communist. There is substantial overlap between the two, but the main difference is that I make an exception for wars along class lines, which this isn't. The common people are being drafted against their will to fight a pointless war over which reactionary government controls a patch of land.
If a person uses a term you don't think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It's not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word "correctly" even though that's not how words work.
For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you're not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?
Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other? How one of them could be violence in the hope of future peace for others vs violence in hope of gaining more land and more bodies for the meat-grinder?
If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I'm just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?
Then you are not a pacifist. Words mean things.
You don't get to call yourself a pacifist, let alone a staunch one, and then rally around the defense of the fatherland, even if it's your own fatherland, which in this case I'm assuming it's not. This is complete nonsense and hypocrisy.
I'm a Roman Legionnarie out fighting in Gaul, but I'm a "staunch pacifist," you see, because Rome made an alliance with one of the Gallic tribes and its neighbor tried to mess with it, so now, I'm out here slaughtering foreigners hundreds of miles away from home to defend Rome's honor. But I'm a pacifist, you see!
What the hell does "pacifism" mean to you?
Here's how Google defines it:
I've read works by actual pacifists such as Tolstoy, whose views reflected that definition. Can you cite any "pacifist" who thinks supporting a war, even a defensive one, is consistent with pacifism?
This take is so stupid, it doesn't warrant a response.
What does the word 'take' mean if it can include a dictionary definition of a word?
Take is a weird word. Take as a noun refers to what has been taken. So, in this context, it is like an opinion informed by a story. In a more definitional use..
I took from that story that the sky is blue. That is what I have taken from that story, therefore, that is my take.
I'm sorry your response indicates that my intent went over your head. You positioned someone telling you the literal definition of a word and then a historical example as an opinion. You're being childish with your refusal to engage in honest conversation.
Sorry, you sounded like you were asking for a definition as if English was not your first language. Did you really want to split hairs over the definition of take? How about, what he said was so stupid it doesn't warrant a response?
Well I don't talk like that because I'm not an insufferable redditor. If I have a problem with something someone said I don't make a smug meta comment about how I'm not going to engage despite engaging. I'm going to directly address the problem I have.
That dude's comment was 100% troll baiting. No one makes such braindead arguments in good faith. Why would I waste my time? Now, I'm curious.. why are you so upset about my response to a blatant troll?
What a child. Now quoting to you the meaning of a word is a 'braindead argument'? Speaking of someone's brain not working, your only arguments are to handwave with thought terminating cliches.
Sorry, I guess I'm just not smart enough to understand that pacifism is when you're pro-war, actually. And I guess the fact that I backed it up with the actual definition and with actual pacifist theory I've read further shows that I'm obviously wrong.
I will defer to your judgement, O Wise One. I accept your definition. I'm a pacifist too, I oppose violence in every case except for the cases where I don't. Pacifism.
Pro war would imply a desire for the combat inherently. I'm sure the vast majority would be perfectly happy for Russia to go home and the war to end. I'm not pro-fighting if I fight back as I am getting actively punched, I didn't want any punches thrown in the first place.
That's nonsense. If "pro-war" means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I'm not "pro-war" because I don't actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I'd say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly "pro-war", as they went in without provocation and the justification of "WMD" was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it's weird to characterize self-defense as "pro-war" or "being a war hawk". One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it's wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as "pro-war".
For example, I haven't thrown a punch in decades, I don't want to throw a punch and I'll avoid doing so if there's a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
This is the main point I was making. In the context of discussing pacifism, which condemns all war, supporting any war is pro-war, at least relative to the actual meaning of pacifism.
Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
Then provide me with a source to these pacifist philosophers who support war.
Also, 100 years seems way short. In the Bible, Jesus taught, "turn the other cheek," and "be good to those who hurt you," and chided one of his followers when he attacked a Roman and is said to have healed his wound. If pro-war pacifism counts as part of the tradition, then surely that would as well.
Do you mean, for example, the Jains? Because they also belong to the type of pacifism that is opposed to war.
No, because I'm not a pacifist. I just know what the word means.
Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.
As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.
The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.
If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.
This is nonsense. Suppose I eat meat, but I call myself a vegan. If you're not a vegan, then should you defer to me on how to define what a vegan is?
If pacifism does not mean opposition to war, then sure, I'm a pacifist, why not. We're all pacifists. It means literally nothing.
Your first link actually provides a neat little term for people who want to tell everyone how much they love peace while supporting war - "Pacificism." "A useful term to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace." I don't think I've ever met a single person in my life who doesn't meet that description - except, I suppose, actual pacifists. Dick fucking Cheney is a "Pacificist." Completely meaningless.
Your second source I can't access beyond the first page. Your third source does raise a valid point, I stand corrected.
I do not support the war in Ukraine, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I'm a communist. There is substantial overlap between the two, but the main difference is that I make an exception for wars along class lines, which this isn't. The common people are being drafted against their will to fight a pointless war over which reactionary government controls a patch of land.
If a person uses a term you don't think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It's not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word "correctly" even though that's not how words work.
For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you're not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?
Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other? How one of them could be violence in the hope of future peace for others vs violence in hope of gaining more land and more bodies for the meat-grinder?
If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I'm just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?
Ofcourse not. I'm Atlanticist. Pacific should shove a dildo up its ring of fire and fuck right off.
Don't you have some imperialist colonialism to support with actions and deny by word?