#Pacifism

[pizzacade]

One addition that the TV Movie's novelization made from the source material is that the Eighth Doctor while under amnesia, watches Tom and Jerry on the television inside the hospital, revealing he isn't a fan of the cartoon because it includes wanton violence, something he finds out he despises, though he doesn't know why.

[describe-things]

[ID: Two black and white photos of Kwame Ture/Stokely Carmichael, a young Black man, saying into a microphone with a sardonic expression, "In order for non-violence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none, has none." End ID.]

[leresq]

Trigun is cool because it doesn't treat pacifism as a naive joke for children and it treats 'kill all the killers' as the broken sense of morality for lunatics that it really is

[windona]

The way people talk about pacifists, in media, in fandom, in life can be so damn infantilizing. "How stupid and naive, to say violence isn't the best option." Whole episodes to show that a group of pacifists in the face of danger are dumb, unable to protect themselves, unable to handle violence, needing to be taught that their pacifism is wrong and that violence is the good and best option. Others showing them as passive, on the sidelines. People talk about the right to commit violence, when violence is right, but then there are those scoffing at the idea of a right to not commit violence.

As if being a pacifist is easy. As if committing to those ideals in the face of danger, in the face of one's own rage, is always easy. As if groups of pacifists weren't born of civil wars and raging pain, as if pacifists haven't been committed and dedicated to making the world better. As if they can't be brave, running through storms of bullets to deliver goods to make people's lives easier. As if they haven't been abolitionists, medics, and worked hard to improve things instead of just letting the horrors of the world bowl them over.

[gothchrist]

"War Porn," in The Conspiracy of Art by Jean Baudrillard

[applesauce42069]

people think that pacifist-zionism can't exist because they've been told that its inherently (((evil))) and colonial for Jews to want any sort of self determination in our ancestral homeland. but the reality is that Jews wanting self determination in our ancestral homeland is the same as any other indigenous group wanting self determination in theirs, and so i believe in it. but i also believe that violence is never justified and should be avoided at all costs. now, obviously it didn't happen that way. but, looking forward, i do not believe that violence is a viable solution to this issue, and i believe that ending the cycle of violence is vital to creating a lasting, equitable solution. this is why pacifism is a focus for me, but i measure this with understanding that we do not live in an ideal world and all we can do is try our best.

[whereserpentswalk]

One of the worst things Christianity has done to the west is convince people that it's more noble for victims to accept violence and abuse than it is for them to fight agaisnt it, both on a personal and a societal scale.

"Where you recognise evil, speak out against it, and give no peace to your enemies" (Odin - Hávamál - 127).

[anarchistfrogposting]

In your post about democratic socialism, you said you are no longer a pacifist, but that you'd be happy to explain why if someone asked. I would love your thoughts on this please ☺️

I have been anti-war my whole life. I will be anti war my whole life. But I am no longer a pacifist. It was one of the hardest pills to swallow when I was reading anarchist literature and learning anarchist theory; after all, I’m an anarchist first and foremost because I want an end to domination and war.

My biggest revelation came from hearing Gramsci’s thoughts on pacifism.

Gramsci said that that our current system is inherently violent, relies on violence, and hence requires violence to overturn it. Gramsci redefined the bounds of violence, arguing that people starving to death because they can’t pay for food, the homeless freezing to death on cold streets, the poor being kicked out of their tenancies because they can’t afford rent, and effectively the entire purpose of the police in capitalist society is violence. That the law itself is a system of violence and domination. That capitalist government is inherently violent, being built on and maintained by violence.

in an ideal world, the populace would rise up and overturn the system without a single drop of blood shed, but the inherently violent nature of capitalist systems demands violent overturn of capitalism and capitalists. Pacifism, then, is effectively useless, and at its worst, actually harms us. The government can and will never be pacifist, so taking a futile moralistic stance that we should be non-violent just gets us and our movements hurt. If they are going to use violence against us, it means we must respond with violence.

That is why I stopped being a pacifist.

[ohsalome]

[spocks-husband]

Am I the only one in this fandom who doesn't think that Bruce was wrong for not killing Joker after he killed Jason. Idk maybe it's just because in my faith we view the taking of any life for any reason whatsoever as one of the worst things you can possibly do, especially out of vengeance-- hence why Batman is probably my favorite superhero because he follows that same code no matter what-- but like. Idk I'll admit I haven't consumed every piece of Jason media yet so maybe I'm just not getting it but like. Bruce refused to sacrifice his morals because he was angry and hurt and grieving. He stuck by what he's always believed in. I would have done the same thing, and if I was murdered I would absolutely not want my killer to die because of it. It's not that I don't understand Jason's anger and his desire for vengeance and all that but like. If I was Bruce, I would have done the same thing. I don't think Jason is wrong for being upset about it, those are his own personal morals but like. I genuinely don't get why people in the fandom act like Bruce is a horrible person for this. Am I insane. Is something wrong with me. Idk.

[theinwardlight]

From the Book of Discipline of the Ohio Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends

[r0gerr0ger]

More thoughts about Satine’s pacifism…

So I read this post the other day that suggested Satine’s period of rule was just a blip in Mandalore’s history, that she only maintained power because she’d won it in battle, and that Mandalorians were glad to return to their traditionalist ways and… it just really irked me.

Because that’s not true at all??

When we meet Satine in TCW, it’s super clear that she was very popular, and a good ruler. In only 15-20 years, she’s restored Sundari to prosperity, and is a city that appears very wealthy with a satisfied population. She herself is very invested in her people, helps directly with social and political matters. She’s managed to rebuild worlds and cities devastated by war and environmental issues.

There’s never any kind of explanation exactly as to her style of rule. Certainly she’s not a constitutional monarch but there is a prime minister and council, and regional governors, so she’s no autocrat. This suggests democracy, and her people thus voting for continued pacifist policies/leaders.

(We also only see issues/events occur that in any society would involve leaders, regardless of how much a role they play in politics)

I mean sure, it’s the capital city and we don’t really see anywhere else. And there’s also corruption, hunger, terrorism, etc.- but a lot of the latter issues are because of outside forces (galactic war and the sith) that she does remarkably well, in my opinion, to combat for several years.

So already that’s a lot of evidence to suggest pacifism/modernism was widely popular amongst Mandalorians and not just a blip.

(Also, she may have come to power through battle, but this suggests there was an incredibly strong military and public force behind her ascendancy to the throne in order to win a civil war that had been waging essentially for decades- therefore illustrating mandalorians wanted pacifism, and she didn’t just usurp her position)

Then to the suggestion they were glad to return to their military ways…

People often use the state of Mandalore in Rebels/The Mandalorian to argue that the warrior culture was a more natural and preferred one among Mandalorians.

But this isn’t what we see at all.

We return to Mandalore in Rebels like 17/18 years after we last saw it in TCW. In this time, an extremist clan and the empire have been ruling the system.

We’ve seen the scale and ability of the empire’s propaganda missions already- erasing or changing history, destroying entire races- particularly with the jedi.

Alongside a ruler encouraging/forcing his people to re-embrace their martial past, of course it’s going to appear as if Mandalorian society has returned to its ‘original’ state of violence and warfare.

And yet, even though it’s gone back to clan warfare and endless, unnecessary fighting, that’s not what the people want at all.

Even though the Mandalorians we meet in Rebels are characterised as especially traditional (clan wren allied with death watch; fenn rau fought alongside the republic and later the empire, going against satine’s political status) they are never actually fighting for a return to their martial past.

Instead, the whole storyline is about uniting Mandalorians, pushing out the oppressive empire, ending the civil wars, etc.

Sure, they want to retain more of their martial culture than Satine did, but perhaps here is where we can argue that Sundari was a bit of an exception by being so especially modernist, whereas other planets and communities still retained many elements of their warrior culture- such as wearing the armour- even if not engaging in warfare.

Again, there is a similar storyline in The Mandalorian season 3- despite the fact that this is about the most extreme group of Mandalorians. It’s still about uniting together, rebuilding their world, ending war and violence among each other, protecting each other.

Therefore, I think it’s clear that actually, even if not to quite the same degree (but then, it’s likely this would come later once the last 2 decades of military propaganda had been overcome) Mandalorians didn’t want to retain their military past, but wanted to move in a more pacifist direction.

The only thing I have some issue arguing against is what we see in TCW when Satine is overthrown, where the masses really quickly switch to supporting death watch/Vizsla.

I’ve talked here about why this may be the case but even many of my arguments on that post don’t properly explain why a city that in previous seasons we saw offering mass support for satine and prospering under pacifism, suddenly turned so against her.

Really, I put this down to TCW being, in the end, a show aimed at younger audiences, and needing to get the point across clearly and dramatically that death watch and maul had manipulated people, and that’s why it seems so out of place.

(Does anyone have more to say on this than me? I’d find other’s perspective on this, whatever that perspective is, really interesting)

Either way, it’s made continually clear that Satine’s rule was far from a blip in Mandalorian history, or that Mandalorians only ever barely tolerated her.

Their martial society was a thing of the past. People were sick of it. Satine won the clan wars for a reason, and was a very effective ruler for many years until events outside her control (that frankly would have negatively impacted even the most golden ruler) meant she fell from power.

Had there not been the clone war or the sith, she would undoubtedly have continued to rule, and mandalore continued to stay pacifist.

(I also think it’s a shame we never saw more of mandalorian society during Satine’s rule. We only focus on her and other political rulers at that time, and when we later return to mandalore it’s all from the perspective of either extremists like din djarin and his sect, or again more political leaders/rulers that have an especially militaristic past.)

[anarchistka]

Any sane person would absolutely not want humans to murder each other, anywhere. The issue with Hamas apologetic pro Palestine activists is that their agenda does not support the Palestinian population per se. They are not defending the rights of Palestinian civilians, but their own right to an uninformed, bigoted and performative opinion in their own (democratic) country. And these progressive liberal “anti apartheid” stances are so racist at their core. They infantilise Palestinians with their basic idea that “brown people/muslims/poc are inherently innocent and always 100% the victim to the evil and super powerful white people from Europe”… in this case the Jews, who seem to be passing as “white European” only whenever it is of disadvantage for them. Thank you? …

Of course Palestinian are victims of violence in this war. But the “white imperialist people come with guns to steal the land of a peaceful tribe” dynamic does absolutely not apply here. You could rather say that two groups of people want to live peacefully and safely in a small strip of land in the Levante, but there’s a fraction of people in each group who want all members of the “others” expelled or even killed. And these extremists, violent Israeli settlers, the far right Israeli government, anti-judaic Palestinians and Hamas terrorists equally, are at the core of the suffering of all peoples in Palestine/Israel.

If a Palestinian who has lost their home and has lost their loved ones is blinded by grief and develops a hatred for all Israelis - I can forgive it. It is human. But when western university students are pivoting this hatred that emerged from deepest grief and anger and justify their antisemitism with the suffering of the Palestinian people - it is unbearable. You are pouring oil into the same fire that is killing the children of Palestine that you supposedly care about. It is right and humane to be sympathetic with the people of Palestine. But defending a Terrorist Organisation and demonising all Israelis will not bring peace, ever!

[gothchrist]

The Hooded Man, Abdou Hussain Saad Faleh, being tortured by US soldiers in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, 4 November 2003 / "War Porn," in The Conspiracy of Art by Jean Baudrillard / Rescue crews putting out fires at the scene of an Israeli air strike on tents sheltering displaced Palestinians, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir el-Balah, Gaza, 14 October 2024 x

[many-sparrows]

They wrote this for all the Quakers and pacifists