#Pacifism

[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.]

[dontforgetukraine]

Defending your loved ones, on your sovereign land, in response to a foreign invader, is not a pro-war stance. It is a moral obligation and a legal right. Calling for appeasement - when the chances of foreign soldiers kicking down your door and taking your children are zero - is not a brave stance. #ArmUkraineToWinNow —Adrian Petriw

[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

[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).

[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

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

Do you think it's fair to say that the way characters like Hama and Jet were treated is one aspect of the show that did not age well?

Absolutely not, if anything it is a case of fans not understanding nuance.

The show didn't try to pull a "both sides are bad." At no point are characters like Hama and Jet used to make the heroes (or the audience) question if the Fire Nation is actually in the right or at least not that bad and "was right about some people".

Hell, in The Library we see the owl spirit straight up argue that the good guys are no different from the Fire Nation for planning an invasion, and yet they NEVER doubt their resolve to do it anyway because, duh, of course this spirit can't see the difference between the two sides - here's not the one watching loved ones and wondering if he's next. And Aang is told by an air-nomad that, if there's no other option, he SHOULD go for the kill.

Jet and Hama have understandable motivations, and Jet was even given a redemption. The show doesn't want to use their bad actions to demonize them or their side of the war - but it does want to show said actions were indeed bad because not only did they lie to their allies, they were going out of their way to needlessly hurt innocents.

To use a real world exemple, lets compare it to the REAL Fire Nation: Japan. Sure, the japanese government/army commited some truly evil acts, both before and during World War II. But does that mean it was okay for the US to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Did they really have any right to horribly kill, maim and traumatize two cities filled with CIVILIANS? Innocent people that had nothing to do with what their government/army was inflicting on others? Did they deserve to not only be treated as guilty by association, but to also endure a FAR harsher punishment than the people that were truly doing unspeakably evil things?

Japan needed to be stopped, but did it truly have to be like this, or did some people get too comfortable with justifying violence and death because "it's a war" and lost sight of the simple fact that the "enemy" is human too?

I've said it once, I'll say it again: Avatar questions pacifism, but it is FAR more interested in asking people why they're so trigger-happy, why they're so eager to see these CHILD soldiers killing people left and right, and it makes them VERY uncomfortable because they don't want to think about why they assume the only way to fix a conflict is to go straight for lethal violence.

[thepopculturearchivist]

LIFE, February 2, 1928

[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.

[mtg-art-daily]

Pacifism

For the first time in his life, Grakk felt a little warm and fuzzy inside.

Artist: Robert Bliss

[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

[the-dao-of-the-zerg]

I find it interesting how many people get the correct answer on the Trolley Problem (kill one, save five), and yet are also prone to insisting on pure pacifism (kill no one, presumably letting the other five die)

Like, I get the idea that violence is a failure state. I get the idea of trying to avoid violence.

And I get the idea of "value over replacement": killing the Trolley Company CEO doesn't guarantee that you get someone any better. You might end up getting an even worse CEO, who cuts maintenance even further, and now you need to kill five to save ten.

And if you refuse the Trolley Problem, then at least it's consistent to say that there is NEVER any gain from killing the CEO.

But how can you say that violence is "never" the answer, and then go on to agree that killing someone IS the correct answer to the Trolley Problem?