I don’t know the gender of any of the posters, but being squeamish, feeling incapable of physical violence, unwilling to serve in the military, seeking non-aggressive and non-violent solutions to conflict, are extremely typical of women in most western cultures. It isn’t special at all, and is very rarely perceived to be an issue of any kind. I would even say that many women like this would call themselves “pacifists” without much reflection about whether they are describing a philosophy, an aversion to conflict, or learned helplessness.
Most women I know (myself included) would find it extraordinarily difficult to be physically aggressive in a dangerous situation. Not all of them, I also know women who would be entirely comfortable with it. But they are a distinct minority.
So maybe this is only a case “I’m unusual for guy, in this regard I am more like a typical woman, so I named it something that makes me feel less effeminate.”
Nzinga: Do you see what I was getting at now? Because in my experience, most of these sorts of threads trend this way by the time they reach page 6. Sure, you can interpret certain remarks at face value. But after a while a pattern emerges.
Note that Czarcasm hasn’t claimed that he shouldn’t punch the perp. He’s said that he can’t punch the perp. And yet the agitated hypotheticals -all without any sort of statistical perspective or sense of likelihood- continue.
Thanks. That was an interesting an helpful post, and I hope you get a chance to finish it.
As far as the repetitive questioning goes, I think one part of the problem is that **Czarcasm[/b[ has characterized the issue in three was: as a psychological block against acting violently, an inability to want to act that way, and a philosophical opposition to violence. I think some people (such as myself) have had difficulty understanding the relationship between those things, and even whether they are separate phenomena. The post I quoted briefly above went some way to explaining this, but I’d like to try and tease it apart a little more.
First, am I right, Czarcasm, in characterizing your position as comprising those three elements (inability to act violently, inability to want to act violently, & philosophical opposition to violence)?
Have you ever been in a situation, or can you imagine a situation, in which it might be rational, according to a strictly impartial cost-benefit analysis, to commit violence, or do you believe that for every situation you can think of there is always a non-violent option? (I understand that you can’t answer about situations you haven’t thought of, and might be unwilling to answer absolutely. I’m just asking about situations you can think of.)
You’ve hinted that the answer to the above might be “yes”; for example, you’ve said that you probably wouldn’t survive in the 1800s, though maybe you consider not surviving under those circumstances to be the best rational option. Or does your psychological block make it impossible for you to think about a purely rational response to such situations? (Understandable if so.)
Have you ever been in a situation in which you tried to act violently? (Perhaps the boxing practice you mentioned.) If so, could you describe the nature of the psychological block you experienced?
The best that I can do is imagine that it is possible for other people without my inhibition to envision such a scenario. The problem I have with that(besides the block) is that it seems that almost every act of violence falls into that category-someone decides that violence is the price they are willing to pay to get the result they want.
Over the years of becoming a pacifist the level of rationality I’ve seen when it comes to the act of violence has decreased exponentially. If you dropped me into the 1800s right now my wits would have to suffice as my weapon of choice.
No, because even during the boxing lesson all I could do was block. And get hit. And wake up wondering what the hell happened.
As previously stated, I’ve never wanted to hit, punch, kick, stab, shoot, run over, push off a cliff/bridge/tall building/tall monkey/short brontosaurus, or flay anybody.
What do you mean when you say that is all you could do? If you didn’t at least try, how do you know what you could have done if you had tried? (This isn’t intended as a “gotcha”; I can think of more-or-less reasonable answers, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.)
Here’s another fanciful hypothetical scenario, but hopefully one that will help bring some enlightenment to the issue: Suppose someone Houdini-like offers to donate $5 million to the charity of your choice if you punch them as hard as you physically can. If you don’t (or they don’t think you gave it sufficient effort), they will make the same offer to the next person to line up. Someone with a Fred Phelps t-shirt hears this and stands behind you. What do you do? What goes through your mind? Do you imagine you would freeze up? Calmly but regretfully refuse? Punch as hard as you could?
Um, no. That’s not what has happened in this thread.
It’s more like the OP posting that he’s a vegan who consumes no animal products at all, except for butter and honey, and leather shoes, and he used to work in a butchers shop selling meat to other people but not eating it himself. And he then acts with surprise when everyone else tells him that he isn’t really a vegan at all.
Inasmuch as individuals with bad knees, poor eyesight, debilitating mental issues, ad nauseum, are not candidates for military service, I think “nation’s finest” is not entirely inapt. Moral character is not really a consideration (which, I venture, is the case for the constabulary as well, having observed how they behave).
As entertaining as this game of “Let’s find a scenario where Czarcasm will react violently towards another human being” is to some of you, I’m going to try to get back to the main topic-Pacifism.
I think that I try to follow Gandhi’s Satyagraha path, which goes beyond simple passive resistance. As Gandhi described it,
The object of Satyagraha is to convince, not coerce. Know what you oppose, know why it should be opposed, then convincingly convey this information to others. Another part of Satyagraha is that means and ends are tied to one another-a crooked path cannot lead to a good goal. Do not lie to yourself, and do not lie to others.
I don’t know if this is a response to me, but the hypothetical I posed was not about finding a situation in which you act violently, but about getting you to think about and explain two things: what aspects of violence you find objectionable and why, and what the experience of being non-violent feels like for you (since you’ve described it a psychological “block” as well as a philosophy). That seems perfectly consistant with “Know what you oppose, know why it should be opposed, then convincingly convey this information to others.”
I find the need for personal violence…unknowable is the best way to describe it, I think. As far as other aspects of violence goes, I can recognize imaginary violence and sometimes even admire the effort people make to convey the illusion, be it in books, in the movies or on television. They are telling a story, and I am the audience. On the other hand, I don’t like to view real violence that really hurts real people, and this distaste for real violence has grown through the years. When it comes to my personal block and what it feels like? It feels like me. It’s like me asking you what it feels like not to be able to levitate when traffic is at a standstill. Surely being able to levitate when be of use to you. but you don’t feel lacking at any time because you can’t do it, do you? The same thing when it comes to a lack of violent tendencies on my part-I can’t miss it if I never had it in the first place.
Well . . . yeah. Haven’t you ever been frustrated that you couldn’t levitate and fly over traffic? I assume you have or you wouldn’t have used that example. I can imagine what it would be like to levitate and fly, I’ve wanted to levitate and fly, I’ve even tried to levitate and fly. (Come on, everybody has.) Not being able to feels frustrating, and I get angry at the people who are blocking me but wouldn’t be blocking me if I could fly. I also feel a wistful longing for what I imagine flight to be like, even though I’ve never experienced it.
So . . . in the same vein, let’s get back to my scenario. Punching someone who has asked you to do so and wouldn’t be hurt isn’t clearly violence, but it isn’t clearly non-violent. How would you classify it? Would a situation like that frustrate you, or would you feel unconcerned, since you didn’t put yourself in the situation and there’s no loss by simply walking away (although you might not like the outcome, you wouldn’t have caused it)? Does the idea of punching someone as a stunt to raise money for charity disgust you or do you merely feel philosophically opposed to it? There’s a lot you could say about such a situation, even without having experienced or wanted to be violent, just like I could write a whole (very bad) book about how I feel about not being able to fly.
I’m going to pitch a WWII scenario for Czarcasm. I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but I don’t want to put words in his mouth.
It’s 1941 and you’ve applied for conscientious objection status: you are facing the draft board. Although you are 18-24, you basically have the perspective that you do now, because we are interested in your current take on things. Also, unlike many Americans you know what is at stake at the time.
You know Hitler has genocidal intent. Maybe you’ve read his autobio and are familiar with Kristallnacht. Maybe you have a Jewish friend who has relatives staying at his house.
You know the US South is run by white supremacists, and has taken steps to stop some poor whites and most all blacks from voting. You know that if Germany succeeds, bigots in Japan, the US and what’s left of Russia will be empowered.
Finally, you know that your decision won’t make a difference in the grand scheme of things. The US is going to war against the Axis with or without your participation.
You still are the oldest of seven.* Colonel Mustard (ret) listens to your application for CO status, asks the standard questions, then says, “I’m going to put you down as a medic. Any objections?”
You have no medical experience and risk becoming a medic on the front lines. This will give you an enhanced risk of fatality. But it’s hardly a death sentence and you won’t have to shoot a gun. Do you:
a) Accept the greater risk and become a medic.
b) Wash your hands of the US war machine and risk imprisonment.
I think that list is exhaustive, but feel free to add other options.
Then do the same exercise for the Korean War. I think asking about Vietnam is non-illuminating, as the underlying justness of the war is in question and this thread really isn’t about that.
This matters, as the US army had an informal policy of giving siblings of the fallen desk jobs, or so I understand.
Alan Smithee: I suggest noting that your Houdini scenario involves a punch to the stomach with ample warning, so that our strongman can tighten his stomach and bear no serious injury. Or maybe I misconstrue.
…so it’s optimized for Democracy and wouldn’t be expected to work against tyrannies…
…except that, oddly enough, non-violent resistance did wear away at the Soviet Union.
I think that the problem is with the title of the OP. The basic issue is not that Czar is an intentional pacifist, it’s that he seems to be an unintentional one.
As he says, he has some sort of deep aversion to him committing personal violence. The aversion is great enough that he simply cannot see himself doing such an act. From that he sort of has become a weak pacifist, if he is a pacifist at all.
Most people when they learn that an individual is a pacifist, assumes that the decision was intentional and that there is a principled reason for become such. Hence the 1001 questions of what circumstances would he consider violence and the sharp questioning on why he would have served in the military, which would be unthinkable for anyone with the commonly held definition of pacifism.
It’s hard to find exact equivalents and the tread has seen too many bad labels, but it’s like having a person with zero libido start a thread “ask the guy who has taken a vow of celibacy.” You’ll get all the wrong questions. “What would happen if Kate Uptown wanted you?” “Are you sure you’re not just closeted gay?”
No. The write OP should have been: “Ask the guy with zero libido” and you’ll still get too many weird questions, but at least they would be focused on the right direction.
For Czar, a better OP would have been “Ask the guy with a very strong aversion to personal violence.” It would be more accurate and wouldn’t have as many attempted “what ifs.”
This is why I don’t think that Measure’s questions are meaningful and Alan’s are misguided. How does a person know why their libido is at a particular level?
You are correct. The idea is that the person making the $5 million offer is very unlikely to be hurt. Though whoever takes up the offer is encouraged to try to hurt him and must at least make a plausible attempt at such in the eyes of the person making the offer. And it’s not like he’s wearing hidden body armor or anything else that would make it actually impossible for him to be hurt.