So recent events have raised certain
issues which I think it is important to examine in a
broader context.
States most generally, it is a question of when use of force is justified, and what kind of force, etc. With a specific focus on civil activism, though I think the question goes beyond even that.
So I'm just going to come out an say. I think people who tout non-violent protest as the be-all-end-all of activism are dillusionally naive. What is always brought up are MLK and Ghandi and all that jazz. However, even if we credit the idea that pure non-violent protest was the deciding factor in those cases, that is at most a testament to modern liberal democracy, and not a statement about the effectiveness of such protest in general. That we have institutions were changing the mind of the public allows for non-violent means of conflict resolution in spite of all of the other faults in our government simply proves that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
But most of the time, ideals and convictions mean absolutely nothing if you don't have the force, and will to use it, to back them up. And I think that human dignity demands that things which are wrong be resisted. And resistance requires the use of force. Not using force just means they get what they want.
But enough about theory, lets say something about what type of force is used:
I think the distinction between "lethal" and "non-lethal" force is a red herring. Just because a rubber bullet is statistically less likely to kill you than a real bullet, does not mean it is impossible. So even using that is already a lethal threat, and using it indicates you are prepared to kill people. As such, there's really no "escalation" possible from there. One side has made it clear it is prepared to injure, maim, and kill people to get what it wants. Now the other side needs to decide if it is prepared to do the same to prevent that.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Posts
Also, from wikipedia, about a book that I happen to have read:
edit again: Adding some context for those who don't wanna read a big ol thing without knowing what it is. It's an excerpt from an essay about pacifist resistance in the Holocaust, focusing largely on the resistance in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, a French village which saved around 5000 Jews, peacefully. There's a book, that I can't remember the title of, about that town which is quite fascinating. edit: spoilered for bigness.
Sorry if there's extraneous '?' throughout. The website seems to have an encoding issue. I've bolded for emphasis some things.
Pacifistic resistance has a surprisingly good success rate, both in individual conflicts and large scale problems.
The key part is the word resistance. Just because you don't use violence doesn't mean you roll over.
Pacifism as an actual ideology, though, is sickening.
It didn't end well. Largely because some people place the value of an aggressor's life higher than their own or that of their family.
This about sums it up.
Pacifism can be the answer in a particular conflict (short or long term) but attempting to apply it universally fails.
In an ideal world, pacifism would be the only philosophy.
However, this is not an ideal world, and in order to avoid it becoming even less ideal at any scale, we must sometimes commit the lesser evil.
Violence is always a bad thing, but sometimes the alternative is worse.
What exactly did they do, and what exactly made their resistance "pacifist"?
I'm sure plenty of Allied spies never shot any Germans, but I would hardly consider what they did an example of "pacifism".
Unless you can define a universal, self-evident critieria by which "justification" can be assessed, the answer is going to end up being subjective, contextually defined to particular understandings of justification maintained by particular groups.
So, group A thinks that Y is justified in situation X. Group B thinks that Y is not justified in situation X.
How do we reconcile this if there is no universal criteria by which "justification" can be assessed, and how would we ever know that universal criteria?
What about that is "pacifist"?
However, I think nonviolent resistance has a richer history than you're giving credit. Christians used it to great effect in ancient Rome; medieval saints were eager to martyr themselves for the cause and were celebrated.
You are also ignoring the flipside: the lasting scars that using violence causes.
Also, violently resisting an overwhelming force, one you have no hope of victory against, instead of peacefully surrendering allows that force to portray you as violent enemies and justify further oppression. Case in point: Jewish resistance towards Romans. That did all of jack shit for the Jews, and their religion was basically destroyed as it then existed. Compare to Christian nonviolent resistance towards Romans.
So, I would say that nonviolent resistance has a much wider utility than you are giving credit, especially when confronted with overwhelming force (i.e. heavily armed empires).
I disagree. Clearly, there are different levels and valences of force. Nuclear weapons are not the same as even extremely powerful bombs.
On the other end of the scale, physically restraining someone is different than smashing them over the head to knock them unconscious.
I don't understand how the fact that all force can be lethal means that escalation of force doesn't exist.
At the risk of being too cheeky about a srsrs business topic, I think Pineapple Express shows this concept rather well. The entire movie is basically a slow escalation in the use of acceptable force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9be8hhMpWo
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
They prevented the Nazis from killing many Jews. They did this not by joining up with the armed resistance group in the area, nor by killing the Germans while they were using the town as place to let wounded soldiers recuperate. They hid the Jews at great risk to themselves, while also taking care of the Germans. This won them the respect of least one German, the Julius Schmalling mentioned in the essay. When the leaders of the movement were taken for questioning, they didn't fight. They simply went. And were returned.
Anyway, pacificism is silly. It's morally acceptable to use violence when there is strong evidence that doing so would prevent worse violence. It's a very simple utilitarian calculus.
It's only complicated because there are a lot of situations in which the risk and benefits of using violence have to be assessed rapidly with very limited information. But that doesn't mean the basic moral principle is complicated - it only means that the risk is difficult to assess. With that in mind, it's typically better to err on the side of less violence, but that's not the same as a total adherence to pacifism.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't see how keeping a low profile and presenting a facade of normalcy in order to retain access to necessary channels is any sort of principled stand.
Saying that deception can be a more useful tool (sometimes) than direct confrontation seems like an entirely different idea altogether from pacifism.
EDIT: Also, can you prove that their "pacifism" actually "won over" that officer instead of them simply being lucky in getting assigned an officer who didn't buy into Nazi propaganda and was willing to essentially ignore orders because of that?
Can you prove anything to someone willing to rewrite the scenario in a way that will appeal to their own view?
No.
You asking for proof is pretty ridiculous HamHamJ.
If a non-pacifist would take the same actions as a pacifist because of pragmatic considerations, is it really useful to single out those actions as examples of pacifism?
The opposite of pacifism is not "kill everyone all the time!" it's "use force when appropriate".
My "pacifist" stance has always been a corollary of my utilitarianism.
If you think pacifism is in principle more effective from a utilitarian stance, you would still support pacifist actions in situations were people who are not pacifists would consider a more violent response more effective.
Such as this whole Israel flotilla situation apparently.
Unless the IDF actually shot and killed people first, then I don't really know what to think about the situation. Probably still be better to surrender but I'm not prepared to make a moral judgment and I certainly can't say I wouldn't use violence if my friend got shot in front of me.
tl;dr
I practice pacifism, I don't fight
My political group practices pacifism, they win by not fighting.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Yet I'm sure you'd agree that there are situations when violence is used against you that pacifism is unable to handle.
Yeah, but without control or skill, I would be better off retreating than fighting; otherwise, I would wind up in jail for manslaughter.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I meant in a more general sense, but that's a decent enough example. If you weren't able to retreat from someone trying to kill you, violence would be the better option.
Is it better to almost certainly end up dead in order to go out fighting, or should you just give him what he wants and hope he won't kill you?
I would say the latter.
Looking toward the goal of survival with me being as maimed or injured as little as possible,
I don't know how solid my opponent is, she could be pure muscle or have bear armor layers of fat as it was called in an Oblivion thread. I also don't know how tired she is, what other weapons or accomplices there are. In terms of a break in or mugging, I have to strike fast, trip the tiger chasing me, and get secure. Nothing else matters but me and the people close to me. Going for a killing shot takes time away from my survival.
Again, pragmatism.
After all is said and done, I might help the poor SOB or DOB out on their parole hearing and maybe help them find work, but in the heat of the moment, its get out and get secure.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Well we disagree on that. I think those 9 deaths accomplished a lot more than none would have.
And I think this disagreement speaks to deeper values and premises.
Quite. So you're not actually a pacifist at all, at least, not in the sense that you're entirely opposed to violence. You just oppose its use when it's impractical.
I side with Qingu on this in that 9 living people can do a lot more than 9 dead men. They made a bad choice in tactics and while their actions may help now, it remains to be seen what will happen in the long run.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I think 9 martyrs can do a whole lot more than 9 random guys.
@Aroused Bull
It depends how you define pacifism. Doing nothing, not fighting, not killing. To take a quote from Ender's Game, "
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Edit: I'm not actually sure our disagreement here speaks to "deeper values and premises." I think we simply disagree on the moral utility of their actions in the long run, and neither of our positions in this matter are firmly supported by evidence. I suppose I prefer to err on the side of safety.
Israel's support has not been entrenched. As to their position, they are apparently backing down on the blockade.
So the facts do no mesh with your claims.
The videos of the activists beating down the soldiers is circling among circles you are apparently not familiar with and is basically used as a rallying cry.
And long term, even if they do lift the blockade, Gaza is still going to be imprisoned, and now more Israelis (and possibly Americans) will feel besieged and portray any attempt to aid Gaza as terrorists.
There's more than one flavour of pacifism.
I've called myself a pacifist for a long time. I do accept that violence is sometimes necessary to survive. But I'm deeply skeptical of its effectiveness and utility, and think that short-term thinking, nationalism and ethnocentrism obscure many of the damaging effects of supposedly effective violence in history.
So, I'm performing the same 'utilitarian calculus' you are, but with different enough conclusions that I end up with 'There're really really hardly any situations where using violence is preferable to a non-violent solution.'
When the right to self-determination is essentially enforced by a race to the bottom of arms, any position of absolute non-violence is close to worthless. There's a line of thinking these days that the modern protest has become largely ineffective because governments understand them now - if a demonstration is peaceful, then the people who show up to it are going to stand around and then go home and continue not threatening their position at the top in any serious manner.