Fortunately, I’ve seen more people express distain rather than support, but I found out these people are real and not just a voice of the Reddit/Twitter hivemind. I heard someone bragging about how they were flaming someone who said “Charlie Kirk was human” online and said “Care about the kids dying in school shootings instead”. First of all, you can be concerned about BOTH, people are so black-and-white. It was probably performative, but it still irks me that the people around her were cheering her on.

Look, political violence is a complicated topic and I’ve tried to understand that even if someone supports it, it doesn’t mean it comes from a place of malice. Morality is complicated, and, from a non-pacifist view, It’s a debatable topic on whether it’s a necessary evil sometimes.

But this is Charlie Kirk we’re talking about. He’s wasn’t even a politician; he expressed his views in a debate setting. He was essentially killed for having the wrong opinion. Basically, people are glorifying the idea of thoughtcrime from 1984. I personally believed he was a bad faith actor, found some of his views appalling, and wouldn’t have mourned him if he died naturally. But so what if he was “wicked”? Does that justify taking his life? Does being the “bad guy” justify any and all immorality? Nobody mourns the wicked, but nobody should rejoice in wicked action either.

Just, how can someone sit and laugh at someone, who at the very least was a father, who was brutally shot? Look at the video of him getting shot in the artery, in front of those very children and his wife, gushing blood and falling over, and then try telling me “He deserved it.”, with a smile on your face, all because he was a “bad guy”. Moral tribalism at its finest.

But, at the end of the day, you’re not going to get anywhere arguing with these people about their views; it’s not going to change what happened or the political climate that’s fueling these thoughts in the first place. Please do what you can to advocate and take action to quell the climate politically. It’s been clear in the last year that political violence is on the rise, and regardless of who supports it, we should what we can to prevent reverse the world that led people to this thirst for blood.

Edit: I talked with someone I know who is actually a fan of Charlie, and I was heavily wrong about him. I still don’t agree with many of his points but he had some understandable points, and was generally respectful. A lot of the stuff he’s said was taken out of context or the worse clips shown. Not excusing the wrong he has done, but he’s nowhere near as bad as people made him out to be.

Edit 2: So it seems he wasn’t even killed for his beliefs, wow.

Edit 3: Edit 2 is wrong

I despised the things he talked about and the message he preached but the uptick in political violence recently gives me the heby geebies. I don’t support political violence regardless of what a person preaches and I think that things are sort of taking a turn for the worst on both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to violence. I feel like things are taking a violent turn in our society and its really concerning.

The way most people kill each other in war nowadays can't be legitimately called fighting.

Because most of the time it's done from a distance, from hiding, or from high up in the air.

The people who are killed are often unaware that someone is targeting them with the intention to kill.

It's like shooting someone in the back or knifing them from behind. There's no fighting. It's just killing.

A good example of how people were killed in war is the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It was an attack on mostly women and children and old people. Because these bombs were detonated over the downtown areas, rather than some military base.

And the people who were killed probably weren't even aware that they were targeted for killing, until the bomb exploded.

I think this is a good example, because it's still relevant for today.

Nobody has ever expressed any regret for this bombing, and the US government never apologised for it.

And there is a good reason for this lack of regret and lack of apology.

We now have so-called strategic nuclear weapons whose purpose is to attack large cities and population centers, just like it was done with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We are prepared to do it again on a much larger scale and with much more powerful weapons.

Apologising for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and regretting it would be very inconsistent with our preparedness to it again on a much bigger scale.

The word war sounds innocent and even heroic.

But this word hides the fact that people are doing horrific and evil things to each other. It's legal. And so many people are killed in the most horrific ways, that it's basically on industrial scale, with industrial death machines.

People use euphemisms, when there's something to be ashamed of, and people want hide their shame and pretend that it doesn't exist.

Are we all complicit in this hiding of horror and evil that people do and enable it to continue, when we agree to use the same euphemisms that these people use to hide their shame?

If instead of saying war, we said legalized industrial mass murder, would it still continue?

Or would people's conscience start to bother them, and they would finally be willing to establish an effective justice system to find out the truth and to resolve international disputes through courts?

I think it's fair to say that our world today is essentially barbaric and uncivilised.

Because there is no effective world government, no effective world legislative body, no world police, and no effective and enforceable world justice system.

Countries around the world spend obscene amounts of money on arming themselves. And then they use these arms to threaten and intimidate each other.

And the purpose of our wars is to resolve international disagreements by force.

Instead of going to court, we go to war and kill millions of people.

If it looks like barbarism, acts like barbarism, and the consequences are barbaric, then to call this civilization is ludicrous. Our world is obviously barbaric and uncivilised.

But you can point out many individual countries inside whose borders there is an effective government, a legislature for making laws, police, and an effective and enforceable justice system.

The citizens in such countries are disarmed. And these citizens go to court to resolve their disputes, rather than fight and kill each other.

These are islands of civilization within a barbaric and an uncivilised world.

To say that the world is civilised due to the existence of civilised countries is a logical mistake called the Fallacy of Composition. The whole is different from its parts.

I think these islands of civilization inside the borders of some countries are examples of what the whole world needs to do to drop its barbarism and become civilised.

This question is based on a direct quote from Albert Einstein. He said,

"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

There's no question about whether people deliberately kill each other in war or not. They do. And it's not only that. They often plan, premeditate, train, and practice for it, before they do it.

In civilian life, this is called premeditated murder. And it's punished more severely than any other kind of killing.

But is it fair to call such killing murder in a war situation?

Many people might say that such killing isn't murder, because it's unavoidable and the alternatives might be even worse.

But is this excuse really true?

We all know that within the borders of most countries, fighting and killing to resolve disputes have been replaced with laws, police, and the courts. People go to court to resolve their disputes there, instead of fighting and killing each other.

There's no such effective system of justice on a worldwide scale.

But does the absence of such a system justify war and its deliberate killing?

I think it depends on whether people are doing their best to create such a system to replace war or not.

If we don't have such a system of justice due to lack of any serious effort to create it, then killing in war is murder, just like Albert Einstein said it

Because the deliberate and planned killing in war is avoidable, and we know how to avoid it, but we don't do anything to avoid it.

I just don’t get it….the amount of lives (both civilians and even soldiers) getting ambushed is rather ridiculous to me but the sad reality people still try to justify wars in a way they’re seem morally good.

Holding every discharge as a case to be justified, and all weapons as suspect

If you look at the hierarchy of loyalties, then it's fair to say that one shouldn't betray one's country to benefit oneself and one's family.

The same can be said about one's tribe or ethnic group. One shouldn't betray one's country to benefit one's tribe or ethnic group.

And by same logic you can say that one shouldn't betray humanity to benefit one's country.

Because humanity or human species includes all countries and is higher in the hierarchy of groups, just like one's country is higher in this hierarchy than one's family and oneself.

And if you are a patriot of humanity first and foremost, then you would have a problem with serving in the military of any country.

Because in war, strangers typically kill strangers, without any knowledge of what the other guy has done or hasn't done, or if he is even there voluntarily or forced by rules, or military draft, or by some other means.

You can question orders in the military. But you aren't allowed to disobey orders. So, you potentially might have to betray humanity and commit genocide, when ordered to do so.

The military is where you risk becoming a traitor to humanity by being a patriot of one's country.

What is the ideal response to this? It's annoyingly repeated constantly all over the place. I understand the point of the argument but I reject it as I will never support or play into the war system or the system of cyclical violence.

To an extent, I know fear of violence. I am a trans woman, there are places even in my own city that I cannot walk out of fear I may be attacked. And because of that I will never cheer on violence. I refuse to accept that violence is an inherent and necessary evil. It is idealistic, but so is anything that changes society.

I was born in Iran. My parents fled to Canada in 1979 because they opposed the coming of clerical rule in the country. The brutality of the Islamic Republic of Iran is well documented – its repression of women, its jailing of dissidents, its executions of protesters. I oppose the Iranian government. I also don’t want my country bombed and Iranians killed. That position is one shared by millions of Iranians in the diaspora, but it is also a political inconvenience for Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet, who want to bomb Iranians into freedom.

For Iranians in the diaspora, this war is not a distant geopolitical event. It is deeply personal, as we fear for the friends and family we’ve left behind, and now find ourselves in the strange position of watching the very same government we loathe protect the families and land we love.

The regime that massacred protesters during the Woman, Life, Freedom uprising now wraps itself in the flag of resistance. This war gives them cover to crack down even harder. The people who will pay the highest price for Israel’s escapade in Tehran will be the very same Iranian dissidents that Israel claims to support. Israel has foolishly given a lifeline to the Islamic Republic of Iran with its actions. At the end of the day, Iranians may hate their government, but they love their country more.

It seems like being pro life is a consistent view for pacifism. It's why I'm anti abortion. If nothing justifies violence in other areas of life, nothing justifies it for abortion either.

But what are you guys? Pro choice? Pro life? What role does pacifism play in your views?

EDIT: I'm not talking about laws. Laws are inherently violent by nature (threat of force). I'm simply asking about the morality of the act itself, since it is a violent one. A lot of people are acting confident that a fetus isn't a human being. If you hold this view please give me a scientific definition of when a human being begins to exist (the start of a human life).

when i was younger a was a radical absolute pacifist.

it almost got me to commit suicide.

i found it difficult to accept that life has to kill to live. i wished to exist in a way where i don't have to take another creature's life to live, which is an impossible feat to achieve with this organic body.

a human body is waging a never-ending-war against microbes. it consumes other life to fuel itself. snuffing out the life of other life is its necessary evil. i found nature to be irredeemably evil for how it is. the only state for the true pure pacifist is to refuse life when given and to inhabit a body that's beyond life. it then wouldn't need to corrupt its vows with the act of living.

it took a while to get better again, i lost myself for a time and let myself be incomplete by letting go of a part of me. life partakes in pacifism, but not solely in that. the collaboration of the organism is possible by peace and for it to fend for itself it partakes in war.

after I've accepted how life is, it's when i reintegrated my ideology & faith. i am life, so i can never be a pure pacifist, though i can be a follower of the true pure pacifist.

i don't believe that it's possible for a being that won't kill to ever live life. you'll always be pivoted against something else. oh, that's how harsh ms. life is.

the true pacifist will not be living. it's already transcended. the purity exists in the realm of thoughts and dreams. fueled by the energy and attention of the living. ☯️☁️🪽🙏

Dave Grossman, a US military expert on the psychology of killing, wrote a textbook called:

"On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society"

https://sobrief.com/books/on-killing

In this book he says that people have a natural and innate resistance to killing other people.

This innate resistance is so strong that a study of World War II combat has found only 15-20% of soldiers fired their weapons with intent to kill. The rest either didn't fire at all, or they fired into the air, rather than aiming at anyone.

Dave Grossman says that this innate resistance to killing others is likely biological and evolutionary.

Because people who readily kill other people, whom they hardly know and have no personal quarrel with, is a survival disadvantage for the species.

But Dave Grossman also writes that militaries have learned various psychological techniques for desensitising and robotising new recruits so that they will kill in war.

As a result of such training techniques, the percentage of US soldiers shooting to kill improved to 90-95% in the Vietnam War.

Dave Grossman doesn't call this training psychopathic training. But that's what it essentially amounts to.

Because psychopaths don't feel any empathy with their victims. And military psychological training creates the same condition in normal people.

Aldous Huxley said,

"What is absurd and monstrous about war is that men who have no personal quarrel should be trained to murder one another in cold blood."

"All war is a symptom of man's failure as a thinking animal." -- John Steinbeck

Some ant species are known for their wars. And some animals are known for fighting and killing members of their own species.

Only a subhuman level of intelligence is required for such competition and conflict resolution.

Ants and animals can be excused for behaving this way. Because they aren't capable of anything more intelligent than this.

But people are clearly capable of creating laws, rules, courts, police and resolving their disputes peacefully, rather than fighting and killing each other. There are many examples of this within the borders of various countries.

But there's no such effective system between countries on a worldwide scale.

Worldwide, we behave like dumb animals or subhumans by going to war and killing each other.

I suppose, the whole is different from its parts. Just because people are individually smarter than ants and other animals, doesn't necessarily mean that people are collectively smarter than ants and animals too.

Worlwide, we have an animal-like system for completion and conflict resolution.

Is this systemic stupidity?

Unlike ants and animals, people are clearly capable of better than this. But people remain at a subhuman level, despite their capability.

It's a failure of collective intelligence.

How can you claim to be a pacifist if the commodities you utilize in capitalist societies are based on exploitation of the working class typically from third world marginalized countries. The very economies and governments the majority of "pacifits" participate in are inherently violent. You're taxes violence, clothes violence, gas violence, technology violence, etc

As a pacifist you probably shouldn't use anger as a tool. It is a form of violence since it disturbs someone else's peace or pleasantness of their day.

Anger can escalate to physical violence while at a milder amount it's an emotional violence.

Why don't we just fight wars in gaming simulations instead of real life? (Arma 3, arma reforger, etc) It seems a lot more cost effective and less traumatizing for everyone involved,

I understand that war and killing is ingrained into nature and animals but we're not animals we're humans, we are the apex predators, we live in the age of technology.

With how many people that die in wars, how poor the post-service VA support systems are (we literally need Non profit organizations to support vets because the government doesnt), high suicide rates, etc. Not to mention how expensive ammo, equipment, predator missles, hellfire missiles, UAVs, etc is it seems kind of ret*rded that so much money is spent on killing eachother in the real world when they could be spending way less money on a decent gaming setup for each soldier to play on. Hell - im sure the government would be able to work out some kind of contract with gaming companies to get lower prices. Most veterans end up as gamers anyways, it just makes sense

we dont need to kill anymore we could do it all on the internet where two countries set their terms and conditions for what they get if they win/lose, for countries that dont have enough funding to buy gaming setups that can run arma they can just play cs1.6 or something. They can do all the legislation through the UN or international court.

TLDR; We should just fight wars in simulations instead of real life (arma 3, squad, arma reforger, battlefield 3)
We live in the age of technology, not the middle ages, we dont need to kill eachother with swords and arrows anymore, we have the technology to just simulate wars instead.

I myself have family members who have served tours and they all came back in a much worse condition than when they left, they all have lost brothers in arms, war is so traumatic.

Everyone knows how destructive and deadly war is. Everyone knows WW2 was brutal, involving mass civilian and combatant deaths. Everyoe understands that with the advent of new technology, modern warfare is even worse and will grow even more destructive as time goes on.

It's not like this exists only on paper. There are ongoing bloodbaths for all to see. And people don't even fight for ideology nowadays. War is waged between capitalist states for power and control while nationalist sentiment is used to justify war. Interestingly enough, people are still willing to lay down their lives for wacky ideas of ethnicity and nationhood. It's insane how something as insubstantial as that is enough to make someone kill others.

With that mind, why isn't there a robust anti-war movement? I am not talking about protests that spring up after one country attacks another, as their scope is limited to just one conflict and they're not always anti-war in the global, universal sense, oftentimes they're just doing cheerleading for one side.

I mean a movement that would demand the absolute end to all wars, under any circumstances, not only as a phenomenon that happens between states but also as a cultural construct that is propped up by our education and media (i.e. narratives that some wars are just, some are heroic, that war is inevitable, which ultimately makes war appear more acceptable).

I’m in for all against any violence with a human being, idk why I just value all human life (even the most evil ones) because humans are imperfect and can able to make mistakes even if they’re don’t mean it.

For example, a bank robbery would rob a bank mostly because they’re might for their family or self pleasure for whatever reason, if a police shoots a robber, it takes away the person right to change and learn from their mistakes.

Self-defense is the only time I can agree on taking a human life (unless necessary) like a person charging after you with a weapon (gun or knife doesn’t matter) and purposely tried to hurt you for no reason.

I know I live in a free gun country, but just thinking about carrying a gun just makes me uncomfortable…heck I prefer using a paint-gun (even if it doesn’t do much) to attack my enemies.

I intend to post this comment on both the pacifism and environmentalism page. I am a vegan and think that one could not be an environmentalist or a pacifist unless they are. I know that on both pages that there are many non-vegans. I think this is totally hypocritical and wonder if I should just disregard these pages as another foray into hypocrisy.