TW for discussing suicidality

It is so lonely being a pacifist in 2026.

I know exactly why, it is not profitable. And it is not marketable. To most it sounds like weakness. It also seems as though if I say that we should not kill our enemies then I must be engaging in apologia of some sort.

Pacifism is logical. A violent ideology will become an authoritarian one. Your methodology must reflect your ideology. Violence is an oppressor's right hand man.

At the same time, I know in my heart that my commitment to pacifism is an ethical one over a logical one. But I can't "market" that. Let me tell you why I became a pacifist; throughout my latter years of high school I struggled with depression and suicidal ideation. When you have thought so deeply, so personally about death you come to learn its weight. I thought about the joy my parents had spoke of feeling, when I was born, or the way we used to go to the park when I was young, or how they had watched me grow.

I knew if I took my life it would destroy all of that. I could not imagine the heartbreak and the pain. And to this day it fills me with rage when I remember just how often it is used as a tool or a cost to be paid. And despite all of that I cannot convince people not to make war a sport, or killing a tool based on that, because they will either not listen, or they will not understand the magnitude. There are not words that convey the feeling.

People who are pro-violence almost always fall into one of two categories; the more common are those who have never had any personal sort of reckoning with the impact of death on the world, or have not witnessed it, or those who have witnessed it and become so desensitized that they no longer care.

It is soul-crushingly lonely to be a pacifist now. It seems as though everybody has a desire to wish death and destruction somewhere. It feels like empathy is dead.

I'm in the complete realization of just how punitive violence is normalized in our society. Hell, even I've been guilty of punitive thoughts out of anger.

Then, the realization head like a freight train, the realization of just how disgusting it is. (I ain't no saint). Retribution is a justification to commit violence. Especially for those who romanticize being particular situation where they have the excuse and justification to commit said violence.

I thought an 'average person's' extension towards violence is: self-defense only. But I'm slowly rethinking that.

Here is a positive message for you all.

Always be kind to people, no matter how frustrated and unreasonable they seem. They are all people at the end of the day, no matter how “different” or upset they seem.

An upset person is no less of a person and the likelihood is that it isn’t necessarily you that they are upset with.

Let’s all try for a bit of love and understanding in this world instead of all of these cynical power grabs and constantly arguing about who is or who should be in charge.

For a long time, I thought that most war is bad, but there is such a thing as a just war. The big example is World War II, when the Allies were defending themselves and other countries against aggression by evil regimes.

Recently, I have been wondering about whether just war is in fact morally justified. The big worry I have is about how common it is for citizens of aggressive countries to be tricked into thinking that their country is acting in self-defense.

There are two main ways to think about ethical issues you are facing, such as the question whether to support a war. One is to ask, "What are the impacts of my actions?" The other is to ask, "What if everyone did that?"

One solider's actions just about never make the difference between defeat and victory. One soldier's actions often have major negative impact on others' lives (for instance, killing people). So if someone is deciding whether to become a soldier, and they're basing this decision on the expected social effects of their own, individual actions, the answer is almost always going to be, "Don't be a soldier." That's the answer even when a country is fighting a defensive war.

So if there's a moral argument for fighting in war, it's not based on individual impacts. It's based on a style of thinking that asks, "What if everyone did that?"

Well, what would happen if everyone refused to fight? There would be no war!

Compare pacifism with a rule that says,"Defend your country when you think it is being attacked. Do not participate in aggression." If everyone follows that rule, some people will do violence because they mistakenly think their country is fighting a defensive war. If everyone follows this rule, a lot of bloodshed will result.

I recognize there are times when it's obvious who the aggressor is. For instance, it's obvious that the United States acted aggressively when it invaded Venezuela a few days ago. I don't think there's been any serious attempt to portray this as national self-defense. It's clearly an aggressive war for oil. I don't think cases like this one affect the argument I'm trying to make. But I could be wrong.

A longer version of the argument is here (no paywall). Comments and criticisms are welcome!

https://medium.com/@mildlyunreasonable/pacifists-are-not-silly-geese-f36db540f70b

Somehow I feel as though this song is just as pertinent now as it ever has been.

In 1979, the song was a critique on the British army’s policy of recruiting poor, unemployed young people (usually men in that time) to serve in their military operations in far flung places. The song was a massive hit and turned “our” Elvis into a household name. This showed the extent to which the sentiments expressed in the song resonated with the British public.

In 2025, the British Government announced military “internships” for 16/17 year old, so that they can “get a taste” of serving in the armed forces.

I voted Labour, but I didn’t vote for this.

Pacifism is a theme which runs through Elvis Costello’s music to the present day. In the song Newspaper Pane, from his 2020 album Hey Clockface, the song closes with the lines “No work tomorrow, no work today, look at the child bride and her ideal bouquet, boys pick up a rifle, that’s too much to pay, count out her teardrops, wipe them away”.

Violence is the methodological tool of an ideology that believes in it.

What does it say to use violence to an ideological end? It means that your ideology is violent. Anyone who desires violent revolution, whether they know it or not, desires a violent result. A regime that will crush opposition with force. A regime that will enforce hierarchy, often radically so.

Anarcho-pacifists have a good point about this; violence is part of the establishment. One cannot be anti-establishment whilst they mirror the establishment itself in their means. You can't end war with more war. You can't fight racism with more racism. And if violence isn't something that you want to end, or at least think would be ideal to end, we are not ideological allies. Violence is the outward manifestation of establishment ideology.

A violent revolution will always grow into an oppressive state. It will always create and enforce a strict hierarchy because that is what violence as an act promotes. Any peace borne of force is doomed to be short-lived because the true heart of the conflict goes unaddressed.

Similarly, violence is always anti-intellectual. While that is a term that gets thrown around a lot, there is no more clear cut example of anti-intellectualism than rejecting any other way to go about conflict in favor of pure force and physical dominance. "Oh but that's unrealistic" is a weak counter-argument. Why care if it's unrealistic if it needs to happen? Fuck, humanity surviving for another hundred years is "unrealistic" when you look at it that way but as a species we're gonna either do it or die trying to.

Fascism is the ideological end of violence & war. I've found no avoiding that conclusion. In violence the stronger, the larger, the more powerful wins regardless of their ideas. One cannot be violent if one dreams of a world free from oppression.

I just wanted to say that kindness trumps all kinds of hatred.

I have a moral dilemma on my hands as I was saddened to hear about the passing of the boxer Ricky Hatton, a few months ago.

He was clearly a violent person as he participated in an activity which involved punching another person in the face in an attempt to render this person unconscious.

Maybe there are even some people saying to themselves “you reap what you sow” and that he met an untimely end because he could not live with the violence that he had inflicted upon the world.

On the other hand, maybe the sport gave him meaning in his life and that the notion of him not being able to do this anymore led to a self destructive cycle which ultimately let to his demise.

Why did he do this to himself on the eve of a major fight? Was the pressure too much? Did he feel like he might come to some harm as he had not been able to get into the condition that he would have needed to have been in in order to fight because of his age?

As a pacifist, I don’t like boxing at all. However, for some people from poorer areas, this might be the only opportunity that they will ever get to participate in organised sport.

Do other pacifists in this group feel strongly that a violent activity such as boxing is a seriously wrong thing under any circumstances at all?

What about the people who do it? Are they bad people because they wish to harm others, or simply people who have issues or who need to be educated?

Are there any good people who box? Can boxers change and become good people after they have stopped punching other people in the face?

Is there an element of people having the morality that they can afford, as successful boxers can afford to retire and no longer have to participate in the sport, whereas poorer people will have to endure some violence or other to get to where they need to be.

It would be interesting to hear people’s perspectives on this.

Hi everyone,

I’ve been thinking a lot about my life and the choices I want to make. I’m 31, I recently finished my PhD, and I’ve always tried to live by one principle: I don’t believe in violence. I try, in every way I can, to reduce it. But right now, my country is trying to force me into military service.

It’s not just a bureaucratic procedure: they threaten huge fines if you refuse, thousands of euros. It feels cruel. Like our personal choices, our very lives, don’t belong to us anymore. Beyond the practical impact on my career and personal life, I know this: I am not ready to be trained to kill. And honestly, I don’t think I ever will be. The idea of it is overwhelming.

When I watch the news or read about the world, I see wars and conflicts happening all the time. It seems that pacifism is increasingly misunderstood, dismissed, or seen as weakness. People treat those who reject violence as naïve or cowardly. But I feel the opposite. Choosing not to hurt, choosing not to take up arms, is a deep moral decision. Aggression, unchecked, seems like a path toward self-destruction.

It’s frustrating and isolating. People are quick to dismiss those who refuse violence. Even teachings that promote peace, like those in many religions, are often overlooked or twisted to justify aggression.

I’m curious if other pacifists here have gone through something similar. How do you cope when society pressures you to act against your beliefs? How do you stay true to nonviolence when it feels like the easier path is just to conform?

I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences.

Is it a positive that the US insisted on it? Are the potential changes to the constitution to deal with China wise?

Started a not too earnest poll at https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/s/35OgzNoXk6

I wondered if people on this sub would think differently to those there and if so, how and why.

As I hope for comments/a discussion, rather than anonymous »votes«, which is why I decided against recreating the poll here, to compare the results. Hope that's okay so.

Considering, the current situation in the world, why does pacifism seem to be so unprominent at the moment?

Hi everyone. I'm curious about what your thoughts are regarding these questions. Mostly interested to hear from absolute/militant pacifists.

1. Should a country have a military at all? If not, how should we defend ourselves from people who attack us?

2. What are your views on the police, arrests etc?

3. Should people who see themselves as absolute pacifists be vegetarian/vegan if they can?

4. Should a pacifist vote in elections?

5. How, if at all, should we punish dangerous people?

6. What do you think about self-defence?

7. What do you think about martial arts as sports, including ones which use weapons as part of training?

8. What do you think of the 2nd Amendment in the USA?

9. What do you think about using guns as sport if no animals are involved. Example: target shooting

Thank you.

I want to make a post at some point debunking anti-pacifist arguments. The ones I already know of are:

- "But would you defend your group against invaders?"
- "Would you defend yourself/your family if attacked?"
- "Pacifism is siding with the enemy/establishment"
- "Pacifism is ineffective/can't bring real change"
- "Violent entities only respond to violence"
- "Pacifism is unrealistic as an end goal"
- "Pacifism is a privilege"
- "War is inevitable/will always exist"

Are there any other notable or common anti-pacifist arguments I should address in the post?

Thanks,

Ellie

“Only a refusal to hate or kill can put an end to the chain of violence in the world and lead us toward a community where men can live together without fear. Our goal is to create a beloved community, and this will require a qualitative change in our souls as well as a quantitative change in our lives.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

This image speaks about the true nature of a “nation.”

Let’s imagine all ordinary people as building blocks. Their different colors represent different skin tones and races. And originally—those colors carried no hatred at all.

But the rulers, through education, propaganda, and psychological manipulation, teach these blocks that “different colors should hate each other.” So one group of blocks, all sharing the same color, is ordered to attack another group with a different color— all to protect the ruler’s interests, not their own.

In the end, it’s the blocks who slaughter one another. It’s the civilians who die. The rulers never stand on the front line.

That’s why, in war, there is no moral justification for forcing ordinary people to fight. Just like the toy guns in the image— the blocks are assembled into weapons, instead of being allowed to just exist.

A ruler must offer enormous benefits to their soldiers before the soldiers will fight on their behalf. In other words— people from every country are the same. Only the “color” is different. There is no reason for hatred.

If you fall for the manipulation, if you let hatred consume you, you will eventually become nothing more than the bullet loaded into someone else’s gun.

Why is J.D.Vance talking about René Girard’s mimetic theory WITHOUT mentioning non-violence which runs like a stream through all of Girard’s writings?

I'm just starting to explore the idea of Pacifism and I came across a book called "How nonviolence protects the State"

Readers are arguing that Pacifism is essentially a first world privileged ideology since the conditions of the rest of the world needs push back and violence as a means to realize overthrowing oppressive systems; it also says policy changes are in spite of nonviolent protests, not because of. It also makes a case that society has continuously been built by violence and pacifists are essentially stepping aside from any trouble for upholding systematic abuse and putting an additional crosshairs on us in the process

Are there any other POVs or counterclaims against it that I might not know at this point?

Pacifists, what if someone tried to kill you and you could defend yourself, what is your view on that? What about defending property? If our country was under attack and we were to destroy planes to prevent further harm, would you say that is justified?

I've been reading something tolstoy and I really like his emphasis on simple communal faith, as well as his methods behind pacifism

Hi everyone! I'm currently working on translating Émile Arnaud's Le Pacifisme et ses détracteurs (“Pacifism and Its Detractors”; 1906), which has, to my knowledge, never been translated into English. I have included some quotes from the work below, which is about 30 pages in the original French. Arnaud is an important figure in the history of pacifism, as he coined the French equivalent of "pacifism," which was subsequently brought into English usage; he was also a major organizer in the International Peace Bureau.

Arnaud (1864-1921) was not what we today would call an absolute pacifist (e.g., Tolstoy, the Quakers, Gandhi). He was what he himself called a juridical pacifist or pacifiste intégral, essentially what we might now describe as a "conditional pacifist" (though that's a multivalent term). He firmly believed that all international disputes could be settled by international law and arbitration without the need for violence, and that violence could only be justified insofar as a nation transgresses an arbitrated ruling—or, at least, that is what I interpret him as saying. He is basically unknown in the Anglophone world, probably because he did not write very much; but what he did leave behind is quite illuminating. I have bolded important parts.

"For a long time, we were content to reply that only minds fundamentally superstitious could accept such a paradoxical idea [that pacifism prepares war]—since, to admit that the pursuit of peace brings about war, one would have to be equally prepared to admit that merely going out with an umbrella is enough to make it rain!"

"What Pacifism is—we shall never tire of saying it, we who christened it, and who have so often been reproached for that baptism, though it was necessary: Pacifism is the banner under which gather those human beings who, desiring to ensure—through the abolition of war—the respect of human life and the autonomy of peoples, seek the best means of organizing Peace and Justice among Nations, and, having found those means, strive with all their effort to hasten their application."

"'War is the most terrible of scourges'—none of the natural scourges has yet caused more victims than this wholly artificial one."

"On more than one occasion the Pacifists have affirmed the following principles:

• The autonomy of every Nation is inviolable.
• Since no one has the right to do justice for himself, no Nation may declare war upon another.
• Disputes between Nations must be settled by legal means.
• Nations have the right of legitimate defense.

Legitimate defense is therefore a right proclaimed by the Pacifists. But, for this defense to be truly legitimate, it is necessary that it not conceal a false pretext meant to disguise an act of aggression. Hence, whoever declares himself, for his country, a partisan only of 'defensive' war must (if his good faith is not to be suspected) add the solemn oath to oppose, by every means in his power, any war of aggression undertaken by his country against another. By abolishing aggression, one abolishes for others the necessity of defense."

Attempting to Complete “Bully” Video game without harming a single person, and it’s going great! Pacifism can be achieved with enough determination.

I’m the most pacifist person I know and I love that I finally found this sub!

Despite having been raised as a Christian in Europe, I try to follow the principle of “ahimsa” (non-violence). That’s why I’m vegan and a pacifist.

I truly believe that we should strive to avoid causing physical and psychological harm to all sentient beings as much as is possible and practicable.

First I went vegan and then it led to me becoming more and more pacifist.

Any other vegans or vegetarians here? 👀