Trump refuses to say if he wants Ukraine to win the war
Trump refuses to say if he wants Ukraine to win the war
During the first presidential debate, the former president said he wanted the "war to stop" when asked if he wanted Ukraine to win against Russia.
You're viewing part of a thread.
That's nonsense. If "pro-war" means the desire for combat inherently, then virtually no one would be considered pro-war outside of Klingons and Nazis. By that standard, if I invade a country to loot and pillage, I'm not "pro-war" because I don't actually want combat, I just want their stuff and combat is merely a means to that end.
Pro-war is when you support war.
I'd say Russia was pro-war, you have to be to initiate an unprompted offensive war. The US in the second Iraq War was pretty solidly "pro-war", as they went in without provocation and the justification of "WMD" was revealed to be wrong (mistaken at best, probably fabricated). These are scenarios where the aggressor has a choice between peaceful status quo and violence and chooses violence.
If you have the violence brought to you, then I think it's weird to characterize self-defense as "pro-war" or "being a war hawk". One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse, but I think it's wrong to characterize any willingness to employ violence to protect oneself as "pro-war".
For example, I haven't thrown a punch in decades, I don't want to throw a punch and I'll avoid doing so if there's a sane alternative. However when someone did come up to me one time and start hitting me on the head with something, I absolutely was not just going to take the beating and fought back.
One may rationalize that Pacifism means in favor of rolling over for any abuse
This is the main point I was making. In the context of discussing pacifism, which condemns all war, supporting any war is pro-war, at least relative to the actual meaning of pacifism.
Then your definition of pacifism is inherently flawed. You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers (and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have "do no harm" as a tenant) into a single "pacifism is when you never fight back or fight to protect others". Only one type of pacifism defines itself that way.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
You condensed at least 100 years of discussion by philosophers
Then provide me with a source to these pacifist philosophers who support war.
Also, 100 years seems way short. In the Bible, Jesus taught, "turn the other cheek," and "be good to those who hurt you," and chided one of his followers when he attacked a Roman and is said to have healed his wound. If pro-war pacifism counts as part of the tradition, then surely that would as well.
(and likely thousands of years of discussion from Asian religious groups that have “do no harm” as a tenant)
Do you mean, for example, the Jains? Because they also belong to the type of pacifism that is opposed to war.
Are you arguing that things would be better if every country invaded by another rolled over and accepted the aggression of the other?
No, because I'm not a pacifist. I just know what the word means.
Here's a good breakdown of the discussions over the past 100 years including different types of pacifism. Only absolute pacifism argues for no self defense and no defense of others. There is also this that argues specifically that pacifism doesn't always mean a lack of self defense.
As you note in the next section, the 100 years was only in reference to the time since pacifism as a term was coined and I continued to talk about religious groups that have had similar options for thousands of years.
The Jains are only one example. You should probably talk to some Jains as there is much discussion in that community about this. Not all Jains believe the way you think they do. See here as a start.
If you're not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
Since you're not, I take it you agree with what Ukraine is doing then. Good to know we are on the same page.
If you’re not even a pacifist, then maybe defer to them to define it.
This is nonsense. Suppose I eat meat, but I call myself a vegan. If you're not a vegan, then should you defer to me on how to define what a vegan is?
If pacifism does not mean opposition to war, then sure, I'm a pacifist, why not. We're all pacifists. It means literally nothing.
Your first link actually provides a neat little term for people who want to tell everyone how much they love peace while supporting war - "Pacificism." "A useful term to describe those who prefer peaceful conditions to war but who accept that some wars may be necessary if they advance the cause of peace." I don't think I've ever met a single person in my life who doesn't meet that description - except, I suppose, actual pacifists. Dick fucking Cheney is a "Pacificist." Completely meaningless.
Your second source I can't access beyond the first page. Your third source does raise a valid point, I stand corrected.
I do not support the war in Ukraine, not because I'm a pacifist, but because I'm a communist. There is substantial overlap between the two, but the main difference is that I make an exception for wars along class lines, which this isn't. The common people are being drafted against their will to fight a pointless war over which reactionary government controls a patch of land.
If a person uses a term you don't think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It's not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word "correctly" even though that's not how words work.
For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you're not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?
Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other? How one of them could be violence in the hope of future peace for others vs violence in hope of gaining more land and more bodies for the meat-grinder?
If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I'm just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?
If a person uses a term you don’t think fits them you should ask them about their definition of it. It’s not up to you to decide what labels people are allowed to apply to themselves. At best your complaint is about people not using a word “correctly” even though that’s not how words work.
Language is a cooperative process, and if you use words in an incoherent or misleading way, it can create needless confusion and a breakdown of communication. At some point, "creative use of labels" can verge into just lying. If you tell me you're a Christian but then later I find out that you meant you're the type of Christian that worships Satan, then I don't know how I'm supposed to interpret that other than as a lie. Just because language can change over time doesn't give you license to just say whatever.
For example, you call yourself a Communist but appear to be supporting the government of Russia in their actions by attempting to discourage Ukraine from defending itself and its citizens. Communism is anti-state by definition, do I get to tell you you’re not an actual communist? Or would it be better for me to ask you about your definition and get to understand the nuances of your position?
I'd be happy to get into the reeds of communist theory and explain how my positions on the subject are influenced by Lenin's writings, for example, his concept of "Revolutionary Defeatism" in the context of WWI. I could also cite his works on the role of the state, which is in turn based on the writings of Marx and Engles.
Also, just find it kind of odd to say that discouraging someone from fighting is supporting the other side, in a discussion about pacifism where that criticism has frequently been used historically as a way to attack pacifists. What was that Goebbles quote?
"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Do the people drafted to go across a border and bomb civilians and the people drafted to stay in their country and defend it against an opposing army have the same morality behind it? Can you understand how one of those actions might be more justified than the other?
Sorry, which war are we talking about where only one side bombed civilians? Because Ukraine was shelling cities in Donbass before Russia entered the war. So then, crossing borders, well, there's all sorts of assumptions baked into that. If, purely hypothetically, you considered the separatists as the legitimate government of the disputed territories, then Russia would be there by invitation while Ukraine is crossing their borders. So that means it's necessary to determine what makes a government legitimate. And it seems to me that whatever political philosophy we employ to determine the legitimacy of a state is going to determine when violence is acceptable, which is a whole big can of worms. So on one side, Ukraine is defending their historical territorial borders, but on the other hand, the separatists are claiming to represent the popular will of the people who live there.
And there's the problem with this whole thing is that virtually nobody comes out and says, "I'm the aggressor, I'm taking this land because I want it." Every side in every conflict claims to be defending, or seeking long term peace. When the US invaded the Middle East, what did they say? They said it was a "Preemptive war" and that "if we don't fight them over there, we'll be fighting them over here." Of course, they could also point to 9/11 to show that the other side bombed civilians. Of course, what did bin Laden say? He said that he was responding to US actions, bombing civilians in the Middle East.
Here's a challenge: give me any side in any conflict and I will justify it from a "Pacificist" perspective.
If your county was invaded by what you see as a great evil because of their actions against civilians (I’m just going to assume the US would fit that from your perspective) would you say it was immoral to fight back in the hopes of lowering civilian deaths and injustice after the land is taken?
I live in the US, so it'd be a bit hard for it to invade.
It's possible to generate a hypothetical in which I would fight against an invading force, but that doesn't mean that that hypothetical reflects any real world situation.
Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don't understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don't get to tell them it's wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
I don't give a shit at all about your understanding of Communism other than as an example about how rude and condescending it is to tell other people that they are using words wrong. While I don't think you are an actual communist by my definition, you are free to use the word to describe yourself based on your definition.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can't see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can't help you. Maybe get your eyes checked. If you can't tell the difference between troops crossing into another country in order to bomb civilians and take control of land and troops fighting them back to regain land and save the civilians from the invaders I can't help you. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing the very obvious harm caused by Russia's invasions.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren't one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. "Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves." That's all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say "Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad"?
Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don’t understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don’t get to tell them it’s wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
So let me make sure I've got this right.
I go out and murder someone in cold blood. People call me a murderer. I tell them that I'm not a murderer - yes, I did take an innocent life by choice, but I don't like the way "murderer" sounds, so I don't apply it to myself. You don't get to decide what terms apply to me.
Got it. For the rest of this conversation, let "Nobel Prize winner" be defined as, "Lemmy.ml user." I am a Nobel Prize winner, we both understand how I'm using the term, so it's valid and you don't get to tell me otherwise.
As a Nobel Prize winner, I think this is completely ridiculous.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can’t see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can’t help you.
So should I automatically oppose all separatists who accept help from other countries? I don't agree with that. I think the question of when succession is justified is a complex and nuanced issue.
As far as I can tell, you are exclusively opposed to violence when it's your nation's geopolitical enemies doing it, and you have no problem with your side even firing on civilian targets. The same as pretty much anyone else, no matter where you go.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren’t one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. “Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves.” That’s all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say “Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad”?
It's very funny to me that for all your claims about respecting the labels people apply to themselves, you go on to put a bunch of words in my mouth and assign positions to me that I don't hold and have not said anything remotely similar to.