thread: 2005-05-16 : Violence
On 2005-05-17, pete_darby wrote:
But Ben, we're not talking about Quakers, or Martin Luther King, or Ghandi when we talk about the fetishisation of being a victim, which is where I'd put Mother Theresa* (and for that matter, Princess Di, but hoo, we don't want to go there).
It's not even really a question of pacifism vs violence for me; it's a question of not being a victim.
My friend's Karate teacher would start each new class by asking them "Suppose you're a 5th Dan black belt (or whatever, he says displaying his ignorance), and a guy come up to you with a gun and demands your wallet, what do you do?
"You give him your wallet.
"What if he's got a knife?
"You give him your wallet.
"What if he's not armed?
"YOU GIVE HIM YOUR WALLET! Anything else turns you into a victim of violence. If the guy wants to shoot you, stab you, or hit you, he will try whether you give him the wallet or no. By giving him the wallet, you're giving him a chance not to attack you."
The guys at the top of the post were, I think I'm right in saying, by no means victims. Not using physical violence does not mean not confronting those who would do violence to you.
But the problem I think Chris and Matt are facing is the false identification of non-violence with non-confrontation. And these guys are all about confrontation.
The fetishisation of non-confrontation... that way leads to passive-aggressive bullshit, madness, and in all likelihood, the dark side.
"1. Annikin Skywalker embraces the dark side because the Jedi way tries to divorce him from his feelings. Discuss"
"2. The jedi are full of shit. Discuss."
*Who was complicit with so many foul politicians, it's untrue. Don't get me started on her.
