benlehman: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] benlehman at 11:20am on 17/05/2005
This whole rant is apropos of this thread on the Forge. Ron has this bit where he says this:


I'm talking about the straightforward and undeniable observation that asserting one's position through violence is absolutely required in real life. No ifs. No arguments. No possible bullshit denials. We all know that "finding one's warrior" is part of living life - the alternative is living in some form of fear.

Yes, pacifists too. That's a matter of finding someone who will be the warrior for you. Without machine guns emplaced somewhere, no Mother Theresa.


I'm not going to mince words around this. This is macho bullshit in its purest form.

The opposite of fear is not violence. The opposite of fear is courage. That is what it means to find your "warrior within" and, frankly, if you need violence to do that, you are one pitiful sunnuvabitch. Courage isn't violence, and to confuse the two is to make yourself and every other man into a monster. More often than not, violence is cowardice.

Or, as I said in Vincent's post, I just can't bring myself to call a Quaker any less of a man.

Something I should clarify -- I am not a pacifist. We are not perfect people, we do not live in a perfect world. There may be a time when I will need to perform some act of violence, and I'm probably not even going to hesitate about it if I need it. But damned if I'm going to mistake that weakness for manliness, or that cowardice for courage.

Courage is about a lot of things which people mistake violence for -- it is about striving, about struggle, about confrontation, about difficulty, and about pain. Courage is the ability to look through the confusion of a desperate situation and see with perfect moral and rational clarity the right thing to do. Courage is having the will to do the right thing, even if it means your life, even if it means someone else's life. And not a scrap of that has anything to do with the wretched, miserable impulse to hurt other people and make yourself feel big.

Cowardice is courage's opposite, with all that entails. It is retreating from the right path because it is too hard, less fun, difficult to see. It is about giving into the suffering of life, not striving, about backing away from confrontation, about backstabbing, about avoiding pain, about purposefully clouding your own moral vision so that you can say "I didn't know" when they come to lay the blame. Cowardice is about doing the easy thing, even if it means your life, even if it means someone else's life. And that often has an awful lot to do with the wretched, miserable impulse to hurt other people and make yourself feel big.

Mother Theresa didn't walk the streets of Calcutta untouched because the crooks were afraid of someone else's machine gun emplacements, and to say that is an insult. She walked the streets of Calcutta because other people, even thugs, could see in her rightness, propriety, a sense of purpose and a sense of holy dignity that they could never violate. The Quakers didn't live in peace because of the Puritan's massacres and the Southerner's slavery, but in spite of them and opposed to them. Ghandi didn't have a militia backing him up, just a sense of human dignity, a helluva good organizational talent, some charisma, and the courage to never back down from the right path.

To say otherwise is a cowardly lie, and I will not stand it from anyone.

To be courageous is to live with moral certainty. To be a coward is to live in fear.

Sometimes, the most courageous thing to do is to take the hit. Sometimes, it is to get up and walk away as fast as you can. Sometimes, it is to say what they want you to say. Sometimes it is to pull the trigger. Sometimes it is to not pull the trigger. Sometimes it is to embrace the other man. Sometimes it is the say "I love you still." Sometimes it is to say "I will not countenance this." Sometime it is to just sit there and take it. Sometimes it is to cry uncle. Sometimes, it is to cry.

It's complicated, contextual.

But it has fuck to do with violence.
There are 59 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] yeloson.livejournal.com at 06:31pm on 17/05/2005
Personally, I think you're misreading what Ron was writing, but I'm sure he'll send you a note on that. I think you guys AREN'T as far apart on this conceptually as you think.
 
posted by [identity profile] itsmrwilson.livejournal.com at 06:31pm on 17/05/2005
Ben, this kicks ass. I agree wholeheartedly.

Except: "To be courageous is to live with moral certainty."

I'd add that it sometimes takes courage to question one's convictions, but I don't think it's contrary to what you're saying.

Awesomest post I've read all month, my man.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 06:38pm on 17/05/2005
Word.

I guess I see taking cover under your mythology as living in fear. A person with real moral conviction doesn't have to do that.

I have a strange sense of morals.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] bob-goat.livejournal.com at 06:43pm on 17/05/2005
Well said chief.

Except: Moral certainty isn't couragous. It is hubris. I would say that courage is taking action (or as you put it, take the blow), consequences be damned.
 
posted by [identity profile] trollmage.livejournal.com at 06:43pm on 17/05/2005
Thanks, man. I had the same "bullshit" reaction to that post.

I would probably have had less of a problem with it if Ron had even framed it as something that could possibly be subject to debate. But "no ifs, no arguments, no bullshit denials?"

Nice job, preemptively dismissing with contempt anyone who dares disagree with you, Ron.

I'm frankly disgusted when I read that.
 
posted by [identity profile] bar-sinister.livejournal.com at 07:01pm on 17/05/2005
As a Quaker, I want to thank you for not questioning my manhood. ;)

I didn't feel like responding to that thread when I read it, although it did piss me off more than a bit. This is a subject that I have thought about at some length, and I do believe that at times violence is necessary. I also believe that those times are far more rare than people think, and individuals and societies resorting to violence are often taking the easy way out. Solving problems without violence is extremely difficult, and I think it is a bullshit cop-out to go to force without exhausting your other options. Yeah, it's hard, but that's no excuse. The only thing violence is good for is wrecking things, and sometimes things need to be wrecked, but you better damn well be sure you want destruction before you choose to use it.

To bring this around to RPG gaming, when I was a teenager I convinced my Pop to play D&D with me. He went through the whole adventure without ever using violence, even as his character was surrounded by hostile goblins, orcs, and minotaurs. It was a very interesting and enlightening experience, and we still had a good time.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 07:05pm on 17/05/2005
As you are a Quaker, I feel that I can safely say that your people are, historically, amongst the most heroic in the world.

My point is this, really -- sometimes, the violent one is the hero, but more often, he is the coward.

And I'd love to hear more about that D&D game. How did he get out of all those classic D&D situations? Did others attack him?

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] bob-goat.livejournal.com at 07:14pm on 17/05/2005
Well I question your manhood, but it has nothing to do with the Quaker thing... ;)
 
posted by [identity profile] matt-snyder.livejournal.com at 07:08pm on 17/05/2005
To the pissed: Stop it.

Also, if you doubt Ron, ask him. Betchas dimes to dog turds he doesn't mean what you think.
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 07:14pm on 17/05/2005
If Ron wants to explain himself, he is welcome to do so here, in public, or in private via e-mail or PM. Clearly, either a lot of people disagree with him or have misunderstood his very clear no bullshit statement there.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] trollmage.livejournal.com at 07:16pm on 17/05/2005
Stop what?

And Ron closed the damn topic, so we can't ask him there. Doubt he'd be thrilled to hash it out in a dozen private messages. Doubt he gives a shit, to be honest.
 
posted by (anonymous) at 07:16pm on 17/05/2005
I'm a fan of a good rant, but don't you think its a tad premature to call "macho bullshit" or get "pissed off" before taking the seemingly obvious step of asking Ron to expand on what he meant?

I mean, maybe he means exactly what you think he means and maybe that will get you all worked up...but to jump immediately into quasi-hostile rant mode without pursuing a less antagonistic course of action seems rather...ironic given the subject matter...

Ralph Mazza
aka Valamir
 
posted by [identity profile] bar-sinister.livejournal.com at 07:23pm on 17/05/2005
Ralph, it did piss me off. I didn't have much conscious control over that reaction. I took it personally, because I am a pacifist. That's actually why I didn't respond until now. When I read something that makes me mad on one of these threads, I take a cool-down period before I write back, because I know I am probably over-reacting. I know Ron didn't mean anything personally, but his tone in that post was certainly adamant, and I certainly felt it was dismissive as well. That's an issue I would take up with him.
 
posted by [identity profile] itsmrwilson.livejournal.com at 07:41pm on 17/05/2005
To be honest, I don't really think Ben used language any different than Ron's in his response.

And when any white guy starts to feel angry, I encourage him to let that shit out right away, because if he doesn't, it's only going to lead to a shooting. (http://www.alternet.org/story/10560)
 
posted by (anonymous) at 07:29pm on 17/05/2005
Violence is not courage. Violence is power. You're right about moral convinction, but that's not what Ron's notes are about. See that Humanity definition? It's "justice", not "morality". This means that he's not talking about right or wrong, but about power and weakness.

Courage is inner power, but that doesn't translate to the outer world. To the contrary, a pacifist has made the consicious choice of disregarding the outer world insofar as it doesn't play his game. He's giving an ultimatum to the world: I won't play by your rules, and you can do just what you want with that. You can even get violent towards what is mine, I still won't play it your way. Courageous, to be sure.

But that's not justice. Justice is enforcing revenge, a balancing of the scales. And it's only possible through the final court of violence, one way or another. You can be just as good as you want without ever making a fist, but then you will not be an instrument of justice, either. You'll be courageous, but not just.

So when Ron's talking about fear there, I think you should read it in the context of enforcement of justice. You can live without fear and without violence simultaneously, but only if you're willing to abstain from ever giving guarantees to anybody - this is an extreme form of bushido, where you're willing to lose everything, have already lost everything, and thus may not lose anything more. So a pacifistic life is only possible in one of two possible conditions:
1) never commit to any cause except your own moral superiority, because you have nothing to commit, really.
2) depend on someone else using the power for your ends, just like Ron said.

I personally think that Mother Theresa was of the first kind, while MLKJr. was of the latter. Neither lives in fear: one has an extreme way of the warrior willing to gamble everything for principle, while the other has trust in society - effectively he's strategizing that he himself doesn't need to enforce his own position.
 
posted by [identity profile] arianhwyvar.livejournal.com at 09:26pm on 17/05/2005
I cannot agree that justice = revenge. Even our own justice system, which heavily involves force or the threat of force, does not adhere to 'an eye for an eye', and does not demand violence in response to violence. Violence is one possible means to force people to adhere to the system of justice of the society, but it is not a necessary or constant 'righting of the scales' in and of itself. At least according to our justice system, a civilian choosing to perform a vigilante shooting of a (suspected) murderer is not justice; a suspected wrongdoer entering court without having been beaten up by the police and paying a fine to the person he wronged is. You personally may not agree and would rather than anyone who broke someone else's leg have their own leg broken, rather than being locked up, but I think that is a matter of your personal view rather than the definition of what is just. Societies have historically done rather better when they managed to move from a never-ending bloodfeud standard to a wergelt standard.

I do not think one is incapable of being 'just' if one refuses to commit violence, nor that 'being just' = 'enforcing justice', nor that 'enforcing justice' can only be done with physical violence. Humans are social and mindful creatures as well as physical, and thus can be influenced or punished by nonphysical means: shame and community exclusion, for example. I don't claim that the threat or use of physical violence is never useful or possibly even necessary to deal with particular people and situations, but I absolutely disagree that it is always intrinsicly necessary to any example of justice. It also thoroughly disregards how much of an effect 'carrot' may have rather than or in combination with 'stick.'
Context(anonymous)
evilmagnus: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] evilmagnus at 07:30pm on 17/05/2005
She walked the streets of Calcutta because other people, even thugs, could see in her rightness, propriety, a sense of purpose and a sense of holy dignity that they could never violate.

No.
She walked the streets because everyone knew that:
a) she worked with lepers, and they didn't want to 'catch teh leprosy' from her. Fear of contagion is a powerful motivator.
b) If you touch the nun, you're in for the asswhupping of your life. Fear of mob beatdown is also a powerful motivator.

This has nothing to do with courage, per se; I'm merely disputing your assertion.

 
... what are you guy's talking about?

Ron wrote: "asserting one's position through violence is absolutely required in real life.

Then, Ben, you wrote: "Sometimes it is to pull the trigger."

And then our own official Quaker wrote: "I do believe that at times violence is necessary."

Now, unless your suggesting Ron meant, "Start your day by punching someone in the face, and always use a violent act as your first option for any given situation" --- which he clearly did not write -- could you pleace point out to me on the map the exact piece of moral high ground are you guys standing on?

Christopher
 
Also, what's this "moral high ground" stuff? I don't think I've brought morality up, myself, but Matt Snyder accused me of "taking the moral high ground" and I'm assuming I'm included in this thing about moral high ground.

I think whether or not violence is required depends on how you define "violence" and "required," which may sound weaselly but there you go.

But at least according to definitions I commonly carry around in my head, I don't think "violence" is "required." I certianly don't think of "asserting one's position" as a reason it might be required if it were required.

I was annoyed by Ron's coda about "bullshit denial" because it sounded like a preemptive attack on anyone who would disagree with him, and an unfair one.

I was annoyed by Ron's comment about pacifists because I simply disagree with it. I don't think pacifism is dependent on shifting the use of coercion to another party. That's not pacifism, that's delegated violence.

But there may well be definitions of "violence" and "absolutely required" and perhaps "real life" under which I would agree with Ron.
 
posted by [identity profile] trollmage.livejournal.com at 07:54pm on 17/05/2005
What are "required" and "necessary" supposed to mean here?

Who is requiring them?

What happens if the requirement is not fulfilled?
 
posted by [identity profile] ckubasik.livejournal.com at 08:07pm on 17/05/2005
Hi,

Well, in Ron's quote, the violence is required to "assert one's position in life." bar_sinister left it indefinite, but I imagine he'd go along with this, because, assering one's position can cover anything from "I want to life," to "You can't rape my wife," to, "These kids are going to this school whether you want them to or not.*"

Are you asking for me to be able to point to the Mother Ship which holds the codex to all the situations in which a violent act is absolutley, objectively "required". Too bad.

We're asserting our postion's here. So... you better have thought out some of the crucial positions ahead of time. You better know what you value, know what matters to you -- because these are things you're willing to spill blood for.

As for your final question, if the requirement is not fulfilled, then I'm assuming one is not being tested to assert one's position.

Christopher

* Please note, sending armed men in to open the doors of a school for black children doesn't really count unless people believe the threat of violence is REAL... Not hitting someone is the same thing as hitting them is the threat of hitting caused the assertion of one's position to be carried out successfully.
 
posted by [identity profile] dariuswolfe.livejournal.com at 08:06pm on 17/05/2005
So much to respond to here..

I'll try (note 'try') to keep it brief.

I agree with:

Violence /= courage
Non-violence /= cowardice
Pacifism can = courage

I disagree with:

Willingness to do violence = weakness
The idea that pacifism has any chance of thriving without those willing to do violence for righteous causes.

Fact is, pacifism has two possible forms, one of which is courage, the other of which is cowardice. Some do no violence out of conviction, others do no violence out of fear. In either case, pacifism when confronted with violence will either break, run, or die unless there is someone, a warrior or a soldier, willing to do violence to protect the pacifist.

Mother Theresa wasn't harmed because she was holy? THAT is bullshit. Maybe some, possibly even most did not harm her because of her aura of sanctity, but there are always those who will do violence no matter unless counter-motivated through fear. Perhaps she never would have countenanced violence to protect her life, but whether she willed or no, the threat of violence against those who would do violence to her is a big factor in why she lived as long as she did.

"If you would have peace, prepare for war" isn't a bullshit saying, nor is "walk softly and carry a big stick". These are adages for those who don't want to do violence, who want peace, but are willing to respond with like as necessary to defend themselves and others.

Some would rather die than fight. That IS courage, I won't deny. Many would rather flee than fight. That's cowardice. Personally, I'd rather fight than die, or fight than flee; If you think this makes me a coward, then to hell with you.
 
posted by [identity profile] trollmage.livejournal.com at 08:17pm on 17/05/2005
For the record, Darius, I'm not in the least interested in labeling anyone a "coward," whatever their take on violence. Nor for that matter in selectively bestowing the label "courageous" on people whose conduct I approve of.

When you say: "there are always those who will do violence no matter unless counter-motivated through fear" I disagree with you, not on the basis that I know you're wrong, but on the basis that I don't know you're right. But that's another discussion.
 
posted by [identity profile] greyorm.livejournal.com at 08:11pm on 17/05/2005
A-fucking-men, Ben. I thought the same damn thing when I read that, I even wrote a two page response about the whole issue of "necessary violence" and the implication that anyone who isn't enforcing their position through violence is in denial, is living in fear, and the cockamamie idea that Mother Theresa (or anyone like her) needs someone with machine gun embankments to be a pacifist. That's a steaming load of crap.

Frankly, as much as I like Ron, as much as I usually agree with him, anyone doing the whole "apologist" thing about this statement of his blinding themselves. His statement is undeniably clear: "asserting one's position through violence is absolutely required in real life", and unless one finds this violent warrior within, one is living in fear.

Quit saying, "Oh, that's out of context" or "You're just misreading him" etc. No, that is the context: he wasn't talking about anything else there, a game or a premise. He's saying, with no bullshit, that people right now, right here, in the real world can't live life without using violence to get their way (either directly or by proxy).

None of this "Well, MAYBE he meant something else." We can wank ourselves into Maybe-land all day and not get anywhere. If Ron meant something other than what he said, he can do what he's always telling everyone else to do: suck it up and realize he didn't say what he meant, that he was unclear. When a dozen people misread you, the problem isn't with their interpretation of the statement.
 
posted by [identity profile] matt-snyder.livejournal.com at 08:53pm on 17/05/2005
"He's saying, with no bullshit, that people right now, right here, in the real world can't live life without using violence to get their way"

And that's wrong why?

I "use" violence all the time to live like I want to. I call it the police department and Ft. Madison prison. I don't want to live in a town where people can make methamphetamines. So, I rely on the cops to stop it with the threat or actual use of violence. I'm complicit in that violence. I heartily support it. I pay for it.

I also pay for it because if I don't, the goverment can "rightly" throw me in jail against my will for tax evasion. If that's not violence, I don't know what is. Here's why: When they come to arrest me, I can resist. I would do that, though. Why? Because they'll fucking shoot me! I'll die instead of just going to jail for a while. Threat of violence.

Really, how is this controversial or otherwise "macho bullshit?" It's a no brainer, and not especially political or politically correct or incorrect (Raven, I know you're not arguing that particular point of political correctness and so on.)

Seems to me pretty clearly this is the type of thing Ron's talking. (shrug)
ext_342472: (Default)
posted by [identity profile] pete-darby.livejournal.com at 09:28pm on 17/05/2005
Well, like other people have said, one thing that stuck in my craw was the "no bullshit denials" crap; way to prejudice the argument. At least he didn't say "Anyone reasonable will agree."

But secondly, the Mother Theresa thing comes in with no explanation, no supporting argument, just bald assertation. I'm thinking, gee, that's controversial Ron. Am I supposed to just sit back and admire it, or call you to damn well explain yourself.

The only way I can square it with anything I could accept would be to read "aggression" where he says "violence", or some such. Now to me, violence means the act of doing physical harm, and if that's absolutely required in real life, then, fuck, I guess I haven't lived a real life. If it means being prepared to do violence should it become necessary, and being unafraid of your capacity for violence, well, okay then. Sure.

But this is Ron, who is always calling on people to react to exactly what he said, who detests bullshit games of "I said X, but meant Y".

Anyway, like I said elsewhere, remember Anger is an Energy. The best thing you can do with it is learn how to use it.

One of the best compliments I ever had was from an old friend of the family who had survived a good few years of binge drinking and binge fighting. He took me aside when I was 16 or so and said "You know, you're the kind of person I'd avoid in a fight. Because you wouldn't be in a fight unless you bloody well meant it."
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 09:33pm on 17/05/2005
Matt Snyder has asked us to "STOP!" in no uncertain terms.

Stop.

Thank you to those that criticized me, for your criticism. Thank you to those that supported me, to your support. Extra special thanks to those that criticized me and supported me at the same time.

Let's all sleep on this.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 09:34pm on 17/05/2005
For future reference, here is a general rule of my journal:

Stop means stop.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by [identity profile] benlehman.livejournal.com at 02:13pm on 18/05/2005
Okay, folks, if you still have stuff to say, let's say it.

It would be a great help if people would go at least read this post (http://www.livejournal.com/users/benlehman/76029.html).

My thoughts on the matter, at this point, are this:

It seems to be that Chris, for one, is basically confusing the word "courage" as I use it here with "assertiveness," which can be generally a good thing, with "violence," which inherently is not.

I'm not particularly interested in the "is it violence to pay taxes / have a police department" nonsense. If you all do want to carry out that discussion here, you can, but I don't think that there will be any end to it.

Ron says provocative things sometimes. It is all right to be provoked, but let's not throw around "bad person" or anything like that. Being provoked is a good thing, for all of us. It makes us think.

Please also do check out the discussion at anyway (http://www.lumpley.com/anycomment.php?entry=222)

If anyone has any posts that they are dying for me to give them an answer to, please let me know via e-mail, as they have officially now been lost in the shuffle.

yrs--
--Ben
 
posted by (anonymous) at 04:50pm on 18/05/2005
I don't know Ben.

It seems to me that the root of the issue is the idea that violence is "inherently not a good thing".

I mean page after page of discussion has people saying very similiar things but if they use words like "Courage" or "Assertive" its good, but "Violence" is bad.

Why the automatic assumption that Violence is not good?

From my perspective violence is a means to an end just like words are a means to an end. And like words it can be used for good or ill. Violence is just a tool.

I'd take issue with anyone who thinks that violence is automatically more damaging or harmful than other means of resolving disputes. I don't think its all that hard to find examples of "non violent" confrontation that are as or more traumatic than violent ones.


It seems to me that certain people have automatically vested the word violence with dark evil connotations and then had an immediate knee jerk reaction to Ron's use of the word. When you get past that automatic cringe response to the word violence I see very little actual disagreement going on.

From my perspective, violence -- constructively applied -- is a good thing, and a hallmark of civilization.

Ralph Mazza
Valamir@aol.com
 
posted by (anonymous) at 07:45am on 24/05/2005
[quote]
To be courageous is to live with moral certainty. To be a coward is to live in fear[/quote]

No. It's is cowardly to live with a self-serving moral certainty.

- CC

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
  1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14 15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31