benlehman | Heroes live, cowards die

Heroes live, cowards die

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.

Threaded | Flat

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.

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.

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.

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.

To the pissed: Stop it.

Also, if you doubt Ron, ask him. Betchas dimes to dog turds he doesn't mean what you think.

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

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.

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

What are "required" and "necessary" supposed to mean here?

Who is requiring them?

What happens if the requirement is not fulfilled?

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.

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.

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."

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

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

[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

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Forget about what Ron's talking about...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

EVERYONE!

Resetting

no subject