They are murder apologists.

Conditional pacifism

Tapping into just war theory conditional pacifism represents a spectrum of positions departing from positions of absolute pacifism. One such conditional pacifism is the common pacificism, which may allow defense but is not advocating a default defensivism[10] or even interventionism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Types

Well that was fucking easy. /thread

There are many definitions of pacifism, and without further context to simply say someone is a pacifist automatically makes them a fascist is a pretty myopic point of view.

I am anti-war, and I prefer peaceful resolution over violence. By definition I am a pacifist. But, that does not mean I will let someone simply walk all over me or my loved ones without opposition. It doesn’t mean I will simply resort to violence either.

The world is a complicated place, and to treat everything as if it’s an “either, or” situation does everyone a disservice and only feeds into the overall problem.

Arguing against violence and war when that is possible is fine.

Arguing fanatically to lay down weapons when one side is very clearly not going to do that, is very stupid.

In the sense that there will always be people who are going to be tricked into a fascist, violent, superiority cult, because there are just that many people, and in the sense that sometimes and regularly moderate or intense violence will be necessary to stop them, because some people are closed off to arguments and peaceful discussion, opposing that violence is taking their side, yes.

And it’s fine if you disagree, I simply think you have really finished thinking about it. The reply is always going to be a “… but what if they just stopped being fanatic fascists” and I think that is not how that works.

So ultimately I agree with Orwell.

I am one of them. Nobody has ever truly meant it when they say they’re a pacifist. And to any so-called “pacifists” reading this -does that statement make you mad? Make you want to slap me? Oh dear.

Pacifism as a virtue is fine, though it won’t stop actual Nazis. it’s apathy and disillusionment that are killing us

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

- MLK

I.e., “What are your thoughts on people who are against people who are against people who are violently against people?”

100%

Its why I’m not a pacifist. Its why I don’t generally involve myself with left-ish protest movements, where non-violence is a higher priority than effectiveness when it comes to the metrics of success for an action. I view pacifism as being co-opted after the 1960’s and 70’s and used to cuckold resistance movements to state power. Government reshaped and reworked itself to both allow and also entirely ignore protest in this time. So sure. Go protest all you want. Its what the state wants you to do and how it wants you to funnel your resentment and anger at a lack of representation or function of government.

What he’s saying is just wrong, but I think behind his words somewhere is the assumption that pacifism isn’t an effective way to bring social change. There are many counterexamples.