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.
that pacifism isn’t an effective way to bring social change. There are many counterexamples.
There may be examples of pacifism being effective at bringing change, but that does not mean it will always be effective at bringing change or will always be an adequate response to a situation. If you have ever been attacked randomly, you will know this. Sitting on the floor cross legged like gandhi does not make some random axeman stop trying to kill you.
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.
What he is saying is completely correct on the context that he is talking about the people insisting on pacific resistance to Fascism before WWII.
The person quoting him without context in a way that completely changes the meaning of his words is wrong, and one has to wonder if honest at all.
There may be examples of pacifism being effective at bringing change, but that does not mean it will always be effective at bringing change or will always be an adequate response to a situation. If you have ever been attacked randomly, you will know this. Sitting on the floor cross legged like gandhi does not make some random axeman stop trying to kill you.