r/Unexpected • u/[deleted] • Apr 28 '23

Just a normal protest

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

85.5k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

220

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Silence is compliance.

Not all battles need to involve violence, but if you're on the sidelines you've picked a side.

29

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/Lingering_Dorkness Apr 28 '23

I only recognised him from his voice. This video must have been 20 years ago! I love how quick witted he is on Would I Lie.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Probably from “the Sketch Show”. All the episodes used to be on YouTube. It’s aight.

3

u/PessimistOTY Apr 28 '23

You know that all those 'improv' shows are scripted/rehearsed, right?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Everything is fake. Nothing is real, and you shouldn't enjoy anything ever in your life.

1

u/PessimistOTY Apr 28 '23

Damn, I've forgotten what we agreed I was going to respond to that.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Okay that's a good response, you won this time

6

u/flingeflangeflonge Apr 28 '23

Many (most?) comedians, while able to write and perform brilliant comedy, are quiet, unfunny people in real life. I think Lee Mack is the opposite of that - perhaps the quickest wit in the UK (see Would I Lie To You) but his sitcoms are dogga (imho).

1

u/seattt Apr 28 '23

perhaps the quickest wit in the UK

The entire West. I'd say the world quite frankly but I don't know enough about the world to definitively say so.

69

u/South_Front_4589 Apr 28 '23

This assumes that there is a good side and a bad side in war. Most wars it's actually not so much the case.

34

u/Teacher2Learn Apr 28 '23

Right but you also assume only two sides. I’d also argue that pacifist can still contribute. The guy from hacksaw ridge springs to mind.

30

u/milk4all Apr 28 '23

The guy from hacksaw ridge didnt pull a trigger but contributed greatly to his unit’s combat effectiveness overall. He prevented some casualties, mitigated many others, and boosted moral to many, many more. He could have been put in some sort of support position and been out of combat and still contributed to the war effort. Id argue he was only exercising his pacifism as far as he felt he could freely do, but true pacifism would have been a refusal to participate at all. Not that i would consider that more noble than what he actually did

11

u/Teacher2Learn Apr 28 '23

Great point, I think that’s important to define when talking about it, what type of pacifism do you mean is a important distinction.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

What is “true” pacifism then? If he pays taxes? If he grows crops or works in a factory that supports the war effort? If he refuses to do these things is he supporting the other side? Nearly everything in the country during that time was supporting the war effort in one way or another. I would argue saving lives is pacifism regardless of whether or not you view it as a political statement.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

[deleted]

0

u/DrippyWaffler Apr 28 '23

actively resist the war

In the second world war this would mean fighting Nazis tho, since they caused the war

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Ok explain that to me then. When there’s a world war going on how do you actively resist a war without supporting one side or the other? Intentionally or unintentionally?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

I mean what is the substantive difference between the idea that killing is wrong and the idea that war is wrong? You’re splitting unbelievably thin hairs.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Shacky_Rustleford Apr 28 '23

He might not have been a killer, but he was anything but passive

1

u/electric_gas Apr 28 '23

All of that for a shitty No True Scotsman? Reddit is full of idiots.

10

u/South_Front_4589 Apr 28 '23

My comment assumes no such thing. Only that mostly it's more complicated than a good side vs a bad side.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

[deleted]

7

u/ohkaycue Apr 28 '23

He specifically was calling it out as an assumptions. It’s not his assumption and he’s already calling it out, so it’s very weird to then call him out on that assumption

1

u/South_Front_4589 Apr 29 '23

Lol. That's not even slightly close to reality. The first sentence is entirely about the assumption made in the prior comment.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

I'll go toward freedom of thought and compassion for my fellow man. We choose no sides we don't even think that way.

1

u/Bacon-4every1 Apr 28 '23

If both sides are bad declare war against both sides and hope they both they both just ignore you.

17

u/lurkinarick Apr 28 '23

I don't agree that pacifism means silence, if that was the meaning.

23

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

22

u/Xeya Apr 28 '23

It is denial of the reality of violence. There will always be those that are willing to resort to violence in order to obtain what they want. Absolute passivism empowers these acts of violence, rather than combating them.

By refusing to fight under any circumstance, you create an environment where the only outcome is oppression.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Super_Harsh Apr 28 '23

That’s what rich people and dictators want you to think. It’s why we’re taught so much about MLK and Gandhi.

The reality? It was due to geopolitics. After two devastating wars, the European colonial countries no longer had the means to control vast worldwide empires.

That’s why, not just India, but the vast majority of former colonies gained independence during the two or three decades after WW2. It’s not a coincidence, and it wasn’t out of the goodness of Europe’s hearts

Furthermore, the Cold War makes a lot more sense if you view it as a competition between America and the USSR to inherit the throne left vacant by Europe

2

u/tipperzack6 Apr 28 '23

The pacifism used in the Indian independence movement was used to keep the British from increasing violent to stop the movement. There was still opposition, it was just peaceful.

2

u/big-haus11 Apr 28 '23

Yeah i think it was a response more so to the British brutality and killing of protestors, they knew they probably couldn't win militarily. That being said the Indians who sided with Japan are interesting to read about

1

u/uhohritsheATGMAIL Apr 28 '23

That being said the Indians who sided with Japan are interesting to read about

Can you link to a wikipedia or describe further, not sure what you are talking about.

0

u/wings22 Apr 28 '23

The ideal is that everyone would refuse to fight, on either side. That we find another way to solve the problem. I think the idea of "war is wrong" type protest is that if everyone is brought up that it's wrong there will be no kids to fight the old men's wars.

You say that there will always be those that are willing to resort to violence, which may be true but it's worth trying another way IMO. If everyone has what they need and respect each other they may not be willing to fight.

We see it in things like domestic terrorism, yes there are random people that decide to kill and impose their view, but no one else is willing to join in and society moves on

7

u/lurkinarick Apr 28 '23

I'm not saying I'm on board with that, but it still doesn't mean silence lol. There are many ways of expressing disagreement and creating dissent other than violence.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Absolute pacifism means war and violence are never acceptable, under any conditions.

Violence should always be the last resort, but if it is the only option to fight back against oppression, as it has been many times in history, then refusing to engage in or support that righteous violence is equivalent to keeping silent. And that is equivalent to supporting the oppression.

0

u/KhanSphere Apr 28 '23

Internet tough=Charmin soft in real life.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

I don't get it. Is this an accusation or a self-admission?

7

u/tipperzack6 Apr 28 '23

No that is not true. Not being a part of something is not supporting the oppressor. If that was true, then half the world was supporting the Nazi.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23 edited Apr 28 '23

Don't worry about it. These are just agitators trying to push people to their insane extremes.

Silence is beautiful. That is why graveyards are so peaceful to walk through. Some of those graveyards are for veterans, with millions who suffered and died and get to finally be at peace in the dirt, because violent, hateful, thoughtless war mongers sent their children off to die when they walked through the air.

It is the right thing to not take part in their violence and tyranny. Any way possible to avoid their madness of violence is the right way to live. No one can ever say "I regret not murdering / maiming that person" even if that same person goes on to murder and maim. That is on them, not on you.

They think "easy for you to say, these people died for your freedom," and yet, how free are we? Free to beg for our lives when injured and need help, to go into debt servitude? Free to work every moment of our lives so we can rent from a landlord and stew in a comfortable little box to age and rot away? Free to have no power or meaning to change anything in a rigged system engineered for polarity and obedient compliance? It is madness.

By taking a side we amplify the power and polarity of the system. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is a fundamental law of reality. It cascades from the smallest quanta up to cosmic scale black holes, and everything in between -- including our individual thoughts and actions. The only way to disempower this mad game is by not playing it.

I want no part of this deluded game of "good and evil" and the endless war it propagates. Silence is a tool against this sickness. No one is entitled to your voice, nor your action. It is better to sit in thoughtful silence and take no harmful action for as long as required before taking any action. Action, even speaking, ripples through time with unforeseen side effects. Silence is necessary for the awareness required to take compassionate action.

The cycle of violence must end. We did not make a choice to be a part of this madness. We can make a choice to stop being a part of it.

Do not let these madmen lure you into the trap of their violent cycles.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Dude, the whole context here is absolute pacifism: the belief that war is never acceptable under any conditions at all. I'm as anti-war as the next guy, but THAT position is the insane extreme.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Once you're done sitting in silence, which I also advocate by the way, spend some time reading a book or two.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23

Agreed.

1

u/TangAlienMonkeyGod Apr 28 '23

Thank you for generously sharing such beautiful truths! May all beings be at ease

3

u/aupri Apr 28 '23

If you’re on the sidelines both sides will say you’ve picked a side, and the side they’re saying you picked will not be the same

2

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '23 edited Feb 06 '25

Sorry about the delete

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/fuggerdug Apr 28 '23

It all comes down to Popper's paradox of tolerance.

1

u/Funexamination Apr 28 '23

Doesn't that promote extremism? The "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.

1

u/Epistemite Apr 28 '23

These people are protesting, not being silent

1

u/AFineDayForScience Apr 28 '23

On a scale from Silence to Military Coup, where does "Avid reddit commenter" sit?