Democratic Underground admiting they are IDIOTS? (Their Rebuttal to the "Punch The Pacifist" Parody)

Democratic Underground ^

[Johnny Shear]

This is a copy and paste from The Democratic Underground Front Page (My comments will follow after the article)...

I know you've seen it. On a message board, in an email... it's the "argument" conservatives are supposed to use against liberals to illustrate why the use of force is necessary.

It usually goes something like this:

1. Approach student talking about 'peace' and saying there should be, 'no retaliation.'

2. Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.

3. When he says, "No," ask, "Why not?"

4. Wait until he says something to the effect of, 'Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence.'

5. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

6. When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, 'be awful and he should not cause more violence.'

7. Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.

8. Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

Typical. It betrays the conservative notion that might makes right, that if someone doesn't agree with you, you have a right to pummel him until he does. Forget reason, forget logic, just beat the hell out of them until they see the light.

The "argument" has plenty of support on the right, mostly because it is purported to teach the liberal a lesson about the real world, and allow them to beat him down at the same time. It's a conservative dream come true.

Except for one thing. What if it doesn't actually work?

After all, let's remember that this mentality is not new on the right. Bull Connor based his entire strategy on the idea that Blacks wouldn't be able to keep taking it. Surely the next dog mauling, surely the next spray of the firehose, surely the next brutalization would make them see reason. Surely the next beat down will be the last. Then they'll go away and we won't hear from them again. There was only one problem.

They didn't go away.

Connor found that he literally could not hit Blacks hard enough to keep them down. He discovered that the more brutal and vicious he became, the more determined they were to gain their rights. He discovered that, in the end, with all of the force at his disposal, with all of his dogs, fire hoses, nightsticks, guns, and lynchings, he was still powerless. He was still beaten by people with nothing but their determination and an unshakable faith in their belief.

And he discovered something else. In the end, he was the monster. He was the bad guy. He had to wake up every morning and realize that he was committing unspeakable evil on a daily basis against people who had done nothing to him. He had to recognize that he had become a petty, pathetic shell, an officer with only the shape of a man, but with no humanity to go with it.

It was a hard lesson to learn, and a high price to pay to learn it.

But some lessons must be taught over and over. And, in truth, part of the reason that the conservative "argument" is so successful is that adhering to a policy of non-violence is often very hard. It is a difficult thing not to fight back as someone takes advantage of you and hard not to sink to their level. It's a question that I personally struggle with. But I do struggle with it, because I know it’s a struggle worth waging.

To illustrate, let's take another look at the conservative "argument."

1. Conservative approaches student talking about peace and saying there should be no retaliation.

2. Conservative engages in brief conversation, asks if military force is appropriate.

3. Student says, "No." Conservative asks, "Why not?"

4. Student says something to the effect of, 'Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence.'

5. When student is in mid sentence, conservative punches him in the face as hard as he can.

6. Student gets back up and says, "I'm sorry you feel the need to hit me to get me to agree with your point of view, but I maintain that violence only produces more violence."

7. Conservative punches student in the face again, harder this time.

8. Steps 6 and 7 repeat as many times as necessary.

9. Conservative finally gets it through his puny little brain that violence, indeed does not work.

10. Conservative further realizes that, in trying to coerce student through violence that he himself has become Osama bin Laden.

11. Conservative slinks away distraught, his entire worldview shattered.

That is the life-changing power that is ours for the taking. That is what can be accomplished by looking at the world through a different lens.

That, my friends, is the power of non-violence.

(Inspired by a tagline seen on the DemocraticUnderground website: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they hate you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi)

Morris Smith is editor of SurfLiberal.com

© 2001 Democratic Underground, LLC

[Snuffington]

6. Student gets back up and says, "I'm sorry you feel the need to hit me to get me to agree with your point of view, but I maintain that violence only produces more violence."

In college I had a friend who truly did used to think this way. He was serious about it too. We tried to persuade him he was wrong, but he couldn't be budged by our words.

Then one night he tried to put his ideology into practice.

Some rowdy drunks were looking for a fight one night when our friend happened along. When they pushed him he tried his line about being a pacifist. They knocked him down. He had always insisted that his refusal to fight back in such a case would make them become disheartened and go away. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Instead they kicked him until he was unconscious.

Luckily no permanent damage was done. But that event changed his pacifist world view in a way our words never could.

[steve-b]

Bull Connor had to stop because, in the end, there were other people with guns who disapproved.

Who was it who quipped, "The Feds have the Bomb"?

[Slush]

It's pretty clear whoever came up with this left wing response assumed the puncher was the US and the 'pacifist' is the innocent Afghan citizenry. While punching back on your own behalf is based on one set of principles, I think punching back on the behalf of someone else brings a whole different set of values to bear. If you came across the puncher and the pacifist, what would you do? Hit the puncher I'd imagine. Who would just stand there? Another pacifist saying he's sorry too? So in this parody, I think the US would really be the unmentioned bystander with a moral dilemma on his hands while the victims of the crime are the pacifist and the puncher is the terrorist demanding attention. Long story short, whoever wrote this response is a moron who is projecting his world view just a little.

[The Right Stuff]

That is the life-changing power that is ours for the taking***

Kumbaya, dude. Take a chill pill and let's all join hands.

Liberal: "Ahhhh" exhaling deeply held smoke....."Now where did I put those flowers for the rifles, dude?"

[finnman69]

The problem with the DU version is number 11. Osama is not going to slink away.

[NatureGirl]

Actually, I think one of the flaws in their logic is comparing what happened to the Blacks (a group of individuals) to what would happen to one individual. How can one person "rise up" or not be "beaten down"? A group or race can rise above violence against some of the individuals - an individual cannot.

If you follow what they're saying right down to the very end, it means that they'd prefer dying to fighting back - or to living. And this is what they are saying, by extension, about the terrorist situation. They would rather die than stop the problem at its root - because (according to them) violence begats violence. If you think about that, you'll know that they don't mind a lot of innocent people dying as well.

Of course, the real joke in all of it is that, if someone was being hit by a "conservative", their own violent nature would come out and they would fight back, or they would run screaming to Big Mommy government to get it to stop. But it sures sounds nice and sanctimonious to say that they would never never fight back. Why, they could even compare themselves to Gandhi!

The fact that they think by sitting back and doing nothing, terrorists will stop attacking is one of the stupidest, most short-sighted ideas I have ever heard.

[ThreeYearLurker]

I think I read something by one liberal columnist a few weeks ago that makes sense in this case. Pacifism and Gandhian non-violence only work when your opponent has a soul. Supposedly some Jews prior to WWII asked Gandhi what they should do to counter Nazism, and Gandhi advocated non-violence. Obviously that didn't work, as it won't against al Qaida.

The DUmocrat tends to beleive that the original point of "Punch the Pacifist" was to get liberals riled up...WRONG! The point is to show tht bin Laden is pure evil and no matter how peaceful we act, bin Laden won't stop until were all dead.

[Argh]

Bull Connor had to stop because, in the end, there were other people with guns who disapproved.

Exactly. Violence is the ultimate compulsion behind all of our laws. But very few of these DUhers are anarchists in favour of having no laws, are they?

I wonder how many of them support the violent anti-globalisation protestors.

[lavaroise]

9. Conservative finally gets it through his puny little brain that violence, indeed does not work.

10. Conservative further realizes that, in trying to coerce student through violence that he himself has become Osama bin Laden.

11. Conservative slinks away distraught, his entire worldview shattered.

UH!? So the confined democrat win? The Democrat-less democrat wins? Okayy!

My world is shattered indeed.

The point is peace when facing aggression results in 100% collateral damage. War avoids 100% collateral damage. Dum a$$ dimbocraps, hence peace when faced with aggression is evil.

[dfrussell]

Assuming I can wear a glove, I'm willing to punch a few to test their theory..... when will they have their volunteers ready? :-)))

[Big Bunyip]

I wonder if they would hit the guy raping their wife

The correct pacificist response in that situation would be to try and come between them. A Clintonian threesome -- how very chic! :-)

[BruceS]

They didn't go away.

Connor found that he literally could not hit Blacks hard enough to keep them down. He discovered that the more brutal and vicious he became, the more determined they were to gain their rights. He discovered that, in the end, with all of the force at his disposal, with all of his dogs, fire hoses, nightsticks, guns, and lynchings, he was still powerless. He was still beaten by people with nothing but their determination and an unshakable faith in their belief.

The difference is, that while "they didn't go away", they also didn't stay by themselves. They were not people with "nothing but their determination and an unshakable faith in their belief" (although they had that). They came back with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, enforced by the FBI, Federal Marshals, and the Federalized National Guard. Bull Conner did not lose because he was overmatched by the Civil Rights Leaders. He was overmatched by the same Federal Government power that is being used against the terrorists.

It was the Republicans' support of civil rights for all Americans that allowed the Civil Rights movement in the South to succeed. Until the Republicans in the Senate and House threw their support behind the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts, the Demoncrats (both at Federal and state level) were able to block the Federal Government from taking any action. The current history of that struggle has been written by liberals who don't want to acknowledge the part of true conservatives in the Civil Rights movement (after all, if the government can deny one person his or her Constitutional rights without due process of law, they can deny anyone's rights). Bob Dornan is one of the most conservative men ever to serve in Congress (and the left hates him), but he almost wrecked his Air Force career by joining in the marches in the South. These DU types are seeing history through their own filter.

Feel free to use this reply on that DU thread.

[Demidog]

Ghandi and his followers completely destroyed the Empire's influence in India by using the methods described. To say it doesn't work is folly.

However, Ghandi also said that of all of the crimes committed toward the Indian people by Britain, disarmament was the "blackest."

Had he had an armed populice that could fight, he probably would have advocated violence.

And...why is there so much concern with what is said by a bunch of democrats at another website? Why not just leave them alone?

If the strength of your arguments do not change their opinions, give it a rest. I, for one, could care less what they say at DU.

[Demidog]

Supposedly some Jews prior to WWII asked Gandhi what they should do to counter Nazism, and Gandhi advocated non-violence.

Ghandi and his followers didn't sit back and do nothing. They fought. They just didn't use weapons like rifles and spears.

[Nonstatist]

Student gets back up

But at some point, he doesen't.

The analogy to the plight of the Blacks is fallacious; in that case the Oppressors changed,or maetamorphisized. Pretty much independently. The Muslim radicals aint about to "change".

Isn't this kind of self delusion something else? Amazing..

[Big Bunyip]

Read Orwell's essay on Ghandi's pacificism worked against the Brits (they were civilized) but would have been useless against the Nazis (they were animals who would have shot him the moment he got out of line).

Pacifism only works against people who really don't want to hit you in the first place.

[clamper1797]

It's proceeding on plan ... offline for the moment

[section9]

What the Duhrats fail to understand is that Conservatives have a realistic appreciation of the world around them. It is true, Gandhi did kill his political opponents. This the DU Sturmabteilungen fail to give him credit for.

We know that if vermin such as bin Laden and his adherents are allowed to go unpunished, they will strike at our country again. Perhaps next time they will use smallpox, or a strain of ebola, or a serious car bomb, or a high explosive with a radioactive jacket. Or a suitcase nuke.

But liberals don't care. They simply want to remain secure in the knowledge that whatever attacks befall us are, at bottom, our own fault.

Liberals, as usual, do not have an understanding of how serious this is. If they did, they would recognize their position as being in the execrable tradition of Neville Chamberlain and Deladier. They are so much like the British fascists of the 1930's that one expects Oswald Mosely to turn up as a DU poster.

The fact that bin Laden is a partisan of a medieval interpretation of reality is the only thing that is keeping Liberals from finding something good to say about the old buzzard. Believe me, if bin Laden were in favor a women's reproductive choice, these DU people would be first in line to join his fan club, no matter how many Americans he killed.

Because in their heart of hearts, liberals believe that we "had it coming".

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Nonstatist]

They fought. They just didn't use weapons like rifles and spears

They had numbers on their side. Huge advantage in numbers.

[Ditto]

I posed a version of this question to a guy on my floor in college who said he was a pacifist: "wouldn't you shoot someone to save your mother's life or keep her from being raped?"

I’ve heard that too, and I never believe it. A true pacifist is far more rare than humped back whales. But the test for them is this. Ask him if he would go along if his girlfriend wanted to abort his baby because she would miss spring break. You'll find out just how violent they really are. They would kill an innocent infant with no pangs, but then give you this jive that they wouldn't plug some madman trying to kill his own mother.