3 ms·

What's his plan? Take it day by day? Watch his back? Also (infer no adversarial tone), he seems to imply that he needs to be prepared to defend himself against

What's his plan? Take it day by day? Watch his back? Also (infer no adversarial tone), he seems to imply that he needs to be prepared to defend himself against attack, ostensibly using his lingering Krav Maga skill and instincts. Does that violate his pacifism? Maybe "pacifist", in this context, should be understood to mean "unaffiliated with any gang".

watwut 6y ago
I think it means that he wont be starting fights and will be avoiding them. It does not mean he is naive about why no one attacked him (weight and tough look plays role according to him). It does not mean that if someone attacks him when guards dont look, he will let himself being beaten without attempting self defense.
kls 6y ago
It depends, pacifist is a catch all term not unlike vegetarian. There are total pacifist who will not utilize violence in any form. Then their are pacifist that believe in personal self defence (and that of family) but not offensive violence in any form. Then their are pacifist that don't reason about it on a personal level, rather they do not believe in the validity of government sanctioned violence, but are OK with getting into a prison fight over a disagreement. Pacifism is a philosophical viewpoint and like most things philosophical it has a spectrum. I consider myself to be a pacifist, but not to the extent that Buddha or Jesus where pacifists, I would be hard pressed to not defend my children or my wife if they were being attacked. For me personally, if I were assaulted, I would try to reach reason and understanding before the violence escalated. If I were being attacked, I would defend myself to the extent that I could get away from the assailant.
klyrs 6y ago
I'm a pacifist and a martial artist. My first approach is de-escalation. That has failed, and I've been attacked by people, and still did not want to hurt those people. Nor will I allow people to simply beat me up. I've defended myself by deflecting and avoiding their attacks, using their momentum against them and whatnot; and when necessary, various holds or joint locks. I've also successfully fled situations where I think others would fight out of a sense of pride. My approach would not work against somebody significantly larger and/or more skilled than myself. Nor is it effective against a group of assailants. Flight is not an option in confined quarters. I'd probably resort to more harmful techniques if I thought my life was in danger. And I'd significantly regret doing so.
- mprev 6y ago
  Serious question but how do you get in so many situations that lead to violence?
  - tejtm 6y ago
    Just existing in certain places is plenty. It has been designed that way.
  - jedimastert 6y ago
    There are plenty of places where something like getting mugged is a several-times-in-a-week occurrence.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    They're infrequent, but they do add up over the years. You're probably picturing stranger assaults, but actually drunk and/or angry friends (more usually, "friends") and family are responsible for a good portion of said experiences. It'a rare that I'm the target, but I stand up for folks and generally step in when people I love are about to do something they'll regret. And then there's the transgender thing -- I've experienced a big uptick in unwanted attention from the public, ever since I came out. Not just a "bad neighborhood" thing, I've had a dude try to follow me home in a sleepy burb, too.
- scarmig 6y ago
  I'm curious: is it actually rational to use more harmful techniques against someone significantly larger than yourself, someone armed, or a group of people? It seems as likely as not to be perceived as an escalation, and in those types of situations an escalation is likelier to mean you get permanently injured or killed. Of course, the best martial art is de-escalation and the next cross-country, but if you're cornered and there's an unbalanced distribution of force, you're kind of screwed regardless of what you do.
  - jedimastert 6y ago
    Generally, in self defense the idea is to do as little possible up until it's decided that the assailant intends harm no matter what, which is when the goal is to incapacitate as quickly as possible. The example I was given by a friend who is well versed in martial arts: > You are threatened by someone for your wallet. First and foremost, place your wallet on the ground, and run like hell when they bend over to pick it up. If they step over the wallet, incapacitate then run like hell. The "step over the wallet" moment is when the decision is made that if you don't do something, you're probably going to be killed. > if you're cornered and there's an unbalanced distribution of force, you're kind of screwed regardless of what you do. This is where martial arts and self defense come it in. No matter how big the other person is, it's really hard to catch up to someone running away with a broken knee.

watwut 6y ago

I think it means that he wont be starting fights and will be avoiding them. It does not mean he is naive about why no one attacked him (weight and tough look plays role according to him). It does not mean that if someone attacks him when guards dont look, he will let himself being beaten without attempting self defense.

kls 6y ago

It depends, pacifist is a catch all term not unlike vegetarian. There are total pacifist who will not utilize violence in any form. Then their are pacifist that believe in personal self defence (and that of family) but not offensive violence in any form. Then their are pacifist that don't reason about it on a personal level, rather they do not believe in the validity of government sanctioned violence, but are OK with getting into a prison fight over a disagreement. Pacifism is a philosophical viewpoint and like most things philosophical it has a spectrum. I consider myself to be a pacifist, but not to the extent that Buddha or Jesus where pacifists, I would be hard pressed to not defend my children or my wife if they were being attacked. For me personally, if I were assaulted, I would try to reach reason and understanding before the violence escalated. If I were being attacked, I would defend myself to the extent that I could get away from the assailant.

klyrs 6y ago

I'm a pacifist and a martial artist. My first approach is de-escalation. That has failed, and I've been attacked by people, and still did not want to hurt those people. Nor will I allow people to simply beat me up. I've defended myself by deflecting and avoiding their attacks, using their momentum against them and whatnot; and when necessary, various holds or joint locks. I've also successfully fled situations where I think others would fight out of a sense of pride. My approach would not work against somebody significantly larger and/or more skilled than myself. Nor is it effective against a group of assailants. Flight is not an option in confined quarters. I'd probably resort to more harmful techniques if I thought my life was in danger. And I'd significantly regret doing so.

mprev 6y ago
Serious question but how do you get in so many situations that lead to violence?
- tejtm 6y ago
  Just existing in certain places is plenty. It has been designed that way.
- jedimastert 6y ago
  There are plenty of places where something like getting mugged is a several-times-in-a-week occurrence.
- klyrs 6y ago
  They're infrequent, but they do add up over the years. You're probably picturing stranger assaults, but actually drunk and/or angry friends (more usually, "friends") and family are responsible for a good portion of said experiences. It'a rare that I'm the target, but I stand up for folks and generally step in when people I love are about to do something they'll regret. And then there's the transgender thing -- I've experienced a big uptick in unwanted attention from the public, ever since I came out. Not just a "bad neighborhood" thing, I've had a dude try to follow me home in a sleepy burb, too.
scarmig 6y ago
I'm curious: is it actually rational to use more harmful techniques against someone significantly larger than yourself, someone armed, or a group of people? It seems as likely as not to be perceived as an escalation, and in those types of situations an escalation is likelier to mean you get permanently injured or killed. Of course, the best martial art is de-escalation and the next cross-country, but if you're cornered and there's an unbalanced distribution of force, you're kind of screwed regardless of what you do.
- jedimastert 6y ago
  Generally, in self defense the idea is to do as little possible up until it's decided that the assailant intends harm no matter what, which is when the goal is to incapacitate as quickly as possible. The example I was given by a friend who is well versed in martial arts: > You are threatened by someone for your wallet. First and foremost, place your wallet on the ground, and run like hell when they bend over to pick it up. If they step over the wallet, incapacitate then run like hell. The "step over the wallet" moment is when the decision is made that if you don't do something, you're probably going to be killed. > if you're cornered and there's an unbalanced distribution of force, you're kind of screwed regardless of what you do. This is where martial arts and self defense come it in. No matter how big the other person is, it's really hard to catch up to someone running away with a broken knee.