You're viewing a single thread.
I still like the Doctor Who take on it. "Demons run when a good man goes to war."
Demons run when a good man goes to war
Night will fall and drown the sun
When a good man goes to war
Friendship dies and true love lies
Night will fall and the dark will rise
When a good man goes to war
Demon’s Run, but count the cost
The battle’s won but the child is lostNothing good happens when a good man goes to war
But I also like the saying "If you want peace prepare for war". War is not the right choice, but it's seldom yours.
But I also like the saying "If you want peace prepare for war".
It's the cornerstone of the Security Dilemma: Increasing your own state's security by increasing military strength may be threatening to other states that don't know whether you're just improving defenses or gearing up for an offensive war.
Particularly in pre-modern times where land was more valuable (compared to developing the land you already have) and battle wasn't so destructive, war was more profitable, the threat was real. With the development of modern arms and mass mobilisation escalating the scale and destruction of war, the distinction between defensive and offensive militarisation is even harder to tell, and even though it's not as lucrative, we haven't outgrown the martial impulses so the issue remains.
So because you want to be safe, you improve your military. Because you improve your military, your neighbour fears for their own safety, so they improve theirs. This is why international relations and diplomacy are so important to prevent a runaway arms race.
Yes, its a very sad dilemma.
I believed for quite a long time (living in Germany) that this state of "peace by codependency" could be extended, even maybe applied worldwide, but I'm not so sure anymore. I still want this to be true, however.
But a defenseless state is still a very nice target. I'm not so blind as to miss both sides of the US protection, and the limitations and freedoms that come with it.
I think we - collectively, as humanity, not any particular subgroup - need to get over that greedy, jealous, tribal "us vs. them" mindset that feeds nationalism, turns demographies against each other and leads to that security dilemma in the first place.
It made sense when our individual survival hinged on competing for the best land, subsequently forming groups to further that claim and drive others from their land to increase your own margin of subsistence.
But with modern farming, logistics, administrative capabilities and real-time communications across the globe, I think we should be able to do better by working together instead of against each other.
Of course, that would require people who like power to stop reaching for more and more, and that is an issue I don't think I need to lay out in detail.
living in Germany
Your username and instance kinda gave it away, comfortable cushion ;-)
Forming groups is still important. We need it to find our place in the world. There is no single truth, therefore we argue and fight.
Not saying anything you said is wrong, btw. Just wanted to state why we still have this stuff.Your username and instance kinda gave it away, comfortable cushion ;-)
Just wanted to make it clear that I don't have an american POV :)
Forming groups is still important. We need it to find our place in the world. There is no single truth, therefore we argue and fight.
Absolutely. Forming groups defined by commonality is good. Discussions are important to check our own biases and misconceptions. Diversity is key to avoiding stagnation. Conflict can create opportunity for growth.
War, above all else, destroys. There are many great things we can do with each other that don't involve violence.
Not saying anything you said is wrong, btw. Just wanted to state why we still have this stuff.
Good point, adding nuance is important.
I once played D&D with a paladin who basically followed this. He was an Oath of Vengeance paladin. For the unaware, OoV paladins often have zero chill. They’re typically something akin to Batman with magic powers. My goal was to avoid that.
His oath had something along the lines of “Without the capacity for violence, pacifism is not a choice. Pacifism without choice is victimhood. I will choose pacifism whenever possible, but will not watch idly when people are victimized. I will ensure the victimized are made whole, and the victimizers know the pain they have caused.”
Basically, he would try his best to talk his way through encounters first. He would give enemies every opportunity to back down. He had incredibly high charisma to try and persuade, intimidate, or deceive others out of attacking. After all, he was attempting to choose pacifism whenever possible. But if he believed that a bully was victimizing someone, the gloves came off and he channeled all of his pent-up fury into making the bully regret their actions. And since paladins use charisma to cast their spells, his smites were painful.
The DM loved it, because it helped us avoid falling into the murderhobo trope that combat-oriented D&D players often fall into. It also gave him a chance to actually flesh out some of the NPCs who would have just been throwaway no-name combatants.
Sounds like Maj. Dick Winters in Band of Brothers (and real life)
Yeah, although the Doctor is pretty hypocritical with his pacifism. Something which this quote sums up pretty well. He did kill several species after all.
The Doctor doesn't call himself a pacifist, he just detests violence. If needed though, he will absolutely blow your shit up.
The other quote to go with that one was "Good men don't need rules, you're about to find out why I have so many."
"This is Clara, my carer. She cares so that I don't have to.
That was a Doctor that grappled with the question whether he was a good man or not. Decidedly grumpier and more prone to violence too. Also Scottish.
I thought Rory was the good man. It's been a while since I've seen that episode.
It is, that was the twist - the Doctor is not the good man.
Demons worry when the wizard walks by.
"Amy Pond. Get. Your. Coat."