Conversation

Thinking at it’s most basic is enduring violence inside your head so you can avoid it outside. If “peace” to you means “peace of mind” you’re likely to end up complicit in a lot of real violence. “Peace-loving” is often code for “hates thinking”.
1
29
Neocon hawkishness arises from moral hazard of not being personally at risk. Honor-society hawkishness often presents as dovish pacifism, but is easily drawn to directly participate in real violence, with exposure to physical risk. The exposure itself *becomes* the justification.
1
5
Neocon type violence is instrumental, in service of a reasoned argument that might be falsified in the future (Iraq WMD). Honor society violence is precipitated by a reluctance to *get* into reasoned arguments at all. It is unfalsifiable violence in a sense, to preempt thought.
1
3
Because they’d sooner fire a gun than entertain a troubling thought long enough to reach imaginative conclusions. You can see this reluctance to think and endure mental violence in the “peace stories” such societies tell themselves, that reflects “peace of mind” orientation.
1
1
Examples are hallmark channel movies. They are boringly devoid of real mental conflict or characters experiencing any thought more troubling than very basic romantic story misunderstandings. Religious morality tales are similar (any religion). Also secular “great books” morality.
1
2
It’s kinda funny, religious “stories with a moral” often utterly pale in comparison to the moral dilemmas perfectly ordinary people routinely face and peacefully resolve in everyday life. They’re the opposite of superhero stories. More like moral subhero stories.
1
6
These stories never have “it’s complicated” context factors. The people are all mostly mentally healthy, with all causes of distress being circumstantial (fix some external thing and the internal thing vanishes). There’s always a “right” answer like it’s grade-school arithmetic.
1
2
There’s no room for agree-to-disagree outcomes or residual ambiguity. The villains are simple goal-seekers defined by lack of a simple list of virtues. They’re merely “greedy” or “cruel” or “lazy” or “boastful”. No dark tetrad type complexity.
1
3
Overcoming these “villains” peacefully is never a battle of psyches in an ambiguous moral universe. Just a logic problem to thwart a particular “evil” plan, like “shut down beloved local cookie factory for profit.” Good conquers evil with love and puzzle-solving. Done.
1
3
Going from “bad” to “good” never requires more than a moment of moral clarity catalyzed by a more virtuous person or a bit of kindness. The arc of the moral universe moves like a step function. Nobody has deep issues requiring real inner work. They’re all a delta from ‘perfect’.
Replying to
If that’s the level of peace-of-mind disrupting violence you can tolerate before breaking down and resorting to actual violence, you’re likely to be a part of the problem others see as a “violent” societal condition. Your kindergarten moral subheroism has failed you.
4