October 26, 2001

9:55 AM

Show your openmindedness!In our extended discussion of the war, the (un)fairness of war, etc., it's been incredible how many MetaFilter regulars have changed their mind or reconsidered their opinions! (wink, wink) Here's something for those former pacifists. Now we need to find something for all those former hawks. [via Instapundit]
posted by prodigal (9 comments total)

All income from the sale of these shirts go to the Families of Freedom Scholarship Fund.
posted by danec at 10:07 AM on October 26, 2001

Funny, I've turned the other way ... from "let's get 'em" in September to pacifist again :)
posted by bclark at 10:15 AM on October 26, 2001

Isn't the whole pacifism argument just semantics? A pacifist is someone who is strongly against violence as a means to settle disputes. That doesn't necessarily mean that violence or conflict can't be considered a last resort.

There are simply many schools of pacifist thought. I don't know who's really going to buy these things. Are there really MeFi'ers who now consider conflict the first and proper way to solve a dispute? Or at least moved it up a few notches.

I think I'd be wary of anyone with one of these, a sudden polar change [dove to hawk] suggests instability.

"Yeah all that international law crap and diplomacy has clouded me for years! Bring on the bombs!" That attitude, especially this late in the game is pretty scary.
posted by skallas at 10:19 AM on October 26, 2001

Are there really MeFi'ers who now consider conflict the first and proper way to solve a dispute?

Seems so to me over the past few weeks. I have even received emails of support and solidarity from MeFi folks who'd rather not post here, for fear of villification. I have no such fears (call me a masochist), but I hear their point.

As for the "pacifist" moniker, it seems rather naive to throw that term around. As far as I can tell, very few anti-war people I know (and who post here) are pacifist. Speaking for myself, I am against the hypocrisy, brutality and absurdity of this "war on terrorism." That is not to say that I am against all war. Major distinction, which many critics fail to recognize.
posted by mapalm at 10:44 AM on October 26, 2001

$16 for a mousepad? How openminded is that?
posted by LeLiLo at 11:46 AM on October 26, 2001

The whole "you're a pacifist" thing is just simple-minded cartoon rhetoric.

Bart: There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, World War II, and the Star Wars Trilogy.
posted by jpoulos at 11:53 AM on October 26, 2001

from some reason, this link reminded me of a scene from the super mario brothers movie. you know, that machine that turned humans into reptiles?
posted by mcsweetie at 12:05 PM on October 26, 2001

Personally, I find knowing what will happen to Afghanistan AFTER we bomb the hell out of them to be the key in deciding whether or not I support the bombing campaign. Will the Northern Alliance come back to power and continue to run the country into the ground? What kind of a solution is that? Or will we put that exiled king back into power? Or will complete anarchy ensue?

The bottom line is that I will support the bombing if it will lead the country to freedom, not further oppression by a different group. I don't support bombings if their main objective is vengance. To me, human lives are equally precious. Whether or not they are American or not is inconsequential.

And all this is coming from a conservative!
posted by Witold at 12:48 PM on October 26, 2001

Are you sure you're a conservative? :-)
posted by jpoulos at 1:23 PM on October 26, 2001