There's a real crux there, and the blog post I linked glances at it; nonviolence won't do what violence is supposed to do: it won't put you in charge. It won't let you enforce the outcome you desire.
Violence drives over the will of the other actors, at least when it 'works', at least temporarily. And it generally 'works' for somebody. Somebody gets their way, at a cost of a net increase of the violence in the situation. Which will then break out again.
Non-violence, when it works, brings all wills of all the actors into open respectful conflict.
Conflict is inevitable; combat is optional.
There is a necessary paradigm shift in giving up violence; I am not sure that I can nail it down in words, but it sort of works like this: once you rule violence out you find that have to reframe your problem, your approach, and what an acceptable solution looks like, and over time, it will reframe the world for you.
We're all pacifists a large percent of the time; say 60-90 percent. We like to hold violence in reserve as a last resort, and then we think we're being peaceful if we wait half an hour past when we wanted to to use it.
But as long as we're framing our actions with that last resort in the planning, we'll never get there.
I'm looking for a set of guidelines, something that can at least help me think twice about questionable choices.
Peace is the stuff you find when you land in the part of the flowchart that "if and plus b plus c plus d are present, resort to violence" bypasses.
Coming to disbelieve in the potency of violence and related matters
Violence drives over the will of the other actors, at least when it 'works', at least temporarily. And it generally 'works' for somebody. Somebody gets their way, at a cost of a net increase of the violence in the situation. Which will then break out again.
Non-violence, when it works, brings all wills of all the actors into open respectful conflict.
Conflict is inevitable; combat is optional.
There is a necessary paradigm shift in giving up violence; I am not sure that I can nail it down in words, but it sort of works like this: once you rule violence out you find that have to reframe your problem, your approach, and what an acceptable solution looks like, and over time, it will reframe the world for you.
We're all pacifists a large percent of the time; say 60-90 percent. We like to hold violence in reserve as a last resort, and then we think we're being peaceful if we wait half an hour past when we wanted to to use it.
But as long as we're framing our actions with that last resort in the planning, we'll never get there.
I'm looking for a set of guidelines, something that can at least help me think twice about questionable choices.
Peace is the stuff you find when you land in the part of the flowchart that "if and plus b plus c plus d are present, resort to violence" bypasses.
... you didn't say you wanted an EASY one...