> For example, I am a pacificist. When I tell this to people, they sometimes assume I would stand aside and do nothing if a loved one was threatened with violence.
This seems like an own-goal, as the popular perception of pacifism is just that: never using violence. I recommend not using the term on yourself, as it paints the wrong picture in people's minds. If you define pacifism as "only using violence in defense of self or loved ones", then that's totally compatible with getting a concealed carry permit and carrying a gun in public– not exactly most people's idea of pacifism.
> If you define pacifism as "only using violence in defense of self or loved ones"
I never defined pacifism that way. It seems you are falling exactly into the trap I talked about. There are always options other than violence. They are not always good options, but neither is violence.
Aggressive and assertive action is not the same as violence.
Can you please give a concrete example of what you are talking about? As I've said: you can't always escape a threat. What "aggressive and assertive action" will you take if some crazy person tries to cave your head in with a cinder block? (This has happened to me.)
Three times in my life, people have tried to kill me. Sometimes you can't escape. Sometimes you can't negotiate. And you can't count on others to arrive in time and use violence to save you. Sometimes, the choice is simple: fight or die. Do you disagree with this statement? If not, do you think the right thing to do in those situations is to die?
This seems like an own-goal, as the popular perception of pacifism is just that: never using violence. I recommend not using the term on yourself, as it paints the wrong picture in people's minds. If you define pacifism as "only using violence in defense of self or loved ones", then that's totally compatible with getting a concealed carry permit and carrying a gun in public– not exactly most people's idea of pacifism.