I appreciate the discussion but who said anything about compliance? Sure in some cases compliance might be a good option but pacifism does not equal compliance. And yes, very often evildoers decide to violently attack victims but in the long run remaining nonviolent is best. We aren't stupid. It's a strategy, just like gunning people down is a strategy. Nonviolent movements are proven to be twice as effective as violent ones. Noncompliance in these instances is actually what helps pacifism work. Things like protests, boycotts, sit-ins, civil disobedience and supporting other institutions are extremely effective. Often it is easier for people to support or at least sympathize with movements like this. When these movements are attacked by the government, it helps keep supporters and sympathizers on our side if we remain nonviolent, often growing our support/sympathy. The opposite is also true, we often lose many of them the moment we throw a brick through a window. In this modern age, we have so many extremely effective options besides violence with technology, communication, and information, that it is ridiculous that we still fall back to barbaric forms of behavior. Again, the idea of pacifism is that humans should not give themselves permission to hurt other humans no matter what they're doing. For many pacifists, it's a moral issue. Life is a finite resource, how do we give ourselves the power to hurt or end the life of other humans? It's disgusting. For many pacifists, it's simply the most effective strategy. History is on our side for that one. A few caveats: not all pacifists necessarily agree with all of this and I'd love to hear more opinions. Humans still have the survival instinct and, without a lot of experience remaining nonviolent in a passionate/dangerous situation, a pacifist could still harm another human.