I understand the appeal of pacifism. Refusing to do violence, as a matter of principle, to resolve your conflicts isn't that out of line. While violence--raw, naked force--is the universal solvent, that doesn't mean that it's the best tool for the job. That said, the reason that pacifism gets the bad reputation is that it takes the general good idea of restraint and irrationally pushes that restraint to the point of being maladaptive to the threat at hand.
In short, pacifism is for prey and it signals to predators great and small that here stands a meal for the taking- and that is exactly what becomes of any unit who so embraces pacifism that it ceases to know when to stop refraining from using force and start using it good and hard to best possible effect.
Empire is a predator. It sees pacifists as fools, fuckwits, and food- as prey. A thing to consume and crap out, not something at all worthy of respect or consideration. If someone or some group refuses to defend itself and its own, so much the better; feast on their flesh, rest easy on their bones, and move on to the next prey.
That's not how this world works. It has not been, is not now, nor shall it ever be how this world works. As the old saying goes,
If you want peace, prepare for war.
The same goes for cultural warfare as for physical warfare. Predators will use whatever means work to sucker prey into lower their guard; predators, by their nature, are not interested in fair fights for anything and if they can sucker you into pacifism they'll do it- and then they'll eat you. Dead is dead- how you die is not relevant.