I wonder if this expression can be correctly formulated and completed using the present participle pacifying of the verb to pacifiy as an adjective at least, instead of pacifist.
This is what pacifying tends to do:
tending to calm the emotions and relieve stress.
Yes, you can use it like that.
Some examples:
He is a pacifying man.
=> He is a man who pacifies.
This is similar to:
He has a calming voice.
=> He has a voice which calms others.He is an interesting person.
=> He is a person who interests me/people.
However, there are other words that are equally correct, but have a different meaning. For example:
He is a pacified man.
=> He is a man who has been pacified (by someone else).He has a calm voice.
=> He has a voice which is calm.He is an interested person.
=> He is a person who is interested in me/people.
In short, "a pacifying person" is correct, as long as you're talking about a person who pacifies others, and not a person who is pacified by someone else.
Pacifist is a noun as well as adjective.
Pacifying is a gerund adjective, but it cannot be used as a noun. That would be pacifier.
But on the wider question, I would agree that the term pacifist has acquired too specialised a connotation to be used generally - and it almost never is.
A pacifist is a person who takes a political stand against the use of military power.
A pacifier is someone who acts in the interests of conflict prevention and/or its mitigation. (A pacifier is also the name that Americans give to a baby's dummy)
