- cross-posted to:
- comics@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- comics@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Violence is often the solution, but it shouldn’t be the first solution we try.
It’s stupid to assert that law enforcement should be completely unarmed. There’s absolutely legitimate situations where it’s in the public’s best interest. Now, the situations that do require it aren’t super common, but they exist.
Violence is always the solution. If there’s an example for major changes implemented without at least an implicit threat of violence, that’s the absolute exception. All big changes always require (the threat of) violence.
A more accurate morality would be “Violence should never be the first course of action”.
Anyone who thinks violence has never solved anything should open a history book
violence doesn’t “solve”, it is about eliminating the problem.
It’s their failure to solve or even recognize and formulate the problem that pushes some people to use violence.
Honestly, yes. Dunno why you were sittin’ at a healthy karmic 0 because that is literally what violence is for. It doesn’t solve a problem, it staunches it for the current government. Violence isn’t a solution even when people think it is; it’s a fascist band-aid
I’m not against violence as a solution. It just shouldn’t be the first solution you come up with, or the second… Or the third.
Violence as a solution is a last resort.
‘Violence is the last resort of the incompetent’
Hari Seldon
We failed to make Russia bend the knee with soft power.
Rearming Europe, after decades of trying without, is necessary because there’s an ongoing war in Europe.
We overestimated our influence without an army, and that’s even with the army of turkey and USA on our side in case we’d get attacked.
Violence is necessary, just unwanted. If someone hits my wife then I’m not going to use my words to solve the situation.
It’s complicated because if you give everyone a gun, then there’s a shooting happening every day. Give nobody a gun, then we don’t know how to defend our countries.
Pros and cons to be outweighed, depending on the larger context.
Gotta say, for all y’all mocked the good ol US of A, you sure put a lot of faith in it. Trust to a fault.
Obama/Biden were good for Europe. Trump is bad.
If the next president is good for europe, then so be it.
But the volatility shows that changes must be made. More autonomy, the stability of china is actually looking quite good.
But china shows different issues. That of freedom of expression.
So, we’ll need to rearm, have a bit more hard power. We can’t be the only ones trying without.
Get rid of your military might and then we can do the same. But nah, that’s not going to happen.
“Obama/Biden were good for Europe”
Were they though? I mean really?
They convinced the entire western world to depend on them for military protection as America has been doing since the end of WWII, knowing full well that when push comes to shove they are still under the American government, and they used that Hard power to gain soft power in everything from trade to economics to diplomacy, the USA has been slowly accumulating power all while convincing Europe to disarm.
Trump is no more against Europe than the rest of the presidents he’s just an idiot who showed the mice the cheese in the trap.
Both powers have been handling in their own interest.
Biden sending funding to Ukraine has been good for Europe. Trump stopping this funding has been bad for Europe.
Biden wants to keep the American hegemony.
Trump wants to isolate the USA in favour of companies inside the country.
The EU hasn’t been arming themselves because there was no need for it. Not threatening with weapons is being a quite attractive trade partner. The lack of weapons caused Europe to be more stable when cooperating with eachother.
There has been a major history of infighting in Europe. So unifying ourselves after the 2nd world war is a major benefit for us.
Now that we are more unified, we can rearm ourselves properly. With hopefully a European army that defends the whole European union.
There’s a reason why we’re taught about MLK instead of Malcolm X.
They’re well aware of how little nonviolent protest accomplishes in the end.
A very good example of an exception, no doubt. Shall we tally up the number of times it took violence to drive out the British, though?
For everyone who says something like that, i try to remind them of this little things called WWII
How about this:
Violence is never a good solution but a necessary one and one any functioning government will prevent its populous from using against themselves or else they would no longer function as a a government so the best we can ask for is a government that does the least harm and considering we have had a longer span of peace than any preceding civilisation then we can conclude a violent uprising would cause more harm than good so we should except the status quo given it’s net benefit to the collective, however there will inevitably be those who society is less beneficial too so much so that a revolution would be beneficial but the individual cannot rule the collective because that would be a dictator and no stable society could exist when one man has grievances against it can dismantle it so we must always weigh the the against the benefits heavily before considering any sort of rebellion while simultaneously keeping in mind the overwhelming likelihood that it will outright fail given the powerful by definition have more power than the weak and include the resulting loss in our calculation.
What do you think? To wordy or will it catch on?
I found some of these on the floor, I think you dropped them: ,.,.,.,.,.,.,
The equalizer is Collective Power of all the people uniting in-person and online
A government is a collection of people working together to maintain power.
It does not include everyone because they simply do not need everyone, given the trillions of dollars they have they could easily afford to pay for as many people as they need if that was the most efficient use of their money, given they can increase to the size of the population under one unified cause we can assume a fragmented group of people with there own agendas would be a less effective force than the majority of stable government’s
violence is never the solution, but it works in a pinch for sure : )
Of course the solution to peace is not having war, but if someone attacks you, don’t just stand there and do nothing.
Yep. Violence isn’t the solution, it’s the last resort.
The threat of violence is always there.
I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada
Plot twist, you’re American.
First panel: I agree with the aspiration to avoid violence but allow for circumstances like self-defense or defense of a vulnerable party.
Second panel: I do agree we shouldn’t give them weapons, at the least not lethal weapons, certainly not military-grade weapons.
Third panel: If you want to be capable of preserving your national sovereignty, having a military is required, therefore justified in that context.
Fourth panel: While the two previous questions logically follow from the position stated in the first panel, the last question makes no sense and is a complete non-sequitur from the stated position. [i.e. “Violence is never a solution” --> “oh, so do you mean it’s a solution in this one case? !? !” <–non-sequitur]
complete non-sequitur
I don’t think I agree? We don’t see a response to the two questions, but it’s implied that the answer to them is no. This then fills out the sequence to get to that point
I understand what the cartoonist is trying to imply–that there are no true pacifists and people who say they’re against violence are hypocrites who actually like violence when it’s used to protect their privileged position. They just didn’t do it right.
First, true pacifists do exist, who would answer “yes” to the first two questions–and which would make the last question ridiculous. So if the cartoonist’s goal was to criticize the hypocrites, they just needed to show the first person answering the first two questions with an unqualified “no” to show they didn’t really mean what they said in the first panel.
I understand what the cartoonist is trying to imply…
I actually don’t think you do. They are a pacifist, as is shown by their desire to demilitarize the world. They clearly think that violence is currently used primarily to maintain the status quo, and they depict that in a negative light quite obviously.
What they were actually implying is that a lot of people claim to be against violence despite, in fact being pro-state-violence
That’s my point and why I say they didn’t do the cartoon right. If they wanted to say what you explained, we’d have to see the first person answering “no”. As it is, the cartoon implies that anyone who says violence isn’t the answer is lying/hypocritical.
Not a non-sequitur, since she’s suggesting that the second person would believe that police and armies are exceptions to the rule. Given that these are, definitionally, the only parties in most modern states legally allowed to commit violence, and that the primary function of same is to maintain the status quo, be it borders, property, or laws themselves, ths last panel does nearly follow from the previous two. It is certainly a bit of a strawman, though, since he did not actually respond yet. The strawman here, however, is intentional, as a means to suggest to the reader that perhaps violence is justified in more than these two cases.
I mean… I do agree police shouldn’t have weapons. They’re less likely to die at work than an Aborist.
Arm the pizza delivery drivers!
hiro Protagonist with his sword.
Complete the following sentence:
“Live by the sword, ___ __ ___ _____.”
shit on my chest
fish on my couch
Oh, bullshit.
Violence is only the answer when violence is already employed and you need to defend yourself. Ukraine is allowed to be violent against the aggressor. Police is allowed to be violent against insurrectionists.
This ideology becomes an issue when someone is finding ways to attack you that don’t quite constitute violence.
People need food, water, shelter, sense of belonging in society, etc. Bigots have gotten very good at using whatever means they can to attack each of these without ever physically throwing a punch; defunding someone’s means of living, evicting them, harassing them, etc.
Ideally, the law, and hence the police (who hold guns) would retaliate on each of these things.
