- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- comics@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- comics@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
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
For everyone who says something like that, i try to remind them of this little things called WWII
Can’t discuss a fascist away, but you can get rid of him by violent means. Violence is sometimes morally acceptable if not outright required even.
Who has the moral authority to decide when or when not to use violence?
Usually whoever has the most accumulated violence. History is written…
Complete the following sentence:
“Live by the sword, ___ __ ___ _____.”
fish on my couch
shit on my chest
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?
The equalizer is Collective Power of all the people uniting in-person and online
I found some of these on the floor, I think you dropped them: ,.,.,.,.,.,.,
I’m gonna need this in meme form with no more than 15 words
WAR BAD.
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.
Utterly dumb. Or is there a special meaning I’m just not getting?
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.
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.
But are the people allowed to be violent when the police use excessive force?
…cuz the cops be doing that a lot
But do it in a smart way. A single person using violence against someone stronger than him, is dumb.
Something like BLM movement is smart.
Just trying to resist arrest, however angry it may make you, is dumb. Unless of course you’d be sent to gulag. Then do resist.
You need to use power in a smart way to gain the upper hand.
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?
Self defense is a thing. I notice most these comics that end up on my front page pretty much suck. Oh a .ml post. I see. Is there a non .ml version of “comics” somewhere?
Yes I believe violence is never the solution, but since there are people out there that don’t share my ideas, I need to keep some police officers around to keep me safe and some military personal to keep my country safe.
To keep the peace it’s all or nothing. Nobody has weapons or everybody has weapons. Since the former is pretty hard to achieve, the latter must happen.
Yeah this line of thought is essentially what causes the US to have more mass shootings than basically any other western country.
Perhaps my line of thinking is way too anarchist. But what I’m saying is once the cat is out of the bag, there’s no putting it back in. People who want guns can get guns. They can get their friends to legally purchase them. All the school shooters had legal firearms so I would imagine a terrorist could obtain one.
Does everybody include convicted serial killers?
Especially them. I don’t feel safe around the police without a serial killer in my vicinity.
Technically, there are police officers who qualify as serial killers.
I think it’s three or more separate killings nets you basic serial killer status. There are officers who easily meet that criteria.
this is ironically, a fallacious argument.
The implication here is that violence literally never solves problems. The actual implication is that violence generally doesn’t provide a reasonable solution to problems, which everybody would be inclined to agree with, even in the case of military/police conflicts.
Have a better argument next time :)
I’m having trouble parsing what you’re saying. Who is implying what?
the people who say “violence isnt the option” imply that the issue is that violence never fully solves issues, because it doesnt. That’s true. It only gives you power, which is a useful tool in asserting control, which is ultimately what leads to solutions.
The people who are on the other side, are arguing that this is an absolutist statement, and therefore, must literally mean “violence is not the answer” i.e. you should fuck each other until a solution arises. Which is obviously a facetious argument.
“violence is never the answer” is not a particularly good phrase, but when commonly understand my the broad population, it’s not as problematic. Though it is sort of poetically true.
Anyone who thinks violence has never solved anything should open a history book
The credible threat of violence is often much more powerful than violence itself. See unions, the civil rights movement, mutually assured destruction.
Society is very often an implicit contract of “do what we want or else.” Without the “or else”, the powerful have no reason to listen.
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
