this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025

1040 points (93.4% liked)

Comic Strips

15826 readers

2052 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

[email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
[email protected]: memes (you don't say!)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1040

Violence (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

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]

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Complete the following sentence:

"Live by the sword, ___ __ ___ _____."

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Plot twist, you're American.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

Oh, bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

In that case, what's your view on Luigi?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But are the people allowed to be violent when the police use excessive force?

...cuz the cops be doing that a lot

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

Violence is always an option.

But...

Violence is not the answer, it is the question. And, when circumstances call for it, the answer is "yes".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Thats somehow so upside down philosophically. In human history we established states and gave them the monopoly of violence, so that we don't crush each others heads all the time (at least inside the state) or so that some guy who is stronger or has better weapons can't just take all our stuff because he wants to.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

It's like Twitter and other online plataforms, where advocating or talking about violent acts is forbidden, unless you are an army or a government organization.

load more comments