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.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
57 points (93.8% liked)
Comic Strips
16081 readers
2263 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
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Who has the moral authority to decide when or when not to use violence?
Usually whoever has the most accumulated violence. History is written...
Moral authority is always dubious, violence or not.
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
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.
In the US at least, law enforcement is overarmed. We'd cut back on a lot of unnecessary violence if, say, officers kept their guns in the trunk rather than on their hip.
Police Union: How could you trample on the sacred rights of the police to escalate any situation into multiple fatalities?
Or you could do what Finland does, and make an independent investigation every time the police shoots someone.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Violence is almost always the solution. Civilization is an effort to find a better solution. But people who reject the systems we've built up seem to forget why we built then.
Yeah, to uphold the status quo of the few owning everything and controlling everyone
That's not why we built them. They got hijacked for that, and they need fixing.
They were built so we had an alternative to killing each other over disputes.
Then why are most “uncivilized” societies have more egalitarian and non-violent than “civilized” ones?
And why has every civilization since the dawn of them been about using violence to uphold the status quo?
The institutions aren’t broken. They’re working as designed.
Then why are most “uncivilized” societies have more egalitarian and non-violent than “civilized” ones?
Uncivilized societies engage in violence much more frequently than civilized societies.
That's the case for individual/personal violence, and also for institutional/mass violence.
Civilized societies are better than uncivilized society in anything they do collectively, be it science, production, or murder.
Since civilized societies are so much better at murdering, the few cases where mass murder does happen are much more significant.
However, such cases remain an exception, as opposed to what is the case for uncivilized societies.
Uncivilized societies may be harmless, but they are certainly not peaceful.
Civilized societies are more powerful, but they yield their power much more carefully.
I’ve done a bit of googling and the evidence I’m seeing doesn’t agree with you on several points.
For example, a war in NZ between Māori tribes killed roughly 10% of the population, while the US civil war only killed 0.5%
And this report from UNESCO agrees with my assertion that organized violence appeared not long after agriculture as a way to reinforce the status quo.
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.
Even if youre acab, violence is the solution sometimes. This is a horrible argument against police. What do you do to nazis? You beat the shit out of them. See you solved the problem of a nazi being in your eyesight with violence. I myself am a fan of reformed police tho which is only used in cases like someone clearly not abiding by the law(not going to court, etc) and imvestigations(which is more like detectives and stuff not police)
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
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.
For everyone who says something like that, i try to remind them of this little things called WWII
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.
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?
A more accurate morality would be "Violence should never be the first course of action".
Violence should never be employed
-
against someone who is not harming you or infringing on your rights
-
against a party genuinely willing to negotiate
-
when your use of violence will seem excessive to onlookers such that they will turn against you
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?
Complete the following sentence:
"Live by the sword, ___ __ ___ _____."
shit on my chest
fish on my couch
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 :)
Another strawman comic meant to express the author's political opinions and nothing more. I should start collecting these, the 4 panel ones all have the same 4 panels
You should look up what a “straw-man” argument is as it is not possible for this to be one.
So true, the characters could not be made out if straw
load more comments
(5 replies)
Oh, bullshit.
view more: next ›