Yes, I think we should abolish the police and dismantle the army. That’s, like, the whole point. They’re responsible for most of the violence!
Does this work if you don’t convince everyone to put down their weapons at the exact same time?
Violence is never the solution, however tolerance should not extend to the intolerant.
If you think a large nation completely dismantling its military would prevent war, you’re just an idiot.
Complete the following sentence:
“Live by the sword, ___ __ ___ _____.”
fish on my couch
shit on my chest
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is exactly what police do via civil asset forfeiture/seizure.
For everyone who says something like that, i try to remind them of this little things called WWII
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.
I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada
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.
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?
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.
the cartoon implies that anyone who says violence isn’t the answer is lying/hypocritical.
No… it doesn’t. By its adversarial nature, it heavily implies the answers “no” to the first two questions.
Like, your main criticism is that the comic doesn’t make any sense if the answer to either question was yes, but that’s the definitive reason I wouldn’t read it that way.
A rhetorical question that you know (or are insisting you “know”) your opponent disagrees with is a very common language trick.
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.
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’m gonna need this in meme form with no more than 15 words
WAR BAD.
I found some of these on the floor, I think you dropped them: ,.,.,.,.,.,.,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
