- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.
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.
Or you could do what Finland does, and make an independent investigation every time the police shoots someone.
That’s definitely fair
Police Union: How could you trample on the sacred rights of the police to escalate any situation into multiple fatalities?
So, a such a situation would require Special Weapons? And maybe Tactics?
SWAT teams exist ostensibly for this reason, but arming everyone works too.
That works a lot better in countries where everyone and their mom doesn’t have a gun. Though good god we don’t train cops enough to justify giving them a gun
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’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: ,.,.,.,.,.,.,
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
Complete the following sentence:
“Live by the sword, ___ __ ___ _____.”
fish on my couch
shit on my chest
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
-
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.
In that case, what’s your view on Luigi?
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.
Oh, bullshit.
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.
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?
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
A comic meant to express the creators opinion? Wow?!?!?! That’s never happened before.
Yeah thats my point, they’re lame and when done in this format entirely uncreative
Yeah but comics are also supposed to be creative. This is a essentially a lemmy comment with illustration.
You might call that, I dunno, an illustrated commentary, or perhaps, a comic, of sorts.
Sure, it meets the technical requirements to be a comic. But it doesn’t meet the practical requirements to be a good one.
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
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 always an option.
But…
Violence is not the answer, it is the question. And, when circumstances call for it, the answer is “yes”.
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.
I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada
Plot twist, you’re American.
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
