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.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
1055 points (93.3% liked)
Comic Strips
16705 readers
2331 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
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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 :)
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
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
A comic meant to express the creators opinion? Wow?!?!?! That's never happened before.
load more comments
(4 replies)
A more accurate morality would be "Violence should never be the first course of action".
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
I was never for increasing funding for the military until the US started threatening Canada
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
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.
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.