this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
1047 points (93.3% liked)

Comic Strips

15834 readers
2515 users here now

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

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TheFudd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Complete the following sentence:

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Oh, bullshit.

[–] Korne127@lemmy.world 3 points 3 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.

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 3 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.

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 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

[–] Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 2 points 3 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.

[–] MBM 1 points 2 days ago

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

[–] missandry351 3 points 3 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.

[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 2 points 3 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)
[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 4 points 3 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".

[–] saimen@feddit.org 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 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)
[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 3 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
view more: ‹ prev next ›