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.

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.

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)

Anyone who thinks violence has never solved anything should open a history book

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Oh, bullshit.