• Wanpieserino@lemm.ee
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
      0·
      1 year ago

      Gotta say, for all y’all mocked the good ol US of A, you sure put a lot of faith in it. Trust to a fault.

      • Wanpieserino@lemm.ee
        0·
        1 year ago

        Obama/Biden were good for Europe. Trump is bad.

        If the next president is good for europe, then so be it.

        But the volatility shows that changes must be made. More autonomy, the stability of china is actually looking quite good.

        But china shows different issues. That of freedom of expression.

        So, we’ll need to rearm, have a bit more hard power. We can’t be the only ones trying without.

        Get rid of your military might and then we can do the same. But nah, that’s not going to happen.

        • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
          0·
          1 year ago

          “Obama/Biden were good for Europe”

          Were they though? I mean really?

          They convinced the entire western world to depend on them for military protection as America has been doing since the end of WWII, knowing full well that when push comes to shove they are still under the American government, and they used that Hard power to gain soft power in everything from trade to economics to diplomacy, the USA has been slowly accumulating power all while convincing Europe to disarm.

          Trump is no more against Europe than the rest of the presidents he’s just an idiot who showed the mice the cheese in the trap.

          • Wanpieserino@lemm.ee
            0·
            1 year ago

            Both powers have been handling in their own interest.

            Biden sending funding to Ukraine has been good for Europe. Trump stopping this funding has been bad for Europe.

            Biden wants to keep the American hegemony.

            Trump wants to isolate the USA in favour of companies inside the country.

            The EU hasn’t been arming themselves because there was no need for it. Not threatening with weapons is being a quite attractive trade partner. The lack of weapons caused Europe to be more stable when cooperating with eachother.

            There has been a major history of infighting in Europe. So unifying ourselves after the 2nd world war is a major benefit for us.

            Now that we are more unified, we can rearm ourselves properly. With hopefully a European army that defends the whole European union.

        • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          Not sure how her being trans is related to criticism (well, except right-wingers throwing a temper tantrum. But that isn’t criticism). I heavily dislike her due to her - perhaps former(?) - anti-medical viewpoints she also perpetuated in comics. To break it down what her position a few years ago was:

          • Science about gender and the cause of dysphoria / being trans is bad and must be stopped
          • Everyone would be happy if society was better (Gender dysphoria = all societies’ fault)
          • Everyone who argues otherwise was either a TERF, Nazi or bot in her books‏‏‎

          Perhaps her extreme viewpoints changed over the years, and I’m sure not to have all the infos available given I haven’t heard about her in a while. But what I saw coming from her a few years ago was just so much crap (Pretty sure I also criticized her for it once, for which she blocked me immediately to then go on a rant). It really pissed me off since it completely undermined efforts to give trans kids (and adults!) the professional help they might need to become both happy and successful (and most importantly themselves).

          And in case anyone who reads this thinks this is important for my criticism to be valid or sth: Yes, I am trans myself.

            • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              0·
              1 year ago

              I think the general idea of her was that, if society was perfectly accepting, there wouldn’t be any real reason for bigger medical intervention; specifically that there’s no gender dysphoria coming from within / being there by default, but all of it existing because of transphobia. With a perfect society there would be no suffering - still expression, but that’s it. And there should be no science on this whole topic because that’s apparently… well, see the pic. It’s one of the really weird takes from back then I could find.

              Like, I understand the fear of this knowledge being used against us and the criticism of our current, overly strict diagnostic system this comic contains (which already gets discussed controversially within the academic community and is partially tied to economic necessities)… but that knowledge could likewise be used for so, so much good. To completely ignore the suffering this condition can cause on its own and putting all of the blame on a society that’s indeed not perfect yet, and even worse, question Enlightenment itself (as in the move towards an educated society and knowledge over religion, that kind)… in my opinion this is, or was, just fear-driven ignorance and not helpful at all.

              But I’d like to say it again: If she happened to change her opinions in this regard I’m more than happy to hear about it. The comic OP posted looks more like her opinions are still very extreme though…

        • Holyginz@lemmy.world
          0·
          1 year ago

          Because she also drew some fury kink stuff as well. I don’t think that makes a difference as long as it isn’t part of any events or other stuff she does. But that’s not gonna stop the right from working themselves up. If there’s something else she’s done that I don’t know about that’s worse though please someone let me know.

          • zabadoh@ani.social
            0·
            1 year ago

            There’s something wrong with furry kink?

            It’s not my thing, but my experience in person at scifi cons is that furries are some of the best people in fandom.

            • Holyginz@lemmy.world
              0·
              1 year ago

              Never said I thought there was something wrong with it. I’m just saying that’s probably what the right wingers are saying. I’m friends with people who are furries and they are wonderful people.

  • entwine413@lemm.ee
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de
      0·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
      0·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      So, a such a situation would require Special Weapons? And maybe Tactics?

      SWAT teams exist ostensibly for this reason, but arming everyone works too.

      • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        0·
        1 year ago

        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

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 year ago

    I mean… I do agree police shouldn’t have weapons. They’re less likely to die at work than an Aborist.

    • rnercle@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • bash@lemm.eeEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        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

    • sevenOfKnives@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zipEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    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)

  • saimen@feddit.org
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • qyron@sopuli.xyz
    0·
    1 year 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”.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    1 year ago

    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!

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.worlddeleted by creator
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Feathercrown@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    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

    • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      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

  • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.