ID: 4 panels:
-
A self righteous person holds their hand up and says “Violence is never the solution.”
-
Stephie replies with a smile “Oh! So you agree that we shouldn’t give weapons to the police?”
-
She adds “And that we should dismantle the army?”
-
Stephie is now right up behind the other person, looking angry, saying “Or did you mean that violence is only a solution when it helps maintain the status quo?”. The other person looks deeply uncomfortable.
Credit: Sophie Labelle
You must log in or register to comment.
Dont forget that women did not get the right to vote until after the Suffragette bombing and arson campaign
Yes! One of many many such examples (from fighting back against white supremacy and patriarchy, to workers rights), and one that especially demonstrates how even when we fight back, we’re given just enough to pacify us for it (equal voting rights are important, not minimising that, even though to start with it was only for rich white women, but either way, to get the opportunity to participate in a rigged piece of theatre that was designed to make the working class feel like we have a say, still isn’t giving anyone any real power over society and how its works. We’re still fighting for basic equality ffs).
(E: that is to say, it works, but we need to keep the fight going, rather than allow ourselves to be manipulated by the establishment in to accepting less than what we’re fighting for, as a “compromise” where they get to keep their power, and some of us get to suffer tiny bit less)
The actual argument is to limit violence to specific institutions - what those institutions do is perpendicular. For example, neither desegregation nor the Holocaust were “status quo,” but both relied on limiting who could threaten force.
Proliferation isn’t a safe bet, either, as shown by Mexico’s cartels. Democratic power structures at least theoretically reflect everyone’s concerns. Plain old gangs tend to assert control through merciless terror. However you feel about American power structures - you probably won’t get shot in your home for tweeting ‘man, I hate these power structures.’
We should disarm the police and dismantle the army though
Unfortunately, you can only dismantle the army, if everyone dismantles the army. Otherwise you’ll get it involuntarily replaced by a foreign army and have to start over at zero. 🙁
Our global enemies, and fascist dictators completely agree with you.
Well yeah, and I think Sophie would agree.
Thanks haha, i guess i’m an idiot, i took it the polar opposite.
I can see how it can be a little unclear, but knowing the artist and her work helps make it clear that she doesn’t support the cops.
Perhaps, instead of trying to turn everything in life into a “gottcha” moment, an honest person could recognize that such a saying speaks to how violence should be a last resort, while still maintaining a sober recognition that we live in a world where there are many others who may not respect our opinions on the matter, and therefore we should remain prepared to confront the eventuality of conflicts arising with such people.
We should also realize that fascists hide behind “peaceful” rhetoric and play the victim. See Nick Fuentes for a recent example.
violence should be a last resort
Still doesn’t explain why every single cop gets a gun instead of just something like swat.
You have to be a little bit smarter than just taking isolated phrases on their own, if you want to actually explore the how and the why of the function of an entire society.
In the case of an active shooter you want someone there instantly. Every second is a higher risk of life lost. SWAT takes like 30m to an hour to set up, they’re for more tactical or planned situations. A cop can be there in like 5 mins depending on the location.
The goal is that cops get there and
a: rush in and take care of the suspect (dead or alive), or
b: get the suspect barricadedwhich at that point they can call SWAT in to de-escalate with the phones they throw in windows or megaphones.
Hmmm. And in the case of Uvalde? How many seconds did those children endure?
Your premise was dead on arrival as the courts have repeatedly signaled that police have no obligation to serve or protect anyone.
Crime is a function of economic disparity. If cops really wanted to bust drugs, or always have a criminal to collar, all they’d have to do is raid any financial firm in any major city. They’ve all got booger sugar in their desks, and wage theft remains the most widely unenforced crime in the US. So obviously, the logic tells us that cops are not crime solvers, they are there to perpetuate socioeconomic status quo.
Sure in theory, but in practice?
so instead you’d rather shooters have full access to school for 30+ minutes while SWAT panics from the next town over? Like I get that one option isn’t good but I’d rather have cops than nothing.
I’ve literally had someone in MY LUNCH PERIOD with a gun at school literally last year. If they decided they wanted to start firing they’d have literally 500+ kids in that cafeteria, myself included.
The statement is mostly uttered by people who just turn a blind eye to the violence enacted everyday by the system. Get off your high horse.
instead of trying to turn everything in life into a “gottcha” moment
It drives me fucking mad when people arguing for total civilian disarmament double down with “well I think the cops should be disarmed too 😏😏😏”. My Sibling In Christ, what do you think is going to happen when you advocate for total disarmament of civilians and police? Civilians are going to be disarmed first, and then cops are going to be disarmed NEVER.
I know the comic isn’t just about guns, but this is one instance of that larger pattern.
… y’all know there’s other countries, right? And that in those countries there’s cops? A lot of those cops genuinely do not carry guns, because neither does anyone else.
Police in Iceland shot a guy for the first time ever in 2013.
Even in US-adjacent Canadia, the Parliament Hill shooting saw a mountie go back to his office, retrieve a gun from a locked safe, and return to the scene to kill the shooter.
We can have police who aren’t eternally three seconds away from putting a bullet in someone’s brain. In what universe is that less achievable than abolishing them completely?
I know the comic isn’t just about guns, but this is one instance of that larger pattern.
The comic (or this community) isn’t about civilian disarmament at all
I didn’t imply they were? I agree with the sentiment of the comic, and it triggered a rant about a specific instance that I’ve encountered.
Ah, fair enough, I misunderstood.
Bro, the comic is NOT about that. It’s tongue in cheek.
Violence is the solution to violence.
The threat of defensive violence can act as a useful deterrent to prevent violence.
Nuclear weapons are massively violent. Although they have caused harm in a number of ways (offensive use in WW2, experimental use, indirect harm from the threat of use), I believe they contributed more to peace in the world today.
Open carry in the US has successfully been used to deterr police from harassing innocent people.
Open carry in the US has successfully been used to deterr police from harassing innocent people.
Or to encourage them (not that they needed any encouragement) to summarily execute Black and other marginalised people.
I generally agree with your point about the threat of violence being effective, but also feel like you’re missing the mark slightly, since the threat of, and actual violence have been held over our heads as the working class for millennia, rather than us using our combined power to hold that threat over the heads of our oppressors until there are none and threats are no longer needed.
And this is the case because the state has a monopoly on violence, and why us threatening is no longer (and has never really been) effective, only actions will be.
How many protests in 2020 were busted up by the cops when the protesters were open carrying? How many were busted up when the people had no means to defend themselves? The answers are zero, and a shit ton.
Violence is the one true power from which all other power is derived.
Guns should be reserved for people capable enough to make their own.
That’s not a high bar considering people in prison with constant supervision and no resources can make zip guns.
Those specific people should have them. Your average Kyle who can’t determine the difference between their gun and their vape should not have them.
