A place to share history memes!
Rules:
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
The theft from the output of one's labor under threat of starvation and death is an insidious form of violence.
It's ideal to attempt harm reduction but when all possible non violent methods have been exhausted, violence is the remaining method of harm reduction.
"violence is not the answer" coming from the people commiting it.
"all political violence is wrong"
detains community leaders in concentration camps
"we should talk things out in the marketplace of ideas"
censors all discussion of wealth redistribution, even the most tame acts like raising taxes on billionaires just a little bit
"violence has no place in our lives"
invades a nation in the global south under flimsy pretexts
most people i know who are pacifists are trust fund hippie types who've never had to struggle or fight for anything and think everyone should just sit around and smoke weed and live a minimal life from the income on their investments.
Reminds me of this gem
You can be nice, but there are people who exist who will take your kindness and then go commit a genocide. Those people should be your enemies.
Shut it Thorfinn Karlsefni.
I was expecting many things but this, this ain't fucken one of em. What the actual fuck am I looking at. Why is Mikus cousin getting her mouth and jaw flesh gripped like meat flaps.
Y'know what fuck it going to go watch some random shit have fun with thine waifu bait homunculus.
Aight mate.
This gif is making me feel incredibly uncomfortable.
The winners of wars write the history books. There are so many peaceful small wins that we don’t share enough. Violence does not have to be the answer, but we lack the imagination to believe this because we are not being taught the peaceful ways. Not even in movies and games.
You can't beat stupidity and hate with kind words and intelligent arguments unfortunately.
I disagree. I’ve done it multiple times. It just doesn’t work in the way it’s done today.
Violence is always a bad answer.
Sometimes its the least bad answer of the options available.
Great parenting advice.
This is especially true when violence is also the question.
Or just manipulation.
From the streets and gangs, to the businesses, to the cops and feds... They all have something in common, manipulation for power/control. That's the opposite of living for humanity.
The most important thing I've learned in life is that it's always the same game, whether it's illegal street life or business or politics... It's all always the same evil game. And the players of that game always try to make or force you to play it.
If there was an honest war for humanity, it would be a war against all of those that play that game.
But the truth is... No one cares about anything but trying to escape the reality of being human and they will play the game with all its false promises because it's easier than facing the fear of the actual presence of honest reality.
Actual reality is like a horror movie.
"If war never changes, then men must change."
Violence may not be the answer, but it's always an answer.
It isn't always the best option, but certain people sure seem to want to make it one of the only options left...
I think reading history honestly only confirms this point. Violence is not the answer if by answer we mean the proper remedy to conflict. It’s what we’ve done, but it’s not a good idea.
That just tells me how often we fail to find the right answer and then continue going ahead like violence is the right answer. It's an indictment against us as a whole.
That just tells me how often we fail to find the right answer and then continue going ahead like violence is the right answer
Okay, so what was the right answer to say... Hitler trying to take over the world?
It takes two people to come to an agreement, but only one to start a fight.
Ironically, Mutually Assured Destruction has actually prevented nuclear war, even if it did result in a lot of proxy wars.
It's a real world example of the trolley problem. The US and USSR killed hundreds of thousands Vietnamese but saved the lives of billions of other folks.
Exactly. If we keep doing it, clearly it is not the answer but rather a postponement
Exactly. If we keep doing it, clearly it is not the answer but rather a postponement
Clearly the answer to hunger is not eating. The answer to being tired is not sleeping. The answer to making a mistake is not apologizing...
Violence is not a biological need. If you keep making the same mistake, an apology isn't the answer since clearly it means nothing. An actual apology with actual effort to not repeat that mistake is important
Violence is not a biological need.
You are clearly not familiar with the vast majority of animals on earth. The capacity for violence is very much a biological need, even if just to defend ones self.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov, Foundation
"Those that makes peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
The tree craves fertilization!
Did he propose a workable alternative (actually asking)? Not that it invalidates the point one way or the other, just wonder if he had some "system" he preferred.
I believe it was along the lines of "actually solve the problem".
There's so many diverse causes of violence that there's not one solution or alternative. Resource shortage? Find a way to fix it. Land shortage? Find a way to use what you have more efficiently.
If you can't solve the problem you're by definition not competent.
I don't believe he thought the incompetent should meekly roll over and die, but rather that violence was a failure to solve the problem correctly. If you find yourself in a position where you need to do violence it's not because you had no choice, but because you didn't know what that other option was.
It's worth remembering he was one of those people who said exactly what they meant. If he meant that violence was unacceptable no matter what he would have said that. He was a pacifist in the "what if we don't invade Vietnam?" sense, not in the "I will let you beat me rather than raise my hand in anger" way.
It's been a long time since I read Foundation, so I'm not sure if there's specific context provided right around the provided quote. The entire series is about an organization trying to mitigate the collapse of a galactic empire, and how its goals are primarily achieved through guile and subtlety, rather than trying to win wars.
Violence is the answer to the question we keep asking: "How do I get power over other people?"
At some point I fear it's the only language that wasn't tried, yet.
I mean, if we are talking international wars between major world powers, the only thing keeping bullets from flying directly at each other are nuclear weapons. They are the persistent gun to all of our heads to force the diplomats to not flip the table.
Until 1945, violence was the primary language of the world. At least in terms of subduing another world power.
Maybe since things remain the same, turning to violence as the answer is like when they only saw the bullet holes in non essential parts of the airplanes, and we're only reading books that record violent conflict
Violence is the result of us still not having all the right, or even most of the right answers, collectively. Obviously we all think we have the right answers, that's a whole other part of the problem.
