Artist: @gryzlock_comics
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
977 points (95.8% liked)
Comic Strips
12739 readers
2926 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Got it death penalty for all crimes
Rust my bolts and call me the tin man, 'cause I'm standing next to the biggest strawman of the century, and he still has no brain. Dorothy's probably on her way any second.
Sarcasm my dude.
Death penalty doesn't reduce crime.
What I'm calling out is that the comment laid out the blueprint for authoritarian extrajudicial killings, they just don't get it.
And that's fair. I think, though, that they were pointing out that the violence in that case would be mob violence from the hypothetical revolution, not actually at the behest of an authoritarian ruler. The death penalty is not involved. They seemed to be arguing that, at some point, the measurable and visible harm a person or small number of people does or do to the world by their continued practices, combines with the risk of them using their power and influence to escape from justice should any real attempt be made to force them to reconcile with their crimes, and that this inability to enforce justice without death, combined with the inherent injustice of doing nothing, could be the fomenting factor for mob violence against such tyrants.
Well no, the answer should be prison, but the system is obviously corrupt because they are not in prison. If the system doesnt imprison criminals then sometimes the systems need to be circumvented.
Edit if y'all don't see how I'm being sarcastic, and this reply is about how the death penalty does not deter crime, I don't know what to tell ya.
You can't change the system while they own it and you can't jail them when they own the prisons as well as the ones that should be putting them there.
What do you suggest?
Well, non violent seizing of the means via unionizing and community action via grassroots electorate driven by transparent mutual aid.
But once you sign on to get the executions starting, you better hope you're in the "in group" all along. Else the violence will eventually come for you (not you you, hypothetical anyone)
And back to my point, the death penalty will just make them crafty, it won't stop greed.
Okay so once you've non violently seized the means, and they come to violently take them back, then what?
If you've seized em you've seized em. The system is no longer available for their exploitation. So did you or didn't you?
Again, have fun with the violence, but once that cat is out of the bag you always get 2 things:
Nice dodge
I've fundamentally contested what you said.
If you have seized the means and systems, the billionaire class are by definition deplatformed.
But still not answered the question.
I'll reword it for you, since you want to be pedantic about it.
You're in the process of seizing the means. They see this and don't like it. They respond with overwhelming violence (as they have repeatedly in the past)
Now what?
If peacefully unionizing or organizing folk are attacked, they are morally free to defend themselves, even in an organized way.
Establishing killsquads and public executions will not stay "pure" and will cause massive spill over violence.
There's an important distinction between the two.
Above I provided a meaningful reply to "what's your solution". You can argue it might not be effective, but I'm certainly not avoiding anything. I made my point, and my suggestion.
I was just trying to show that taking the high road effectively does nothing, when the opposition is willing to stoop to any level to win.
And that, historically, whether we are non-violent or violent, both have been countered with violence.
You're absolutely right about the spillover violence, but I would contend that we're currently experiencing that anyway, as inequality runs rampant and people are forced to crime to survive.
We've been trying the peaceful way for my entire lifetime and made no real progress. Perhaps it's time for a different approach. I'm not really comfortable with it morally, but I'm also not morally comfortable with things staying the way they are for another generation.