- cross-posted to:
- thebadwebsite@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- thebadwebsite@lemmy.world
[yellow, a finger up, looking smug]
The answer to oppression is NEVER violence
Turn the other cheek
Pacifism always wins
You could earn rights by asking nicely instead
[yellow, proudly showing us a huge book]
Don’t believe me?
Open a history book!
[yellow, looking frustrated as they are shuffling through the book’s pages]
Ok so…
Uhm…
Not this page…
Wait…
The next one…
Awkward…
Another…
Yeah but…
For sure this time…
[yellow, sweating, protecting their book, a hand raised towards us]
Can you stop looking?
You’re being rude
That’s my book
https://thebad.website/comic/please_resist_responsibly


I guess they don’t teach you kids about Gandhi and King anymore. Or more likely you skipped school that day.
“Political power grows from the costume of a dancing frog”
Mao Zedong if he’d been a brainrotted Liberal.
Well yes, the issue is precisely with what you are taught in school vs what is in history books.
Gandhi was the culmination of centuries of violent anti-colonial struggle. While he was doing non-violent resistance in the wake of a war, the HSRA and Anushilan Samiti acted as violent threats to incentivize the UK to work with Gandhi or risk more terrorist acts, while various extremely violent soldier mutinies weakened the british grip on the country.
MLK only worked because of the implications. The panthers, urban uprisings, Malcolm X were setting the country ablaze. MLK’s platform was that there were two options, dealing with him or dealing with the rioters. The white house had no choice due to the scale of the riots and the threat of an escalation in violent tactics (panthers were starting to show up with big guns).
In both cases, what won was the diversity of tactics. The non-violent face of those events are all that’s taught in school, but the full picture of those movements can be found in the history books. You are in no position to be dismissive of others when you are the person in the comic.
I am in an excellent position to be dismissive of calls to violence. Violence is the way of barbarians. Non-violent resistance is a progression in human civilization. Violence is a regression. Anger and hate are a poison that must be turned into compassion.
Remind me how that King thing turned out, again?
“You can’t negotiate with a tiger when your head is in it’s mouth.” -Winston Churchill on Appeasement Strategey
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Voting Rights Act of 1965. Fair Housing Act of 1968. End of Jim Crow. Nyota Uhura getting a job on the bridge of the Enterprise.
“Now you listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I’ll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method… is love. I love you Sheriff Truman.”
-FBI Agent Albert Rosenfield on Sheriff Truman threatening to punch him again
i was referring to how MLK ENDED
Don’t confuse nonviolence or pacifism for an unwillingness to defend oneself. God blesses the innocent, not the foolish.
That wouldn’t have worked 50 to 70 years earlier though, they would have just been massacred. Those were post ww2 for a reason.
General strikes that do real economic damage would work. They would round up the leaders and prosecute them as terrorist each time.
“So love me love me love me, I’m a liberal”
I disagree that Gandhi was non-violent, as his action was self-inflicted violence. Starving himself would have caused irreparable damage to his body, and really is almost akin to self mutilation. King I would agree with, but I would also point out that overall that almost 80 years after his death, minority groups still experience many forms of systemic racisms. He pushed the needle, but not very far in my opinion.