this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2026
781 points (96.1% liked)
Comic Strips
24723 readers
2140 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
-
😇 Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
-
🏘️ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
-
🧬 Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
-
📽️ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
-
📋 Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
-
📬 Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
-
🏴☠️ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
-
🍿 Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists
The following artists are banned from the community.
- Jago
- Stonetoss
- GPrime85
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
Web of Links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
Other Comic Communities of Interest
- !bloomcounty@sopuli.xyz
- !calvinandhobbes@lemmy.world
- !cyanideandhappiness@discuss.online
- !exo@discuss.online
- !foxtrot@slrpnk.net
- !garfield@lemmy.world
- !moomin@sopuli.xyz
- !oglaf@discuss.online (NSFW)
- !outland@slrpnk.net
- !pbf@discuss.online
- !peanuts@discuss.online
- !smbc@discuss.online
- !theboondocks@slrpnk.net
- !thefarside@sh.itjust.works
- !xkcd@lemmy.world
- !NoseEars@lemy.lol
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That section of the Wikipedia page is pretty weird looking right off the bat. The first two are the cedar in Lebanon and the Mirabal sisters which are circumstances that are hard to call nonviolent.
The cedar revolution can only be called nonviolent if you disregard the 01 protest wave that preceded it and established with violence that everyone was actually on the side of ending syrian occupation and not having car bomb attacks all the god damned time.
And el jefe was fucking assassinated by the military at international urging. That’s not nonviolent!
I didn’t look any further but it really seems like a bad list that’s written with incredibly rose-colored glasses.
The article states what it considers a nonviolent revolution. It doesn't mean there was zero bloodshed, but that the actual parties that were trying to take power did not use or threaten violence.
Even if you disagree with their definition or believe that they gave a bad example, I imagine that you wouldn't find the entire list objectionable.
There are only 7 examples in the whole list.
A very useful tactic in this specific situation.
You asked for it:
Next is Ecuador in ‘05 when they sent guiterrez to Brazil.
But here’s the third sentence in the intro paragraph of the Wikipedia article about that event:
Maybe the next one will prove your point…
South Korea! The June Struggle? Here’s the Wikipedia article on its background:
Almost like the nonviolent resolution was made possible by violence before it…
How about the next one:
Oh, the white lily student movement! Surely there’s a good solid Wikipedia article about that!
Barely past a stub? No mention of the boat people massacre three years before, changs successors recognizing the need to get international support after decades of martial law and the clear message from foreign influence in the Tiananmen protests the year before?
Must have been the wind.
Dateline - Philippines edsa 2, nonviolent government handover as long as you don’t count the precipitated edsa 3 just a few months later.
Oh, now we’re talking about Sudan, never mind that after the protest wave (not entirely nonviolent but I’ll leave that by the wayside for now) the military took over the transitional government.
Now I know I took a pretty let’s call it conversational tone in the above and that breakdown is for two reasons, one, I don’t want to legitimize that dogshit Wikipedia article by talking about it in neutral language and two, I’m tired.
The point isn’t to argue over specifics about some shitty wiki article but to recognize that things are only called “nonviolent” when arbitrary lines around them in time, place and even people that exclude the violent component of their existence are drawn.
Everything has context, but the context isn't the thing itself. Sometimes, the context is the exact opposite of the thing.
Your claim seems to be that a nonviolent revolution is impossible if there was ever a violent attempt in the past that anybody in power remembers. If it sounds like a ridiculous idea, that's because it is.
I don't think this is the least bit complicated or controversial. I'm not even claiming that a nonviolent revolution is a good idea or possible in the future, only that it's happened in the past. This is just a basic fact. I don't think I can have a reasonable discussion with a person who rejects inconvenient facts.
At any rate, I think you've spurred me into doing something rather ironic in this situation. I'm just going to go ahead and block the entire lemmy.ml instance. There's a button for it, but I haven't tried it before, so there's no time like the present. I just want you to know that the irony isn't lost on me, that I'm judging others on your instance for the context of where they're logged in from. But I suspect that anybody reasonable has already decided not to have an account over there. I expect this will save me the trouble of blocking you all individually. Adios.
You’re not even reading what I wrote.
I said that you can only call something nonviolent by drawing an arbitrary line separating it from the violence that preceded it, followed it or the violence done by someone else or threatened by other events.
Sucks to suck I guess. Bye.
when you find counter examples to the premise you stop since the premise is demonstrably incorrect.
The entire list is counter-examples, even the ones they mentioned. I am guessing that they simply disagree with the definition given by Wikipedia. They seem to be claiming that violence prior to a revolution by somebody else who wasn't part of the party that came into power, but which weakened the authority, is disqualifying as a nonviolent revolution.
If they don't like Wikipedia's definition, then they can mention that. But it's impossible to argue against a premise that they didn't even specify. They didn't give substantive anything to argue against, so what would I even be arguing? Like I said, unless they state their specific problem, in my view, the entire list, even the ones they mentioned, are what you'd call counter-examples. They haven't given a better definition of a nonviolent revolution.
If you want an example where there was no violence at all by anybody, even unrelated parties, and again, the list is only 7 entries long, just look at the June Democratic Struggle, which is the fourth in the list. Two after they stopped looking further, and I think 4 more than you looked at.
You write entirely dishonest trite! That 'revolution' was preceded by the Gwangju Uprising, a massacre. The protestors retaliated with violence. It is this history--the threat of violence--that underpins ANY political power. There are no peaceful revolutions. Anyone who attempts to frame something as peaceful to prove that there is such a thing looks at an event myopically and dishonestly.
Read your own fucking articles. There's nothing peaceful about killings and torture. "On June 11, the National Police Agency defended its actions on the previous day, describing rallies as illegal, and as violent "disorderly conduct", and declaring their intention to crack down on further unrest." You: but-b-b-but it was a peaceful protest. You are a liar and a bootlicker.
The Gwangju Uprising happened in 1980. The June Democratic Struggle happened over 7 years later in 1987. Why didn't you mention that? Is it because you knew that it would completely discredit your point? Is it because you didn't think somebody would call your bluff and fact check you?
So, you're calling me a liar, and aggressively, while saying... that. I'm sorry, but I am reporting and blocking you.
The simple fact is the there are almost no examples of non-violent revolutions. Almost every single revolution has violence as a component of it. it doesnt matter if a particular group within the wider populace (ghandi) was non-violent they were uplifted by the actions of the violent groups if only to offer an alternative group to 'negotiate' with.
the simple fact is: revolutions dont occur unless violence is necessary, after all if violence wasnt necessary the changes would have been made long before the revolution grew legs cropped up.
You asked for an example with zero violence. I gave you that example. And you barely acknowledge it, first saying there are "almost no examples," but then go on to ignore it completely and say that "revolutions don't occur unless violence is necessary." If you had already made up your mind and decided to ignore any contrary evidence, you shouldn't have asked for counter-examples.
I wasn't even trying to argue for nonviolent revolutions, only to say that the tiniest bit of effort shows that they have occurred. At any rate, I don't think you're the kind of person I want to continue interacting with. So, bye. I'm finished with this particular exchange.
No I didnt. I was explaining to you why wikipedia's list isnt useful and why the individual stop looking into the instances on the list immediately after finding counter examples in literally the first couple instances listed.
Because I didnt give a shit about your example because I knew what I'd find. but lets address it now to demonstrate the point I was making:
You can't say 'look this uprising succeeded without the use of violence!' when the reason it succeeded was arguably because of the use of violence that proceeded it. They're not independent events. Its the same regime, same population, within less than a generation, involving many of the same actors and part of an ongoing sequence of resistance.
My statement of there being very few examples of non-violent revolutions was a hedge because I'm not intimately familiar with the history of every civilization on the planet for all time. But every time this conversation has come up and people like yourself have cropped up I can't recall a single instance that was referenced as being violence free.
As people have literally done for you multiple times now, you're just fucking wrong.