this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2025
362 points (97.4% liked)
History Memes
3344 readers
1520 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, even if it was satire, does that mean it's wrong?
I would say so.
Granted, it'd depend on how you define "issues" for one. If you consider just everyday issues as well, usually it's easier to agree to trade with someone than violently robbing them.
If it read "most of hardest social issues impacting entire communities/societies in history were solved with violence", then I'd prolly have to agree.
But like usually a dispute with a neighbouring kingdom/clan/town would be easier to manage with some small appeasement or something.
I'm not saying violence doesn't solve many issues and is sometimes called for. But literally most? I'd have to disagree.
Heinlein addresses this, too:
It's really quite a good book.
That reminds me of an exchange in an old Bloom County cartoon. Opus is asked the difference between a politician and a statesman, and replies with "a statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows we need more statesmen."
It's not wrong. It's just stupid. "Settled more issues". You know, when you genocide an entire people, every issue you had with them is now "settled".
It's not a recommendation for violence as a solution. It's simply pointing out that it's a common way to end things, good or bad. Usually bad.
Nobody said it was a recommendation. It's a cynical view of how disputes have been solved in the past.
*truthful view
Both can be true at once.