Guillotine the pedophile billionaires and pedophile politicians! Fuck your purity test
An easily rejectable dichotomy
Good and bad are fluid and subjective
I am a good person and I will do what it takes to protect marginalized people from oppression and erasure. The morale high ground doesn’t matter when they want to kill millions.
leftists when conservatives:
I think that’s leftists when centrists, liberals, democratic socialists, the working class, Jews…
Pretty much anyone other than fascists. They’re cool with actual fascists, but they label everyone else as fascist and hate them instead.
YEE-HAH!
I see lots of comments arguing about whether bad things should happen to bad people and missing the point that it’s criticizing the convenient, self-serving rationalization of doing bad things to [out-group enemy] going on.
Oh for me, the literal nazis, child rapists, and Inmorally rich “leaders” are like dogs with rabies, a disease. There is no changing them. It is imparative that we stop them before they hurt more. If we can put down ol’ yeller, we can kill this evil.
literal nazis
WWII was 80 years ago, are there any literal Nazis alive?
Or is this one of the ‘I don’t know what literal means and also I’ll decide who is a Nazi and deserves death’ kind of thing?
Zio’s 2026 =Nazis 1939 different era same result
Literal Nazis exist today, yes. Insisting that they don’t is doing them a favor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism
Or is this one of the ‘I don’t know what Nazi means’ kind of things? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
Is that your alt? If not then you have no idea what they meant.
There are many people on social media who’s kneejerk reaction is to label things “nazi” (see the OP’s image), or to imply that someone is doing favors for nazis, when they perceive that they’re being disagreed with. It’s kind of the topic of this whole post.
My response is a rhetorical question, not a request for information and their reply would show if they are that kind of reactionary person.
I didn’t reply to you and I didn’t mistake the reply box for a search engine, so linking me Wikipedia pages and suggesting that I’m doing favors for nazis means that you both missed the point and are the kind of reactionary outrage junkie that’s depicted in the OP.
Yes, I know what Nazis are.
It was a rhetorical question, not a ChatGPT prompt for information.
If you don’t know there are real Nazi followers and fascism out there right now, not 80 years ago, but right now, I do not think you know what Nazis are. I also do not think you know what a “rhetorical question” is.
I also do not think you know what a “rhetorical question” is.
Well, let me demonstrate:
You know what I think better than I do?
You know, the image in the OP is not an aspirational goal, right?
Everyone who doesn’t support [insert group name here] or [insert cause here] is a NAZI
It’s been years since I heard the word Nazi seriously applied to people who doesn’t support fascism is some way or were a fascist who just didn’t like wearing a mask during covid.
I’m not a NAZI you’re a NAZI for suggesting that!
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince us he exists.
I think the quote is
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist
That is the traditional quote.
It’s also not what I said.
The Church has long discovered that once you name someone or something as the Devil, you are justified in doing anything to them.
In 2026, see also, Antifa.
That is the quote that I’ve heard. I wonder if they were trying to make a point by tweaking the quote, although I’m not clear about what that would be
Everyone deserves to be treated exactly the way they treat others.
So be racist to racists. Throw homophobes on the street. Exploit the rich. And kill all Nazis.
And if they can’t handle that, then that is on them. It is the most neutral view you can have of the world.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
A system of fair rules does not always lead to fair outcomes, if the rules don’t accommodate the asymmetry in capacity, motivation, resources, etc.
also, you cannot be tolerant to intolerant people. any system of beliefs like that is doomed. this is what is happening now.
There’s a line in The Republic that states something to the effect of “You cannot persuade someone who doesn’t want to listen” at that point firing their own venom back at them is justified.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” -Gandhi
So should we just tolerate the intolerant? Cause that’s going to end well. We’d still have half a planet with stabbed eyes while they go scot free.
It turns out there are more than zero options between “do nothing” and “become what you hate”. Many in fact.
It’s a nice quote but doesn’t really make sense. The eye for the second eye is the first eye, there’s only two eyes involved, not a nonsensical endless chain of eyes. This concept of justice predates the quote.
Blatant flaw in this: I don’t want to murder anyone. I don’t want to rape anyone. I don’t want to be racist to anyone (though I acknowledge I am). And the moment I would do something like that to anyone, I would be a murderer or a rapist, and that’s a shitty thing to be. So no thanks.
Yeah, also, I’d like my moral reasoning to have evolved past Hammurabi.
It’s just an endless line of good intentioned rapists.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Exactly not. An eye for an eye ended the custom of escalating feuds. If only one eye can be taken in revenge, then all other eyes stay healthy.
It only continues if a taken eye is seen as unjust which leads to a chain of mutually unjustly taken eyes. But that’s a slow process so the elders may figure something out while it happens.
I understand what that is supposed to mean, but it makes no sense. I have never taken anybody’s eyeball so if that was the law of the land, I would feel pretty safe. Eventually, everyone going around taking eyeballs would have no eyes and they would be much less likely to be able to take more, at least without some assistance I imagine.
Plenty of places have a “death for a death” law where if you kill someone you can be put to death. I’m against the death penalty personally, but that has never really been of personal concern to me since I don’t go around murdering.
If you take something from someone, should they not be able to take it back from you? If you steal $1000, do I just have to sit there? I should be entitled to take $1000 back. If anything, I should also potentially be entitled to more.
While for an eye is not my preference, it was used to make people as whole as possible and was considered an improvement at the time.
I understand what that is supposed to mean
It seems like your understanding is different from other people’s.
I think they’re taking it bit too literally
Same
Tolerance paradox in action!
I remember being told it makes more sense when you realize it’s a part of the social contract. Breaching it prevents you from taking part in it.
Indeed. If one side breaks the contract, the other isn’t bound by it anymore either.
The tolerance paradox does not exist. See BeardedSquidwards comment.
I think you need to re-read the comment…
I don’t see it. How does a society tolerating the intolerant not enable them to be intolerant, even if you believe in social contract theory?
Edgy 14 year old logic
Lemmy in a nutshell
actually , mostly facebook
(almost) Literally everyone inside and outside of social media. Everyone has a line for when they would murder someone, or at the very least think they deserve to die somehow. And almost everyone of those people would think they’re still a good person while wishing death on someone.
The op seems like a clever sort of epiphany about how everyone’s a hypocrite but it’s not that deep.
I think social media allows people to post their first gut reaction faster than they can think. And I think the op is maybe referring to specific online bubbles that will extrapolate “I don’t like dogs” into knowing that that person would be better off dead, but as it is I don’t think this post says much in itself.
my line for murdering some one is that if they murder some one else that debatably didn’t deserve to be murdered
what is your line for murdering some one ?
Fuck this noise. Kill Nazis and fascists.
Try them in court, convict, and then line them up with their families watching and shoot them in the face and make it required viewing for every kid on the planet.
So much for the tolerant left…
Motherfuckers, you labeled me as tolerant because I don’t hate people for immutable characteristics they were born with. That doesn’t mean I’m tolerant of nazis maga traitors.
Tolerance paradox is the only way forward. They deserve no quarter.
“So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt!!”
Pictured: Antifa social group, North Africa club, 1943, being as tolerant as they can
Those Nazis really get my goat!
And if they don’t like this, there’s always the super easily, highly convenient solution of NOT BEING A NAZI.
Exactly. A person can want every nazi dead and hope that nobody has to die while being completely logically and morally covered.
But that’s not fair my skin is white and that means I’m important because insert fascist leader said so.
It can be super difficult when your only opportunity for survival is to become one of Immortan Joe’s war boys, and are trained that your only path to redemption is to be a hero, to be witnessed as you sacrifice yourself in battle.
Hey now! Just look at history and you’ll see how often non-violence works! Like for instance checks notes …uh oh frantically flipping through notes guys, oh no!
Nah, they should be treated the way they treat others.
Nazis are the only group that deserve to be gassed.
A trial with due process is key. But, they’d need to be kicked out of power, first. Somehow. Because Nazis won’t convict Nazis, obviously.
I’m not looking forward to what happens if they steal the mid-terms.
Hooray
Let’s all have barbecue afterwards because these fucks don’t get to put a stain on our day
Barbeque the Naizis ALIIIVE!
But we must always focus on our goal of minimizing suffering. The path to evil comes when we focus more on us vs them and hurting the enemy than we are on building a better world. Fetishization of violence is a dangerous path.
I lament that I believe that violence and public executions are necessary, but I do. But I also don’t believe it’s sufficient. We must also build a better world.
Reign of Terror ass motherfucker
#2 electric boogaloo
I for one can’t wait to see who the modern John C Woods will be
I’ll allow you to call me bad if I’m also allowed to drop billionaires, the trillionaire, selected world leaders, and most of the Epstein class in to a woodchipper. It only seems fair.
What is more important: considering yourself a good person, or materially benefiting the world?
I’ll take option 2, thanks. Woodchippers! GET YOUR WOODCHIPPERS HERE!!
right, but they have been proven to be demonstrably evil. Or are we now sympathetic to cancer? If they want to be treated like people they should start acting like it. Just because one is a pacifist, does not mean they shouldn’t defend themself
Who is “they”? Who are you talking about and how are you certain that’s who OP is talking about?
Momento.
Quite a severe lack of intellectual rigour is going on there. If nothing happens to bad people then they’ll keep being bad people. The difference between the bad people and the good people is that the bad people do bad things because they like it. Good people do bad things to stop bad people from being bad people doing bad things.
If you let the bad people do bad things because you’re a good person and as a good person you don’t do bad things then the bad things may as well be done by the good people. It’s all the same.
This is intellectual rigor?
Light went after people in the prison system or suspected of being criminals, without ever doubting the justness of the system in any way. He is useful idiot, delusional agent of the system or megalomaniacal bootlicker. Choose your pick.
Also, just a plain old idiot. Imagine having the magical power to kill anyone undetected and you’re like “hooray, I can go after local crooks!”. Had Light ever seen a newspaper? Did he know the world outside his city existed? If you aren’t starting with and primarily focusing on people globally known are you even trying?
I mean, wasnt he being led by a literal trickster demon…?
Ryuk was pretty hands off throughout the whole thing. He kind of just sat there and basked in the spectacle. Hell, there were points where he was shocked a human was even capable of going as far as Light did.
The “trickster demon” who in episode 1 hears Light’s plan and responds, “If you do that, you’ll be the only bad guy left?”
Ryuk didn’t make him do shit, he was just in it for the apples.
Maybe I missed that (I watched it twice), but to me it appeared very much so that he had (except after the intricate swaps, which erased his memory) full agency, and was the one pushing the limits/boundaries of the mechanic.
Of course one can make the point that power corrupts etc., and the Shinigamis are attached to that power. In a way, they embody power and could be seen as the corrupting force, but that is as far as I would take that. At least Riuk was emotionally detached/had no real stake in it. I don’t recall him ever endorsing or driving him to persue his mission. Maybe his subdued admiration of Lights “shenanigans” can be seen as adding fuel to the his (ego) fire, but that also is a defect Light has had before, not instilled by Riuk.
I just always took his “admiration” as a subtle nod to the darker forces at play. Like he isnt directly telling him to do it but he is definitely feeding off of it in a sense and lightly encourages it. Its not blatant. I always took the apples to be that kind of metaphor
Ok, but you do realize you can punish someone without killing, right? It doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Bad people can be prevented from doing more bad things without any blood being shed.
You can try but look what happened when we didn’t finish off the slavers and the Nazis. They linger on until an orange shitstain comes along and empowers them.
deleted by creator
The mistake with the Nuremburg Trials is that we didn’t hang enough Nazis
The problem with most things that use good and bad as a foundation is that they never account for perspective.
Good and bad are made up and subjective.
If you don’t account for that in your positions then you’re setting yourself up for fundamentalism.
Absolutely I am merely responding with the same level of intellectualism as the original comment.
If we can’t even get as far as sometimes violence is necessary and absolutism is a useless philosophy, then there’s no point getting into nuance.
I don’t think good and bad are that subjective. You can get into the weeds but it can be pretty well boiled down to “treat others the way you want them to treat you” is good and “treat others in a way you wouldn’t want them to treat you” is bad. We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
“One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” is a concise way that the goodness or badness of an actions or outcomes is filtered through the subjective lens of the whoever happens to be considering the topic.
On an individual level, “don’t be a dick” is a pretty useful guideline , but even that is subject to what each person thinks constitutes dickish behaviour.
We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.
Even that is subjective, think about what is socially acceptable in Finland?, how about Russia?, Morocco? France?
Do they all have the same idea of socially acceptable behaviours?
How about now vs 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years in the future?.
Sure, there are some that are fairly common, but i wouldn’t consider those to be of a sufficient percentage of the whole that i could disregard behvaioural subjectivity, but that’s just my opinion.
That’s why America has so many “good guys with guns”.
That whole idea is poorly thought out. In the split second of danger presented in the situation where a good guy with a gun could stop something, no one has any idea what is happening or why or to who and the decision must be made in seconds. No wonder good guy with gun doesn’t just start blasting. If their goal is to not hurt good people, blasting away is a good way to hurt Innocents.
Not to mention, people don’t like getting shot themselves.
What is good or bad? Whats bad on one side is good on the other. Both sides are good with the other side bad, from their point of view. With no objective good or bad, neither is, and morality means nothing so you can do anything with a clear conscience.
With no objective good or bad
Where do pedophilia and rape fall in your intellectually lazy, moral relativism argument? What about freeing enslaved people?
Saying there is no objective good or bad only shows your lack of moral convictions.
The argument they were making is poor.
However, moral conviction has no bearing on objective correctness.
Edit: If it did, any voluntarily suicide bomber would be objectively correct.
I’d address the other point but It doesn’t sound like you’re open to viewpoints that are not your own.( and don’t seem to understand what objective truth actually entails )
Edit Edit:
“Cowardly Downvotes Are Bad” is another example of something that is subjective.
I believe it to be true, but that belief doesn’t change the the fact that that statement isn’t objectively correct. ( as in, provably true for everyone regardless of their perspectives or beliefs )
Are you going to apply this logic to the activities which took place on Epstein Island?
Sorry but that’s irrelevant. Who personally views themselves as good and bad isn’t relevant to how I apply your logic from my perspective.
The danger comes in thinking that everything you do is good simply because you do it.
You shouldn’t hurt people if you don’t have to but that’s not the same as saying that violence should be avoided at all costs and that it’s never useful, or even ultimately the lesser evil.
I have a problem with these absolutists the tried to suggest that the situation should never be taken into account and that violence is always bad. It’s intellectually dishonest and it’s naive.
