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!!”
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.
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.
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.
Hooray
Let’s all have barbecue afterwards because these fucks don’t get to put a stain on our day
Barbeque the Naizis ALIIIVE!
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.
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.
I for one can’t wait to see who the modern John C Woods will 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.
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.
It’s just an endless line of good intentioned rapists.
Yeah, also, I’d like my moral reasoning to have evolved past Hammurabi.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
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 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?
I think you need to re-read the comment…
“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.
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.
Edgy 14 year old logic
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!!
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.
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.
This is intellectual rigor?
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.
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.
I mean, what if the Bad People are Nazis
“Everyone I don’t agree with is a nazi therefore I am justified”
That’s the flipside, but also, some people are Nazis
A fucking lot of them these days.
Yeah, Musk and Thiel both went to Nazi grooming schools In Apartheid South Africa.
And should be on the receiving end.
But I’ve seen people called nazis for extremely trivial things too, and that is the concern there. Punch people because they are nazis. Do not call people nazis so that you can punch them.No you haven’t. That’s just slippery slope bullshit.
Took me two seconds to bring up an article on a man with allopecia being accused of being a far-right skinhead. Took me two more seconds to find an article where a man with Asperger’s recieved a torrent of false nazi accusations.
When someone is openly saying ‘punch actual nazis’ try not being disingenuous with them mate, its fucking clown behaviour.Preaching tolerance towards nazis is the only fucking clown behavior here.
And yet you posted neither, probably because you’re full of shit
Found one
Card carrying anarchist, so fuck off you pathetic cunt.
And who issued that card, some sort of authorizing individual or regulatory organization? Sounds suspiciously heirarchal lol
Oh, so you are just a wanker. No worries, enjoy sending the replies I won’t read.
What definition of “Nazi” are we working with here? I assume it’s a set of beliefs and not Germany’s Nazi party from WW2. So what are these beliefs? Genuine question.
EDIT: as expected, empty downvote with no engagement on this basic question. I’m not trolling. It’s a sincere question. If we’re going to agree on who deserves to die don’t you think we should maybe get everything on the table in some detail?
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.
I mean, I know we should not generalize, but the Epstein class are bad people who deserve to be murdered in awful suffering.
It’s rare to see someone wno is evil without a doubt, but anyone from the Epstein class is one.
Who are “the Epstein class”? Just Epstein and Ghislaine? Just the rapists? Everyone in the files?
Seems like, whatever the punishment, you still need a process to determine guilt according to the evidence, rather than trial by public opinion.
I’ll settle for “anyone accused of any wrongdoing in the Epstein files in any manner.”
We can sort through the gritty details afterwards and apologize to the single person that was wrongly accused.
I’m sure that apology will do a lot of good to them after they’re dead.
Me, I’ll be over here standing up for the rule of law instead of “just kill whoever is accused in a particular set of documents”.
In a normal situation, I would agree with you that we should follow the rule of law. But there is simply no time to beat around the bush for a few decades sorting through all the docs and having trials for everyone involved when everyone involved OWNS THE JUDGES. the system must change before we can achieve justice, and there is no way to change that system through the legal system.
Can’t apologize to someone you murdered (their words).
Call me crazy, but I don’t think being accused of a crime should be enough for a death sentence.
In any other circumstance I would agree with you. This about the survival of the species. This isn’t a normal bad government structure that needs to be rooted out. This isn’t the same oppression that we’ve been dealing with for thousands of years. The people in that list are specifically the most powerful and untouchable people that have ever lived and they are ACTIVELY MURDERING THE PLANET FOR THEIR OWN PLEASURE. This isn’t something that can wait for the normal process to take it’s time. If we don’t act this minute, we will be too late. It’s quite likely that we are already too late.
I dunno just making a list for people that are apologetic about it, positive towards it, partial to the acts or on the receiving end of a cashflow would be just insta killable if I was suddenly dictator of the world
People that treat people as things deserve the same courtesy.
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 ?
My point is not what my line for murdering someone is or how it compares to anyone else’s. My point is that most people have that line, so it’s not very deep to point out that it exists, and all of them will believe that they are still the Good Person and the person they want to murder is the Bad Person as laid out in the OP.
Now the very last sentence is a bit wibbly. I’m sure that many people might not automatically send someone who disagrees with their line into the Bad Person zone, but I’m sure you could construct scenarios similar to the last line that people would end up agreeing with, they just think that their particular line is justified.
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.
Guilt tripping is a tactic often used by the abuser to control the abused.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince us he exists.
I think we should defend ourselves against the bourgeouise 🙋
There is no war but class war.
Everyone’s the hero in their own story.
Guillotine the pedophile billionaires and pedophile politicians! Fuck your purity test
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?
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?
I think you’re ignorant to the reality around you. I think OPs image is a strawman made by a centrist that also does not understand the reality of the situation.
You keep saying ‘I think’ but demonstrating that you do not.
Yeah but you were being unnecessarily pedantic
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.
I linked them for you because you don’t know what a Nazi is, because you said literal Nazis aren’t alive today.
You linked them because your reading comprehension is worse than your impulse control and thought you could score some quick social media high fives from the other Internet mouthbreathers.
Here’s a Wikipedia article, maybe it’ll help you understand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_seeking
Nope, just making sure you understand that literal Nazis do, in fact, exist today. If you weren’t posting rhetorical questions that implied you didn’t believe they don’t, then I wouldn’t have shared links with you to help you understand they do.
Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis.
The worst kind, right after all of the rest of them (and the Dutch Nazis, with their bike paths and tiki torches).
Zio’s 2026 =Nazis 1939 different era same result
Zionists are ambitious, trying to genocide so hard that people forget about the Nazis.
Netanyahu doesn’t really have the punchiness of “Hitler”, so they need to work on that part. His gun probably tastes the same, so there’s that.
Fingers crossed
There’s hope.
If he can’t keep the endless war going, he may face some kind of justice. I’m sure he has a private bunker where he can reflect upon that fact.
Would argue, but know what you are doing. So just replace the word nazi with fascist and maybe youll understand. If not, you’ll find out the hard way.
