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.
cannot be tolerant to intolerant
Unless you are in a secure position and have the means to help them overcome their insecurities.
I’m not talking about insecure people. I’m talking about power hungry maniacs that use them.
Why do you think they crave power?
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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’s the hero in their own story.
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.
Guillotine the pedophile billionaires and pedophile politicians! Fuck your purity test
Been a while since I watched Death Note, but did Light brutally murder people? I thought it was mostly heart attacks, which was the default way for someone to die unless otherwise specified.
He killed innocents to avoid prosecution.
That I do remember. I just assumed that was also via heart attacks. Either way, still an evil act.
The elaborate bus jacking was pretty violent. I think he also had some prisoners do things like write messages in their own blood when he was testing the notebook out.
Even if he hadn’t caused a variety of deaths in a variety of ways, I think causing a variety of heart attacks still counts as brutally murdering people
I’ve never had a heart attack so idk how to gauge if it’s a brutal way to die or not. I’ll assume it’s not the best way to go lol
I think funnily enough heart attack was meant as a catch-all kind death for people that was the authors first thought to just move past that hurdle. Heart attacks are definitely not the least harmful way to die, well, it depends on the type of heart attack. Certain aneurysms might be more painless. But overall it’s a bit of a hand wave.
I feel this way about cops, land lords and billionaires. Tbf tho if those didn’t exist the world would be a much better place.
The problem is that landlords are just the players who got the lucky drops, often the children of lords and merchants who lucked into success.
And once in that position, no one wants to give up their advantage.
Experimental psychologists have done tests on this, and found that it takes effect even in the short term. Monopoly players who are (selected at random) given extra salary money at Go! and extra turns will play, win, and insist that they won by their own skill and merit. Those advantaged also will indulge more in the table snacks.
Light Yagami would say that
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?
An easily rejectable dichotomy
Good and bad are fluid and subjective
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!
.ml in a nutshell.
