Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don't know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I'll add it to the post

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago (20 children)

In fact, if an individual is only concerned with themselves, due to a lack of social contract or other requirement, then they will demonstrably throughout history commit horrible crimes to enrich their own life.

Indeed, landlords are quite deplorable. I wonder what the people will do about them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 week ago (19 children)

    Mao ZeDong, Trump, Elon Musk, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un/Jong-Il/Il-Sung, Maduro, Bolsanaro, the Kochs, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    Half that list go to great lengths to prevent themselves from being offed on a daily if not hourly basis.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    Mao's regime has survived to today. Stalin died of heart disease.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (10 children)

    I think you missed my point. It sounds like to me that you are arguing that "we the people" so to speak are supposed to be doing things to change society for the better by acting as a collective fire break, and people like Musk and Mao are examples of us not doing enough?

    The person you responded to is making the point that people don't rise up to correct certain problems in society (as an example of where the will of the people regardless of lip service is not carried out), and your answer is to provide a list of people who didn't/haven't died by the will of the people and who go out of their way (or did) to prevent the will of the people from being actualized.

    I'm also inclined to think, after reading this entire comment thread that you might be barking of the wrong tree because both arguments have merit.

    A lot of people at one time thought it was perfectly fine to own slaves. To perform public executions. To remove children from their parents to Catholicize and colonise them.

    There are a lot of examples in history where most people have agreed to some truly horrific and entirely unethical stuff because it benefitted them personally regardless of the detriment to others, especially minorities.

    On the other hand I do agree that change needs momentum and that needs people. No one person is an army, and no ethical change happens without that time and momentum made up of people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    Fuck, you Tankies sure like to ramble. It's like you forget you've already lost all credibility before you post full page comments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

    I'm not a Tankie. This right here is exactly what I expected.

    I'm trying to bridge the gap between the two arguments being made in this thread.

    The masses have to have an avenue to make change and decide ethics. People like Mao and Stalin and Musk and so on deliberately go out of their way to circumvent those avenues.

    Eventually that leads to a pressure cooker of violent action because diplomacy has failed.

    Either way, Ethics informs law, they aren't two mutually exclusive entities.

    You're sounding an awful lot like a Mao apologist right now.

    And if Mao could see what China has become he'd off the whole party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    And if Mao could see what China has become he’d off the whole party.

    Oh hey look at this totally-not-a-tankie worshipping big strong daddy Mao Zedong. Pathetic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

    One of us is acknowledging that the current Chinese Communist party is not Maos party nor is it holding up to his ideals, and pointing out that he was a mass murdering psycopath. The other one either needs a history lesson and a social studies lesson, or is so intent on being an asshole that they speak before they think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Mao's party is still in charge today. Mao's party killed landlords and starved millions when it started, and empowered Trump and Putin to starve and wage war on millions to this day. Nothing has changed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    You don't get to have it both ways.

    If saying Mao would try to mass murder a Communist party that has changed course on most of his directives is Tankie talk intent on lauding him, then saying he's so potent that even after death his party is still in lock step with him is definitely lauding him and sounds like Tankie talk. Pick a lane, troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    It makes perfect sense when you realize there is no sanctity of human life in the eyes of Tankies and that their brand of communismβ„’ is and has always been bullshit propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    There are a whole lot of people saying that group ethics has created a lot of horrible fallout and loss of life over human history and then there's you with your made up perfect democracy that doesn't exist and hasn't really remotely existed since like the Athenians (and even then they had a fucking slave class), at least partially due to the logistics of scale, and the horrible selfishness of the general population, and then there's you suggesting that we're tankies because you can't wrap your head around that fact that people disagree with you not because they are communist apologists, but because they see a fundamental flaw in your argument that the will of the people is the best ethical barometer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago*

    If you're only just now realizing ethics and moral integrity don't align with the world we live in, namely the horrible dictatorships pushing death, destruction of history, and starvation, then: congratulations, welcome to the world. Pick up a shovel.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Least coherent list in world history.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

    lmfao

    Willfully ignoring so hard he forgets the context for which the implication stands upon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (3 children)

    No, the implication makes no sense. Mao ZeDong, while he certainly was against killing landlords, quite famously so, still did not prosecute those that did because he understood the pain caused by the existence of the capital class, he lived it after all. Same with Xi, though he's softer. Maduro also quite famously also went against landlords and other sources of mass suffering. So did Stalin.

    Trump is a landlord, Hitler loved the concept of landlords and privatized a large majority of socialist Weimar, the Kochs are rent seekers, Putin is a rent seeker, Bolsanaro, famously is a rent seeker and tried privatizing brazil....

    Lumping these individuals together in any list that is not 'Men who lived' is as silly as any possible list that includes Eva Braun, Hillary Clinton, and Malala.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments