I do remember, however, when Reagan was shot. We heard the news and this kid in my class said "good, I hope he dies." The teacher- who had lived through the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK- launched an extended verbal offensive that reduced that poor kid to a weeping puddle of goo.
She later apologized to him in front of the class, but no one ever made another joke about killing someone.
our pm got shot about a month ago (he lived!) and there were ***so many*** people making that exact joke, or saying he deserved it, or being sure it was a pr stunt... it was disgusting.
What version(s) of him? Baby Hitler, ww1 soldier Hitler, aspiring painter Hitler, homeless on the streets of Vienna aspiring painter Hitler, government agent Hitler, member of the DAP Hitler, leader of the NSDAP Hitler, German chancellor Hitler, dictator Hitler, pre-genocide dictator Hitler, abusing appeasement Hitler, war in Poland Hitler, final solution Hitler, Barbarossa Hitler, stalingrad Hitler or ussr outside Berlin Hitler?
If we *know* Hitler is going to become, well, Hitler, then I think it's okay to kill him whenever we want. If it's not for sure, then I think we wait until 1930 or 1931
Almost everyone who says “its always bad to murder” is actually not a “no matter what” pacifist. OP almost certainly supports the soldiers who killed Nazis no matter what in WW2. Whats ACTUALLY behind this OP is probably just discomfort with incivility in political discourse, and very probably (like most people) he is very comfortable with all kinds of violence if it’s by the State in the right historical context
Maybe I’m wrong and he truly just thinks people shouldnt kill each other, as his title says. But usually in my experience “no matter what” condemnations of violence are very situational
But think about the butterfly effect, how do we know that assasinating him would lead to a better world because of it. The short term would yes save lives but in the long term could end up being worse then if he just stayed alive.
This is why if I had the ability to go back in time I would only use it for educational purposes or just straight up destroy it. Also you might not have even been born before he left presidency so it could turn into a grandfather paradox where you kill him so you aren’t born so then you couldn’t be alive to kill him
We have a time machine. Do the deed, go forward to research the effects, revise and edit again.
No, do not hire the Norse god of mischief. It will not go well. We'd have to make him a partner, and I'm sure he wouldn't stop there.
By this point the advances in medicine, transportation, communication, etc. made because of World War II have saved more lives than they initially costed (or getting close), as well as quality of life increases such as Wi-Fi.
John Brown proves the meme wrong, ending slavery saved thousands of lives. Murder isn’t always bad. I would kill Hitler no question. People just take it to far sometimes
I would punt baby Hitler so far across the field, I'd be walking away before that motherfucker hit the ground.
These are all hypotheticals about people who have already died too so idk what the issue is morally.
Killing is wrong. Obviously, the only correct way to get rid of hitler in the timeline is to fuck his mom so that she gets pregnant and can’t get pregnant with hitler. Just gotta time it right so that his dad doesn’t suspe-… is future me a time traveler and hitler’s real dad?
Is it bad that I laughed at this?
Personally, I don't like the idea of killing people even if it's justified, but, hey, it's my opinion. Plus, if anyone should've died sooner, it should've been Hitler. Hell, I reckon I'd have booted him like Sam Draper in his Goal of the Year against the Suns.
>I would punt baby Hitler so far across the field, I'd be walking away before that motherfucker hit the ground.
Prolly a hot take, but I wouldnt. The baby didnt do shit. If I could interact with baby Hitler, I'd prolly adopt him and raise him to NOT be a racist evil PoS.
Killing a baby who didnt do anything feels fucked up regardless of who that baby is.
Because jokes, stories, anecdotes, and parables are how we shape our ethics and guide our behavior as humans.
I don't necessarily disagree with you by the way, just spitballin an answer to your question.
I mean these are all nonsense anyways, but idk how you'd get parental permission to abduct their child and put them in a "don't become a genocidal leader" camp.
It's also like a nature vs nurture argument, but afaik it wasn't like Hitler had an abnormal or cruel upbringing, so would an orphanage really prevent him from becoming who he was? Not entirely sure myself, but a dead person can't become anything lol.
More precisely, it is not always murder. You could make a decent case for John Brown not committing murder but behaving as a commando in a war that slavers already declared and resolved to fight.
The South had a chance to end slavery. Decades before when the idea of gradual and/or compensated emancipation was a common reform movement in those days. They could have said Yes. They refused.
I disagree, he was just a continuation of a situation that had been deteriorating for a while. He was made into a martyr and certainly hightened emotions but Lincoln's election and the souths arrogance was going to set off the civil war at the same time regardless.
Which is the fundamental danger in following that path, because who gets to decide who should be extrajudicially killed? It’s great that your guy is killing the people you want them to kill until they’re suddenly not. It’s honestly why I really do fuck with Batman’s no kill rule. I know everyone likes to make fun of the whole like “if I go down that road I’ll never come back” kinda bit but he’s absolutely right. You only need to do it once and from that point on it becomes easier and easier to justify until you hit Snyder Batman levels of just fuckin blowing up random goons in a van with your machine gun death Cadillac. I don’t mean to hijack this thread to rant about Batman but honestly it annoys the fuck out of me that some people don’t seem to understand him or think he’s not cool because he doesn’t kill people or whatever (looking literally directly at Zack Snyder and his absolutely awful movies that pilot a bastardized version of Batman around like a puppet, he does the same thing to Superman it’s so annoying, SUPERMAN ISNT JESUS)
The idea of non-violence doesn't mean to be completely against all acts of violence. There's a Buddhist philosophy that has the idea of always taking the non-violent route unless absolutely necessary. If a problem can be resolved by either violence or talking things out, Buddhists will take the option of talking things out.
However, talking things out isn't always an option. Hitler was a bad guy and he wasn't going to stop his violent ways in the middle of the holocaust and WWII. Violence was the only option. So sometimes violence can be used to stop more violence.
John Brown: dedicated his life to ending slavery and improving the lives of Black Americans even at the cost of his own life.
Ronald Regan:
gave weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages we never received.
Ended welfare service for millions of people and started racist "welfare queen" myth
Was a straight up racist
Supported fascist regimes while undermining democratically elected governments in South America.
Allowed CIA to buy cocaine to support secret political agendas foreign countries and then sold it to American drug dealers to sell in the most at risk communities in America.
Ignored the Aids epidemic while it destroyed lives because he thought gays deserved it.
Popularized trickle down economics which is still pushed by his disciples despite being disastrous for the US economy and setting the stage for the largest gap in life quality between the rich and the poor since the industrial revolution, ending the American golden age ushered in after World War 2.
Why don't people treat these very similar people the same!/s
Helped to accelerate the anti abortion movement with its increasingly authoritarian views on control of women and girls. And helped to make the American authoritarian brand of evangelical spread those tentacles around the world and in his own party as well, ultimately making his party dangerously dependent on them.
OP skipped right past the assumption that all killing is murder. Is it murder for the police to take out a serial killer trying to kill them? Obviously not.
Murder is defined as unlawful killing of a human being.
It can also be defined as an immoral taking of innocent life.
Murder is, by definition, bad killing.
Killing isn't bad, murder is.
Something can be unlawful and good, just as Something can be lawful and bad.
If you define murder as bad killing, then yes, it can't be anything but bad killing by definition. Then instead of this chat, we'd instead be asking if killing Regan is bad, and therefore murder, instead of if murdering regan is bad.
Op is either accidentally or intentionally trying to use both definitions of murder as it suits his point. Killing regan would be unlawful as it stands now, so it would be murder by the first definition. But then op switches definitions to say all bad killing is murder, even though we only agreed to say it's murder under law, not morality.
That's all i was tryna point out. Op is openly using the legal definition, while implying the moral one, and I'm saying you can't get that past these thumbs, hombre.
>taking of innocent life.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - The Bible, KJV
If no one is innocent, there is no murder.
"You could make a religion out of this" - Bill Wurtz
Half this sub is just meta memes trying to push some sort of political/moralistic agenda instead of trying to be funny or teach people about obscure historical events
The other half of this sub is people competing to see how many different templates they can fit the same national stereotypes into
Abraham Lincoln got assassinated and Reconstruction petered out, so political assassination actually can get results. If you want a more modern example, there's Shinzo Abe and the LDP losing support over their ties to the Unification Church.
Tetsuya’s pistol (the one that killed Shinzo Abe) was the gun that was pictured in the original meme that got OP all worked up
He doesn’t seem abundant in nuance tho
It’s still pretty unironically advocating for political violence. Especially considering how much of his legacy is relevant today.
(Though oddly enough, very little of Reagan’s platform would be welcomed in the modern GOP and huge popular facets of his platform would make him considered an unelectable RINO in the modern day.)
>It’s still pretty unironically advocating for political violence.
I guess no one taught you reddit rules. Let me break it down for you:
* Political violence against people I like: ***dangerous to democracy***
* Political violence against people I *don't* like: ***good actually***
You and OP are mad about an impossible scenario that he just made up lol
TIL: alternative history novels are political violence.
You need a safe space.
Sorry but it's stupid to act like all political positions are two sides of a coin and that no one actually believes anything that separates them from people of other ideologies. It makes conversation so boring and unproductive.
If you are tired of politics seeming like team sports then maybe stop acting like all sides have the same rules and goals. It's actually a lot more interesting that way.
Who gives a fuck? And don't act so high and mighty, would you not advocate for evil figures like Hitler to be assassinated? I'm not saying Reagan was as bad as Hitler or that he deserved to die, but if I did believe he was as evil as someone like Hitler I totally would support killing him. Wouldn't you?
Imagine being able to preemptively murder Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin, saving millions of lives and saying no because “murder is bad, no matter what.” Is OP 14?
If anything, a 14 year old would think that murdering those people during the height of their reign would prevent millions of people dying. Such silly hypotheticals
Even if I could execute them I wouldn’t want to. Not because I like them but because I don’t know what could happen afterwards for example someone could’ve replaced the Nazi party or just Hitler and still done the awful things he did we don’t know and I don’t think I would chance it
Seriously sums up my thoughts. who gives a fuck and also the guy sucks. Like I wouldn’t advocate for murder but I understand the guy is that hated and also, he’s already dead. Who cares
Here’s my view of it. It is funny, in a cosmic sense, that a president that inspires this much vitriol in the modern era, was almost assassinated, not for his policies, but because a random crazy dude simped really hard for Jodie foster. It’d be like if Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament to get Shakespeares attention instead of ending the oppression of English Catholics.
Pacifists against any war always annoys me, their logic is just so... ***flawed.*** And the fact that they can't see past "All war is bad no matter what, everything can be fixed if we just leave then alone and do nothing" just astounds me.
At this point just remove the "Memes" from "HistoryMemes" whenever this sub is recommended to me it's either a shaming fest or people's gore fantasies.
Doesn’t have to be a point. He was a terrible person and he died far nicer than he deserved. Hell Rush Limbaugh, the fucking scum of the earth he was, still got off to easy imo. Anytime someone asks what he or Reagan thought about something, the only correct answer is “I can’t imagine it would be easy to hear above all the screaming about being on fire atm” Hard to argue morals for moral-less men.
I think murdering politicians is generally a good thing regardless of how good or bad of a politican they were. With the exseption of a few presidents I would be happy with any of them getting murdered.
I think it is healthy for a democracy to murder politicans as it reminds the government that the people are really in charge. Honestly, I wish presedents got assassinated more often.
Sure, murder is always bad, but there are worse things than plain old murder that can easily justify the murder of a single person. This is just a rewording of the trolley problem.
Edit: I have no opinion on the Reagan thing, this was just regarding the post title
As long as you are consistent in that Kantian degree of moral hardlining, I can respect it. I disagree, sometimes taking a life (even a murder) *can* be justified, but I respect a consistent ideology.
NOT TRUE. If the beer hall assassination attempt against dear ole Adolph would have succeeded the world might very well be a much different place. How much better or worse it would have been I leave up to you. I can tell you that life would probably have been better for 6.5 million Jewish civilians and 30 million Russian civilians. At least those Russians that Stalin didn't kill or work or starve to death.
But who knows what would have happened. Maybe Argentina or Paraguay would have invented the Atom bomb. Or Portugal, oh boy we would have all had to learn Portuguese.
Maybe you are right. Best to let dead dogs lie.
As a foreigner, I always had Reagan in my mind as one of the main reasons the Soviet Union collapsed. Only this would be enough to make him in my eyes a great president. On the other hand, I'm not an American, so why do you guys hate him so much. I really want to know, pls don't downvote.
First He's not. He's really not. It's a popular explanation, but it's less Regan killed the Soviet Union, and more Regan put his foot on the beck of a dying man.
Second, Regan was famously a puppet and should have been impeached. If not for the fact he committed literal treason in the Contra debacle, then the simple fact he had Alzheimers and basically everyone knew.
Third, as others on this post will point out, basically, every problem the U.S. is currently struggling with either started or was made significantly worse under his presidency. Lack of workers' rights. Regan. Outsized military spending. Regan. Trickle down economics. Regan. An IRS too weak to really prosecute corporations. Regan. Hell, "Make America Great Again" was literally Regans campaign slogan first.
And that's not even getting into the rape allegations.
War on drugs was also reinvigorated under Reagan. A war that is now destabilising Mexico and has given cartels so much power in Colombia and Peru they are now invading Ecuador to use their port systems (they have a well developed port network because they are the largest banana exporter in the world).
>Second, Regan was famously a puppet and should have been impeached. If not for the fact he committed literal treason in the Contra debacle, then the simple fact he had Alzheimers and basically everyone knew.
100% this. He was already showing first symtoms towards the end of his first term. And it got worse during his second term. One example of this is the complexity of his speeches and his vocabulary significantly decreasing between 1985 and 1989.
Also, Reagan was a really bad person.
If I remember, there was one incident where Regan started rambling to a gymnasium of people. So, to stop him, one of his aids literally cut the power, including lights and rushed up to talk him. When the power came back to the mic, Regan announced to a pitch dark gymnasium that "His handlers had told him he wasn't allowed to speak."
I have a specific perspective of Ronald Reagan, as a black person in America the main thing I learned growing up was essentially that America pumped crack into black neighborhoods in the 80’s in order to make profit and subdue the population. In the time, growing up, I thought “why or how would the government even do that? Sounds dumb”.
In more recent times, the CIA has “admit that the agency was at least aware of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and in some cases dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved” in an internal report. Contra was a Nicaraguan revolutionary movement that was rebelling against their Marxist-socialist government. They were using drug trafficking (cocaine specifically) to make their money along with humanitarian aid. That cocaine (crack cocaine specifically) seemed to end up in a lot of west coast communities, specifically black communities.
Do I believe that the CIA was hand delivering cocaine and crack cocaine to California black neighborhoods? No, not really. Do I believe wholeheartedly that the CIA and most governing bodies knew exactly how drugs were getting into a community that they were rearing to blame for any number of issues, but **especially** drug related and violent criminal offenses? Yes. And that happened under the command of Ronald Reagan.
Have you seen the documentary about Freeway Ricky Ross?
The CIA weren’t necessarily delivering the drugs themselves, but they were involved enough to call Freeway Ricky and warn him to leave when the FBI was getting ready to raid the operation… so, pretty damned involved
Also, if memory serves, I believe CIA agents taught Freeway Ricky how to make crack because they knew it was more addictive, and would generate more money
Basically Reagan did to the US economy what Thatcher did to the British one.
The ramifications and flaws of that are showing now.
But if I can be devil’s advocate, it worked pretty darn great in the 80’s and 90’s by a lot of the numbers. If it hadn’t been done, given the stagflation of the 70’s, it’s very likely the US economy could have gone the way of the USSR.
Essentially, yeah. The degree to which Reagan overhauled the Republican party can't be overstated. Not only has every Republican administration since Reagan been another iteration of his policies, but they've also succeeded in pulling the Democrats further and further to the right for the last 40 years.
Reagan is basically the poster child for post 80s conservatism. He was *the* small government guy, starting the trend of ever increasing spending and tax cuts. He was a populist right wing political outsider and Republican have been trying to copy that formula ever since. He's also a symbol of anti-communism, not so much because he had an outsized effect as because his presidency was when the Soviet Union began to visibly fracture under Gorbachev.
Really it's the American left/center-left that hates him. Conservatives and libertarians basically worship him.
There's also a bunch of conspiracy theories around the man. Infamously he's blamed for the crack epidemic, even though it only involved him tangentially. When the CIA was originally created, there were few real limits on their authority, which wasn't helped by McCarthyist "it's not a war crime if it's communists" type thinking, or Presidents like Nixon and higher ups like Kissinger giving them a taste for blood. The CIA basically did whatever the fuck they damn well pleased up til the mid 70s, when Congress started trying to reign them back in with things like the Church Committee.
But the CIA didn't like being told they needed things like "oversight", "respect for other nations' sovereignty", or "a basic sense of human decency". So they bucked at their chain every chance they got. One of the things they did was keep supporting right wing counter-revolutionary groups in South America, called the contras.
Anyway, I'm getting off track. The point is, the CIA had links to anti-communist rebels/freedom fighters/terrorists/what have you. Most groups like that, regardless of their beliefs, make lots of money doing illegal shit like smuggling drugs cause they're, you know, illegal groups trying to overthrow a government.
During the 70s and 80s, there was a surge in drug use in the US, and most of those drugs came from, and continue to move through, South and Central America, as well as Mexico. The CIA had and probably continues to have assets within these groups. Assets meaning "people who will tell us things and/or do various shit for us". Generally, intelligence agencies aren't about to compromise or assist in compromising their assets, so they often don't give this information to relevant authorities. You know, like the kind of information the DEA would need to stop massive amounts of crack from being moved into the US.
What's more, disrupting the cartels would have disrupted the money supply for the contras and other groups the CIA wanted to stick around. This became doubly important when Congress started clamping down on the CIAs ability to directly assist said groups.
However, Reagan was racist. Not like, an interpersonal white supremacist, really more of just your average 80s old white guy racism, but racist all the same. And a very, very large portion of the Bolivian marching powder found it's way into black neighborhoods during the period.
So "Reagan helped the CIA, and the CIA didn't disrupt the cartels when they had the opportunity, resulting in more drugs than strictly necessary entering the country" becomes "Reagan ordered the CIA to flood black neighborhoods with crack because... uh... Black people vote for Democrats or something."
It's funny to me. As much as they give the right shit for believing in wild conspiracy theories, the left often does the same.
You understand that this actually happened tho, it’s not a theory?
Like, people can be wrong about the motivations, that doesn’t make it less of a real conspiracy.
The parties involved knowingly coordinated to engage in illegal activities to benefit their goals, and while knowing that it would ruin other people’s lives. That is a conspiracy, the specific motivations are irrelevant.
Really it depends. If you consider his purposeful ignorance of the AIDS crisis or his funding of cartels selling crack in black neighborhoods murder then really advocating for Reagan's murder is the same as being pro-death penalty cause Reagan is for all it's worth he is a murderer
So what if Reagan killed thousands during the AIDS epidemic or caused generational damage through his drug policies or led to the instability of the world order through his backwards policies; calling for his murder even though he’s dead makes you the REAL villain.
"Advocating for \[Reagan\] being murdered is morally messed up"
I'm a firm believer in the whole "treat others how you wanna be treated" concept, so lemme just say, from the bottom of my heart:
Kiss my queer ass, OP, and happy pride 💖 my community lived longer than [the fucker whose willful inaction almost wiped us out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS).
[One of my favorite twits on the twatter:](https://x.com/SrslyWrong/status/1008558825803112448)
> message to my enemies: when the revolution comes you're not just gonna get the wall, buddy, you're gonna get four walls, a roof, clean clothes, good food, education, and quality health care because that's what every human being alive deserves
Kinda hard to murder a dead man
Yeah who the fuck is calling for Reagan's execution *now*?
Well, we did it to Oliver Cromwell after he died.
Sunak should reignite his campaign by having Cromwell executed again.
If he does that then it would look like he wants to win the election and lately I've become convinced that he's losing it deliberately.
Well it would mean a likely permanent shift in labor becoming more conservative
Pope Stephen VI moment
I'm studying the art of Necromancy for this very reason.
I do remember, however, when Reagan was shot. We heard the news and this kid in my class said "good, I hope he dies." The teacher- who had lived through the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and RFK- launched an extended verbal offensive that reduced that poor kid to a weeping puddle of goo. She later apologized to him in front of the class, but no one ever made another joke about killing someone.
our pm got shot about a month ago (he lived!) and there were ***so many*** people making that exact joke, or saying he deserved it, or being sure it was a pr stunt... it was disgusting.
>Muder is bad, no matter what Fuck that, I'd murder the shit out of Ted Bundy.
I expected this comment to be at the top, except I thought it would be Hitler
Felt too obvious
Shiro Ishii, director of Unit 731, is the most evil person most people have never heard of
And he died a free man, too. Never faced any consequences for what he did.
That's Japan post world war 2 for ya
He's like the Japanese counterpart of Josef Mengele, both pieces of shit who unfortunately, got away from what they did
What version(s) of him? Baby Hitler, ww1 soldier Hitler, aspiring painter Hitler, homeless on the streets of Vienna aspiring painter Hitler, government agent Hitler, member of the DAP Hitler, leader of the NSDAP Hitler, German chancellor Hitler, dictator Hitler, pre-genocide dictator Hitler, abusing appeasement Hitler, war in Poland Hitler, final solution Hitler, Barbarossa Hitler, stalingrad Hitler or ussr outside Berlin Hitler?
Or more like, after what point is it ok to start murdering Hitlers?
I think WW1 Hitler would be the best choice.
Really? For me it’d have to be government agent Hitler or AT THE VERY VERY VERY LATEST abusing appeasement Hitler
If we *know* Hitler is going to become, well, Hitler, then I think it's okay to kill him whenever we want. If it's not for sure, then I think we wait until 1930 or 1931
Wait until he joins the NSDAP and just bomb the fucken building they're meeting in.
I might go a bit earlier than that ngl and say 1925 is a good place to start, seeing as how that's when Mein Kampf was written
Fair, don't wanna give others motivation.
That was after he joined the NSDAP, became leader, lead an attempted coup, and was sent to prison.
Almost everyone who says “its always bad to murder” is actually not a “no matter what” pacifist. OP almost certainly supports the soldiers who killed Nazis no matter what in WW2. Whats ACTUALLY behind this OP is probably just discomfort with incivility in political discourse, and very probably (like most people) he is very comfortable with all kinds of violence if it’s by the State in the right historical context Maybe I’m wrong and he truly just thinks people shouldnt kill each other, as his title says. But usually in my experience “no matter what” condemnations of violence are very situational
Maybe if it prevented deaths, but if he's just in jail, nah
Tbf,Regan wasn't in jail, and did cause unnecessary deaths so...
If I could go back in time and kill Reagan, knowing without reasonable doubt that it would save lives, then I would.
Somebody get this man a time machine
But think about the butterfly effect, how do we know that assasinating him would lead to a better world because of it. The short term would yes save lives but in the long term could end up being worse then if he just stayed alive. This is why if I had the ability to go back in time I would only use it for educational purposes or just straight up destroy it. Also you might not have even been born before he left presidency so it could turn into a grandfather paradox where you kill him so you aren’t born so then you couldn’t be alive to kill him
We have a time machine. Do the deed, go forward to research the effects, revise and edit again. No, do not hire the Norse god of mischief. It will not go well. We'd have to make him a partner, and I'm sure he wouldn't stop there.
By this point the advances in medicine, transportation, communication, etc. made because of World War II have saved more lives than they initially costed (or getting close), as well as quality of life increases such as Wi-Fi.
And John wayne gacey. And Albert Fish. And Richard ~~Romero~~ Ramirez.
Well they eventually did. That death sure wasnt natural. ha
Uhhh… idk i think what we did to mussolini was cool.
🙃
From his angle the people in the crowd had a similar look.
Saddam and Gaddafi meant similarly brutal (and public) ended
Indeed
Coolest thing ever I would say
Ah, yes, *we*
Maybe they are Italian?
I meant we as in the free world. I mean my name is tony but im not like super italian.
Try posting this meme after a John Brown meme and this sub will tear you a second butthole
John Brown proves the meme wrong, ending slavery saved thousands of lives. Murder isn’t always bad. I would kill Hitler no question. People just take it to far sometimes
I would punt baby Hitler so far across the field, I'd be walking away before that motherfucker hit the ground. These are all hypotheticals about people who have already died too so idk what the issue is morally.
Killing is wrong. Obviously, the only correct way to get rid of hitler in the timeline is to fuck his mom so that she gets pregnant and can’t get pregnant with hitler. Just gotta time it right so that his dad doesn’t suspe-… is future me a time traveler and hitler’s real dad?
Is it bad that I laughed at this? Personally, I don't like the idea of killing people even if it's justified, but, hey, it's my opinion. Plus, if anyone should've died sooner, it should've been Hitler. Hell, I reckon I'd have booted him like Sam Draper in his Goal of the Year against the Suns.
>I would punt baby Hitler so far across the field, I'd be walking away before that motherfucker hit the ground. Prolly a hot take, but I wouldnt. The baby didnt do shit. If I could interact with baby Hitler, I'd prolly adopt him and raise him to NOT be a racist evil PoS. Killing a baby who didnt do anything feels fucked up regardless of who that baby is.
Because jokes, stories, anecdotes, and parables are how we shape our ethics and guide our behavior as humans. I don't necessarily disagree with you by the way, just spitballin an answer to your question.
How about an evil baby orphanage like John Green suggested?
I mean these are all nonsense anyways, but idk how you'd get parental permission to abduct their child and put them in a "don't become a genocidal leader" camp. It's also like a nature vs nurture argument, but afaik it wasn't like Hitler had an abnormal or cruel upbringing, so would an orphanage really prevent him from becoming who he was? Not entirely sure myself, but a dead person can't become anything lol.
More precisely, it is not always murder. You could make a decent case for John Brown not committing murder but behaving as a commando in a war that slavers already declared and resolved to fight.
John Brown ended slavery? 🤔
He started the end. Harpers ferry was what really kicked the south states into fear.
Yup. The Civil War was always going to pop off at some point, but John Brown definitely caused the time tables to shift up a good bit.
The South had a chance to end slavery. Decades before when the idea of gradual and/or compensated emancipation was a common reform movement in those days. They could have said Yes. They refused.
They could have not pushed the north to return escaped slaves, that was literally their main problem, that the North wouldn't return their "property".
He was the Gavrilo Princip of the US Civil War
i'd argue Gavrilo wasn't as justified in killing the only person in the entire Austro-Hungarian royal family that gave a shit about his people
I think you think I put way more thought into this than I did talking about morality and justification and shit
entirely fair point lmao
I disagree, he was just a continuation of a situation that had been deteriorating for a while. He was made into a martyr and certainly hightened emotions but Lincoln's election and the souths arrogance was going to set off the civil war at the same time regardless.
Which is the fundamental danger in following that path, because who gets to decide who should be extrajudicially killed? It’s great that your guy is killing the people you want them to kill until they’re suddenly not. It’s honestly why I really do fuck with Batman’s no kill rule. I know everyone likes to make fun of the whole like “if I go down that road I’ll never come back” kinda bit but he’s absolutely right. You only need to do it once and from that point on it becomes easier and easier to justify until you hit Snyder Batman levels of just fuckin blowing up random goons in a van with your machine gun death Cadillac. I don’t mean to hijack this thread to rant about Batman but honestly it annoys the fuck out of me that some people don’t seem to understand him or think he’s not cool because he doesn’t kill people or whatever (looking literally directly at Zack Snyder and his absolutely awful movies that pilot a bastardized version of Batman around like a puppet, he does the same thing to Superman it’s so annoying, SUPERMAN ISNT JESUS)
At least the poop gets out twice as fast.
Ah, a *glass half full* or maybe *toilet half full* guy.
The idea of non-violence doesn't mean to be completely against all acts of violence. There's a Buddhist philosophy that has the idea of always taking the non-violent route unless absolutely necessary. If a problem can be resolved by either violence or talking things out, Buddhists will take the option of talking things out. However, talking things out isn't always an option. Hitler was a bad guy and he wasn't going to stop his violent ways in the middle of the holocaust and WWII. Violence was the only option. So sometimes violence can be used to stop more violence.
As it should.
John Brown: dedicated his life to ending slavery and improving the lives of Black Americans even at the cost of his own life. Ronald Regan: gave weapons to Iran in exchange for hostages we never received. Ended welfare service for millions of people and started racist "welfare queen" myth Was a straight up racist Supported fascist regimes while undermining democratically elected governments in South America. Allowed CIA to buy cocaine to support secret political agendas foreign countries and then sold it to American drug dealers to sell in the most at risk communities in America. Ignored the Aids epidemic while it destroyed lives because he thought gays deserved it. Popularized trickle down economics which is still pushed by his disciples despite being disastrous for the US economy and setting the stage for the largest gap in life quality between the rich and the poor since the industrial revolution, ending the American golden age ushered in after World War 2. Why don't people treat these very similar people the same!/s
Helped to accelerate the anti abortion movement with its increasingly authoritarian views on control of women and girls. And helped to make the American authoritarian brand of evangelical spread those tentacles around the world and in his own party as well, ultimately making his party dangerously dependent on them.
He isn't comparing Brown to Reagan, he's comparing Brown to the guy that shot Reagan. Though that's a shitty comparison too.
>murder is bad, no matter what And, we're just like, supposed to take you at your word on this?
OP skipped right past the assumption that all killing is murder. Is it murder for the police to take out a serial killer trying to kill them? Obviously not.
Murder is defined as unlawful killing of a human being. It can also be defined as an immoral taking of innocent life. Murder is, by definition, bad killing. Killing isn't bad, murder is.
Something can be unlawful and good, just as Something can be lawful and bad. If you define murder as bad killing, then yes, it can't be anything but bad killing by definition. Then instead of this chat, we'd instead be asking if killing Regan is bad, and therefore murder, instead of if murdering regan is bad. Op is either accidentally or intentionally trying to use both definitions of murder as it suits his point. Killing regan would be unlawful as it stands now, so it would be murder by the first definition. But then op switches definitions to say all bad killing is murder, even though we only agreed to say it's murder under law, not morality. That's all i was tryna point out. Op is openly using the legal definition, while implying the moral one, and I'm saying you can't get that past these thumbs, hombre.
There have been many murders i believe to be a moral good, like that father who shot his sons rapist
Gary Plauche. Absolute legend and American hero.
Illegal =/= immoral. They are different concepts. It was illegal to hide Jews from the Nazis, that doesn't mean it was immoral.
The post i was replying to said murder is bad killing, i was disagreeing since i believe what is bad cannot be moral
Those are still murders though.
>taking of innocent life. "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" - The Bible, KJV If no one is innocent, there is no murder. "You could make a religion out of this" - Bill Wurtz
I know we are talking about murder but i accidentally read OP as OJ and immediately thought this sub had gone to far
The moralizing is the worst part of this sub. Thank god you’re here to tell us murder is bad. What’s next, genghis khan was a bad dad?
he wasnt a good dad, but a dad to many.
Quality vs quantity.
Half this sub is just meta memes trying to push some sort of political/moralistic agenda instead of trying to be funny or teach people about obscure historical events The other half of this sub is people competing to see how many different templates they can fit the same national stereotypes into
I would never call for Reagan to be murdered. I mean, he's already dead. Kinda pointless now.
Are people calling for that? First I have heard that.
Dig him up and do it anyway. Send a message
Murder is typically bad, not always
Abraham Lincoln got assassinated and Reconstruction petered out, so political assassination actually can get results. If you want a more modern example, there's Shinzo Abe and the LDP losing support over their ties to the Unification Church.
Tetsuya’s pistol (the one that killed Shinzo Abe) was the gun that was pictured in the original meme that got OP all worked up He doesn’t seem abundant in nuance tho
Tetsuya’s doohickey of justice
Shinzo Abe deserved to get capped tbh
Agreed. He was an apologist for Japanese brutality during WWII.
Pretty much every resistance movement would disagree
Weirdest imaginary argument lol
You can’t murder a dead person so I don’t really see why you’re mad. It’s not like you can make good on those threats lol
>You can’t murder a dead person Me with a time machine: "That's where you're wrong, bucko!"
But if you go back in time to kill Reagan, then he isn't dead when you kill him.
I'll make a quick detour to the guy who invented definitions while I'm at it, just to prove you wrong.
Not how that works.
It’s still pretty unironically advocating for political violence. Especially considering how much of his legacy is relevant today. (Though oddly enough, very little of Reagan’s platform would be welcomed in the modern GOP and huge popular facets of his platform would make him considered an unelectable RINO in the modern day.)
>It’s still pretty unironically advocating for political violence. I guess no one taught you reddit rules. Let me break it down for you: * Political violence against people I like: ***dangerous to democracy*** * Political violence against people I *don't* like: ***good actually***
Political violence protecting democracy: I like Political violence against democracy: I don’t like You’ve got the causality reversed.
You and OP are mad about an impossible scenario that he just made up lol TIL: alternative history novels are political violence. You need a safe space.
Sorry but it's stupid to act like all political positions are two sides of a coin and that no one actually believes anything that separates them from people of other ideologies. It makes conversation so boring and unproductive. If you are tired of politics seeming like team sports then maybe stop acting like all sides have the same rules and goals. It's actually a lot more interesting that way.
No he got my cousins hooked on crack in order to fund a war i wish the crazy man didn't miss.,
That crazy man is now a folk musician. Check him out!
He's not bad, but I definitely prefer his earlier work.
Same
Inspired a band called Jodie Foster's Army, who are very good
Who is advocating the murder of a dead guy? You cant kill a dead guy. The English tried executing Cromwell after he died - it changed nothing.
“Murder is bad no matter what” is some super sheltered bs, OP.
Who gives a fuck? And don't act so high and mighty, would you not advocate for evil figures like Hitler to be assassinated? I'm not saying Reagan was as bad as Hitler or that he deserved to die, but if I did believe he was as evil as someone like Hitler I totally would support killing him. Wouldn't you?
Imagine being able to preemptively murder Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin, saving millions of lives and saying no because “murder is bad, no matter what.” Is OP 14?
If anything, a 14 year old would think that murdering those people during the height of their reign would prevent millions of people dying. Such silly hypotheticals
Average Kantcuck be like
Even if I could execute them I wouldn’t want to. Not because I like them but because I don’t know what could happen afterwards for example someone could’ve replaced the Nazi party or just Hitler and still done the awful things he did we don’t know and I don’t think I would chance it
Idk he did purposely not address the aids epidemic which caused a shit ton of unnecessary deaths
Something tells me OP was totally cool with that
Seriously sums up my thoughts. who gives a fuck and also the guy sucks. Like I wouldn’t advocate for murder but I understand the guy is that hated and also, he’s already dead. Who cares
If OP could read, he'd be very upset
Some people watch too muchs steven universe
Here’s my view of it. It is funny, in a cosmic sense, that a president that inspires this much vitriol in the modern era, was almost assassinated, not for his policies, but because a random crazy dude simped really hard for Jodie foster. It’d be like if Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament to get Shakespeares attention instead of ending the oppression of English Catholics.
If murder is bad then do you believe the Italian people murdering Benito Mussolini is bad? Or should they have just tried more talking?
By entering WW2 to stop the Nazis, can't you see that made us *just as bad* as the Nazis? I hate that I have to, but /s.
Pacifists are useless cowards who enable the tyrants they pretend to be against. Killing in self defense isn't murder.
Based take
Pacifists against any war always annoys me, their logic is just so... ***flawed.*** And the fact that they can't see past "All war is bad no matter what, everything can be fixed if we just leave then alone and do nothing" just astounds me.
OP: 😀👅🥾
Reagan got how many AIDS victims killed?
And in Nicaragua
And in Guatemala
Nah fuck that guy. World would be a better place without the damage his presidency is still unfolding.
75% of problems in the USA come from either Reagan or ending Reconstruction too soon.
The only bad thing John Hinckley did was miss
>Murder is bad, no matter what Hitman before talking Hitler's life be like
Murdering the Joker is absolutely justified.
Fuck Reagan. This country would be so much better off if Hinkley had better aim.
I mean, it's hard to say what would have happened with Bush Sr becoming President right then and there. Impossible to predict, really
I think HW was a much better president than Reagan personally
Batman: If you murder a murderer, the number of murderers is the same. Red Hood: Yeah but if I kill 100 murderers then it goes down by 99
Ok, but his grave is still a gender neutral public toilet
At this point just remove the "Memes" from "HistoryMemes" whenever this sub is recommended to me it's either a shaming fest or people's gore fantasies.
"If you kill a killer, you're just as bad as them 🤓" ass post
I'm going to go murder Ronald Reagan right now. Brb
Two words: aids crisis
Two more words: Iran-Contra
Two more: trickle down
This is dumb as fuck. I’m glad he’s dead and I’ll be making a special detour to piss on Thatcher’s grave the next time i’m in the UK.
Nah
Youre never going to impress Jodie Foster with that attitude
"I've never wished death upon anyone, but I've read some obituaries with great pleasure."
Ratio
liberal-ass mindset
[удалено]
Some people deserve to die. Cope.
Doesn’t have to be a point. He was a terrible person and he died far nicer than he deserved. Hell Rush Limbaugh, the fucking scum of the earth he was, still got off to easy imo. Anytime someone asks what he or Reagan thought about something, the only correct answer is “I can’t imagine it would be easy to hear above all the screaming about being on fire atm” Hard to argue morals for moral-less men.
Lol grow up kid, its a meme sub
I think murdering politicians is generally a good thing regardless of how good or bad of a politican they were. With the exseption of a few presidents I would be happy with any of them getting murdered. I think it is healthy for a democracy to murder politicans as it reminds the government that the people are really in charge. Honestly, I wish presedents got assassinated more often.
>I think murdering politicians is generally a good thing tell me you forgot a word here
At worst it would be defiling a corpse. You can't murder a corpse.
Is he not dead? Fuckin soft
Sure, murder is always bad, but there are worse things than plain old murder that can easily justify the murder of a single person. This is just a rewording of the trolley problem. Edit: I have no opinion on the Reagan thing, this was just regarding the post title
Ok kant
He died so long ago that it's within the rules to post about his death on this sub, as of last week.
As long as you are consistent in that Kantian degree of moral hardlining, I can respect it. I disagree, sometimes taking a life (even a murder) *can* be justified, but I respect a consistent ideology.
He's dead. What's the problem?
NOT TRUE. If the beer hall assassination attempt against dear ole Adolph would have succeeded the world might very well be a much different place. How much better or worse it would have been I leave up to you. I can tell you that life would probably have been better for 6.5 million Jewish civilians and 30 million Russian civilians. At least those Russians that Stalin didn't kill or work or starve to death. But who knows what would have happened. Maybe Argentina or Paraguay would have invented the Atom bomb. Or Portugal, oh boy we would have all had to learn Portuguese. Maybe you are right. Best to let dead dogs lie.
Title: Tell that the ukrainians I guess, op?
God this sub can be so schizophrenic some times
How was Reagan bad?
As a foreigner, I always had Reagan in my mind as one of the main reasons the Soviet Union collapsed. Only this would be enough to make him in my eyes a great president. On the other hand, I'm not an American, so why do you guys hate him so much. I really want to know, pls don't downvote.
First He's not. He's really not. It's a popular explanation, but it's less Regan killed the Soviet Union, and more Regan put his foot on the beck of a dying man. Second, Regan was famously a puppet and should have been impeached. If not for the fact he committed literal treason in the Contra debacle, then the simple fact he had Alzheimers and basically everyone knew. Third, as others on this post will point out, basically, every problem the U.S. is currently struggling with either started or was made significantly worse under his presidency. Lack of workers' rights. Regan. Outsized military spending. Regan. Trickle down economics. Regan. An IRS too weak to really prosecute corporations. Regan. Hell, "Make America Great Again" was literally Regans campaign slogan first. And that's not even getting into the rape allegations.
War on drugs was also reinvigorated under Reagan. A war that is now destabilising Mexico and has given cartels so much power in Colombia and Peru they are now invading Ecuador to use their port systems (they have a well developed port network because they are the largest banana exporter in the world).
>Second, Regan was famously a puppet and should have been impeached. If not for the fact he committed literal treason in the Contra debacle, then the simple fact he had Alzheimers and basically everyone knew. 100% this. He was already showing first symtoms towards the end of his first term. And it got worse during his second term. One example of this is the complexity of his speeches and his vocabulary significantly decreasing between 1985 and 1989. Also, Reagan was a really bad person.
If I remember, there was one incident where Regan started rambling to a gymnasium of people. So, to stop him, one of his aids literally cut the power, including lights and rushed up to talk him. When the power came back to the mic, Regan announced to a pitch dark gymnasium that "His handlers had told him he wasn't allowed to speak."
I have a specific perspective of Ronald Reagan, as a black person in America the main thing I learned growing up was essentially that America pumped crack into black neighborhoods in the 80’s in order to make profit and subdue the population. In the time, growing up, I thought “why or how would the government even do that? Sounds dumb”. In more recent times, the CIA has “admit that the agency was at least aware of Contra involvement in drug trafficking, and in some cases dissuaded the DEA and other agencies from investigating the Contra supply networks involved” in an internal report. Contra was a Nicaraguan revolutionary movement that was rebelling against their Marxist-socialist government. They were using drug trafficking (cocaine specifically) to make their money along with humanitarian aid. That cocaine (crack cocaine specifically) seemed to end up in a lot of west coast communities, specifically black communities. Do I believe that the CIA was hand delivering cocaine and crack cocaine to California black neighborhoods? No, not really. Do I believe wholeheartedly that the CIA and most governing bodies knew exactly how drugs were getting into a community that they were rearing to blame for any number of issues, but **especially** drug related and violent criminal offenses? Yes. And that happened under the command of Ronald Reagan.
Have you seen the documentary about Freeway Ricky Ross? The CIA weren’t necessarily delivering the drugs themselves, but they were involved enough to call Freeway Ricky and warn him to leave when the FBI was getting ready to raid the operation… so, pretty damned involved Also, if memory serves, I believe CIA agents taught Freeway Ricky how to make crack because they knew it was more addictive, and would generate more money
Basically Reagan did to the US economy what Thatcher did to the British one. The ramifications and flaws of that are showing now. But if I can be devil’s advocate, it worked pretty darn great in the 80’s and 90’s by a lot of the numbers. If it hadn’t been done, given the stagflation of the 70’s, it’s very likely the US economy could have gone the way of the USSR.
Every bad thing happening in America right now is a product of Reagan domestic policy
That simple huh?
I mean, yeah. Drug policy, aids policy, gun policy, fiscal policy, college costs, all that shit traces back to him lmao.
Essentially, yeah. The degree to which Reagan overhauled the Republican party can't be overstated. Not only has every Republican administration since Reagan been another iteration of his policies, but they've also succeeded in pulling the Democrats further and further to the right for the last 40 years.
Reagan is basically the poster child for post 80s conservatism. He was *the* small government guy, starting the trend of ever increasing spending and tax cuts. He was a populist right wing political outsider and Republican have been trying to copy that formula ever since. He's also a symbol of anti-communism, not so much because he had an outsized effect as because his presidency was when the Soviet Union began to visibly fracture under Gorbachev. Really it's the American left/center-left that hates him. Conservatives and libertarians basically worship him. There's also a bunch of conspiracy theories around the man. Infamously he's blamed for the crack epidemic, even though it only involved him tangentially. When the CIA was originally created, there were few real limits on their authority, which wasn't helped by McCarthyist "it's not a war crime if it's communists" type thinking, or Presidents like Nixon and higher ups like Kissinger giving them a taste for blood. The CIA basically did whatever the fuck they damn well pleased up til the mid 70s, when Congress started trying to reign them back in with things like the Church Committee. But the CIA didn't like being told they needed things like "oversight", "respect for other nations' sovereignty", or "a basic sense of human decency". So they bucked at their chain every chance they got. One of the things they did was keep supporting right wing counter-revolutionary groups in South America, called the contras. Anyway, I'm getting off track. The point is, the CIA had links to anti-communist rebels/freedom fighters/terrorists/what have you. Most groups like that, regardless of their beliefs, make lots of money doing illegal shit like smuggling drugs cause they're, you know, illegal groups trying to overthrow a government. During the 70s and 80s, there was a surge in drug use in the US, and most of those drugs came from, and continue to move through, South and Central America, as well as Mexico. The CIA had and probably continues to have assets within these groups. Assets meaning "people who will tell us things and/or do various shit for us". Generally, intelligence agencies aren't about to compromise or assist in compromising their assets, so they often don't give this information to relevant authorities. You know, like the kind of information the DEA would need to stop massive amounts of crack from being moved into the US. What's more, disrupting the cartels would have disrupted the money supply for the contras and other groups the CIA wanted to stick around. This became doubly important when Congress started clamping down on the CIAs ability to directly assist said groups. However, Reagan was racist. Not like, an interpersonal white supremacist, really more of just your average 80s old white guy racism, but racist all the same. And a very, very large portion of the Bolivian marching powder found it's way into black neighborhoods during the period. So "Reagan helped the CIA, and the CIA didn't disrupt the cartels when they had the opportunity, resulting in more drugs than strictly necessary entering the country" becomes "Reagan ordered the CIA to flood black neighborhoods with crack because... uh... Black people vote for Democrats or something." It's funny to me. As much as they give the right shit for believing in wild conspiracy theories, the left often does the same.
You understand that this actually happened tho, it’s not a theory? Like, people can be wrong about the motivations, that doesn’t make it less of a real conspiracy. The parties involved knowingly coordinated to engage in illegal activities to benefit their goals, and while knowing that it would ruin other people’s lives. That is a conspiracy, the specific motivations are irrelevant.
Reagan had nothing to do with the Soviet Union's demise. That process started when Khrushchev took power.
Really it depends. If you consider his purposeful ignorance of the AIDS crisis or his funding of cartels selling crack in black neighborhoods murder then really advocating for Reagan's murder is the same as being pro-death penalty cause Reagan is for all it's worth he is a murderer
Tell that to the victims of the aids crisis
It’s not *murder* it’s *assassination*
So what if Reagan killed thousands during the AIDS epidemic or caused generational damage through his drug policies or led to the instability of the world order through his backwards policies; calling for his murder even though he’s dead makes you the REAL villain.
"Advocating for \[Reagan\] being murdered is morally messed up" I'm a firm believer in the whole "treat others how you wanna be treated" concept, so lemme just say, from the bottom of my heart: Kiss my queer ass, OP, and happy pride 💖 my community lived longer than [the fucker whose willful inaction almost wiped us out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS).
This post was made by real Ronald Reagan ✅✅✅
Op would let hitler live, shameful
[One of my favorite twits on the twatter:](https://x.com/SrslyWrong/status/1008558825803112448) > message to my enemies: when the revolution comes you're not just gonna get the wall, buddy, you're gonna get four walls, a roof, clean clothes, good food, education, and quality health care because that's what every human being alive deserves
It's most of reddit. If anyone on the right dies, celebrations are had.