Just reposting this excellent point from lemmygrad

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 53 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (3 children)

Edit: A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

We now have literal “Soviets were godless barbarians” arguments. The revolution is never perfect enough, is it? Wish there was a time machine to send people back to moralize about doing what needs to be done and Christian moral goodness to the leaders of a nascent revolution being ruthlessly attacked on all sides. I’m going to reserve my tears for the thousands of dead Jews and millions of starving and dying peasants.

Maybe we can have a struggle session over dead teenage Nazis from WWII next time.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I don't like this. While it was probably necesarry to kill the royal family to avoid a counter-revolution or a government-in-exile, that does not mean we should make death, murder or the fear of those about to be murdered into something to laugh at.
    Yes the Tzar was a murderous bastard encouraging pogroms and generally just a guy who got off easy, this photo doesn't really convey that to me. It seems like it's just laughing at something awful that happened to a family. Did the family deserve it? Yes. That doesn't mean we should make the act into something funny. Violence is necessary, but it shouldn't be glorified.
    I don't think it's a black & white thing, but this image crosses my line anyway. Feels wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 19 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The difference is that we are here depicting actual people that was in this actual situation as crying wojaks and the guy who shot them as the yes-chad. It's pretty clear the intent is to ridicule and glorify.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    I think stuff like pit is fine because 1. It's a Nazi and 2. It's not a real person. I think barbara-pit is fine because it was a bunch of partisans getting retribution during wartime. They had no time or resources for a fair trial and they knew the people they executed anyway, so the evidence was pretty clear.

    I think the reason that image crosses my line is because it depicts a traumatic event that happened to actual people, and some of those people didn't really have the agency to do anything else. I'm not sad the Romanovs are dead, and I think the overthrow and owning of a doofus failson named Nicky is something that should be celebrated, but I just don't think that justifies mocking people in their last moments. Had things been different then some of them might've gotten the Puyi treatment, it's sad that that wasn't possible. I'm not losing any sleep over it - they are caviar as their people were starving and dying at the front - but that doesn't mean I think it should be turned into an object of ridicule.

    It reeks of aesthetic communism. Like some chuds support the USSR because they think the holodomor was real and they think it was a good thing. They just like cool mosin nagant, human wave death machine, lol kill people. That's what that image reeks of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    Aesthetic communism is when you support the actual, real life actions of an actual, real life revolution.

    I think stuff like pit is fine because 1. It's a Nazi and 2. It's not a real person.

    I know a bunch of dead Nazis in a pit that would disagree with that second statement.

    I think barbara-pit is fine because it was a bunch of partisans getting retribution during wartime.

    Sounds very similar to Russia in 1918

    Maybe it’s a response to the 100 years of liberals sobbing their hearts out for a murdering pogroming failson and his murdering pogroming family.

    But no, I just like killing people. That’s it.

    I don’t want to be hostile but I’ve got years of disingenuous libs grinding my patience down

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    Comrade, no reason to interpret this in the worst possible way. This wasn't meant as an insult to you or an attack on you.
    Reducing this to me saying "the soviets were bad, their revolution was bad" is incredibly bad faith, or at the least incredibly reductive.
    I'm sorry I've made you feel as though I think you think killing is good. It was not my intention, though I struggle to see how I created that experience

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    While it was probably necesarry to kill the royal family to avoid a counter-revolution

    Gestures broadly at the Russian Civil War that happened anyway.

    Here's a rule for those of you at home, don't machine gun kids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 17 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    There are still Stuart and Bonapartist pretenders, the presence or absence of heirs isn't what determines if you have an armed Royalist insurrection against you, as evidenced by the fact the civil war continued long past the murder of the royal family.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 13 points 3 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago* (20 children)

    That arguments even worse, it takes it from "killing the kids solves a current problem" to "killing the kids may solve possible future problems", and if that's the standard, then it's never not justified killing kids, as you can always posit some possible future where some kid is going to cause issues.

    Say what you will about the CPC but at least they correctly realized that Pu-Yi didn't need to eat a bullet to head off any issues, and that was even after he collaborated with the Japanese.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • load more comments (19 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 22 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    At first I wasn't going to upvote but I have to give props for kicking off a struggle session over the Romanovs lenin-laugh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Tune in next week for the Hexbear pity parade for veterans

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    It’s about time for that, don’t you think?

    I am so tired chomsky-yes-honey

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago*

    I don't get people that say they miss pre-federation, because these were the pre-federation vibes to me. People willfully misinterpreting another user, assuming the worst and digging their heels in, in order to score a dunk on a fellow leftist. There's no libs in this thread and we're still fighting.

    In these situations in my experience it helps a lot to use "I statement" rather than "you". So instead of saying "you're reducing my argument to saying 'killing kids is good'" then saying "I feel frustrated, because my argument has been reduced to that of 'killings kids is good'". It's basic I know, but it does a lot for keeping hostility low.

  • source
  • parent