Just reposting this excellent point from lemmygrad

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the 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 (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* (15 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 17 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 years ago (5 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.

    That argument is completely absurd. Just because you can always posit some possible future where some kid is going to cause issues doesn't mean it's likely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (13 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 17 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Eh, I think it was necessary. I think the argument Robespierre made against Louis was also cogent for the Romanovs

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

    The notion that printed symbols on a paper can change whether or not you should machine gun kids is silly, please refer back to the previous rule.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 20 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I'm not asking you to feel bad that it happened, I'm just making sure we're all on the same page about not machine gunning children.

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

    How are we supposed to convince people of our vision of a better world if we can't even get the easy stuff like "don't murder children" down? Christ even the liberals have the sense to pretend to feel bad about drones strikes on weddings when pressed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (7 children)

    I also think murdering children is bad. I think the specific situation with royal family of a monarchy is significantly different. Reducing my opinion to "machinegun kids lol" strikes me as very bad faith.
    Either way I don't really think what you and I think of the murder of a royal family more than 100 years ago matters enough to get into an argument that can only sour relations. Seems unproductive. I apologise for making the mistake of stoking this argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [+] 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)