Killing hitler and the nazis. Not just the top guys. Also the bottom layers of the system.
Killing is bad. But...its nazis.
Same also goes to all other dictators and their helpers. Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Putin, Assat, Lenin
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
54 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
33238 readers
1028 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
These control freaks keep popping up, and so we’ll have to do it again.
Yes. And maybe also rework all our democracys that its not one person with power* but a council like in switzerland and rework it that these kinds of people have no chance of ever poping up aka ENSURE THAT PEOPLE HAVE NO LIVING PROBLEMS aka make sure everyone has housing, food, water, education no matter how much money it costs. Oooh nooo that would hurt the shareholders. Nawww too bad. LETS HURT THEM MORE!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Surgery, especially on animals.
In any other context, someone cutting you open, slicing bits out or rearranging them, them sewing you shut would be considered horrific, but we do it because we know that the short term suffering out weighs the long term harm of not doing it. When you choose it for yourself it might not be too 'evil', but an animal would not understand, even if you know it will mean they get to live a long, happy life, free of the pain and suffering that issue would otherwise cause.
I bought a Pixel so could install a degoogle OS on the phone. This largely removed Google from my life.
Shame they're making that harder going forward by removing pixel specific info from the build tree
load more comments
(3 replies)
Tax. Noone wants their money to be taken away. But it's probably a good idea to have at least some government funded stuff.
I mean, corrupted administration aside, is it really even "evil" to fund a institution that forsee the development of your surrounding? If anything it's simply quid pro quo, and people who generally against any taxation is always fishy to me.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I might be wrong but I think people would gladly pay 50% of their income as tax if it meant they would get their basic needs met and see the money be put to a good use. Imagine getting just half your pay but be able to fully use it on whatever you want and not have to worry about food and rent. Or at least that's what I'd like to believe.
The tax being on your income and not entirely on corporations always felt like a fairly biased distinction. If companies paid the entire income tax long before it got to you, and you were simply paid ~2/3rds as much, I feel like people’s opinions would be different despite not much changing.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
For the general masses that lack fucking brain cells. Some people actually comprehend the value of society and central public resources and WANT their money collectively put to good use.
Polarization is causing a lot of people to doubt that the collective money actually will be put to good use. In a lot of places (like my country, Israel) they're damn right, it's not.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Prison seems the obvious one. It's obviously (to me, that is) not desirable to deprive anyone of their freedom, but for persistently violent people I don't think there's a better solution, unfortunately.
I agree that separating people who do not abide by the contract of society is necessary, but I think we (America) are wrong to make it a punitive experience. Separate them and let them live their lives as comfortably as they can. Causing additional suffering does not seem to be necessary.
Currently trying to lock up as many of the populace all the numbers show cause less crime. At some point we are going to have to question if there is a higher percentage of psychopaths out of prison than in.
Edit: note, a large group of people would say "we need to lock up more people to solve it" and a large group of people would say "we need to let out all the not-psychopaths who aren't a threat to society and then only arrest those who are a threat". And somehow both would think they were humane. And propoganda would role out to convince the first group they should lock up the second group. Because compassion or empathy is a threat
Agreed. I don’t even believe in free will, so prison makes even less sense to me - in the sense that we’re punishing people for doing something they couldn’t not have done. That said, I have no doubt that the fear of imprisonment acts as a deterrent - at least to some extent. And just because someone can’t help themselves doesn’t mean they should be allowed to roam free, harming others.
Ideally, we’d place people like that on a private island with no one to harm, where they could still live a good life. But since that’s not realistic, prison it is. I still think prisoners should be treated well, no matter the crime. Punishment itself doesn’t make much sense to me - but the fear of punishment does. And that fear isn’t credible unless we follow through.
I've been meaning to read some stuff about how to approach criminal justice if we don't have free will, but I keep reading other stuff instead. So many books, so little time!
I still think prisoners should be treated well, no matter the crime.
Yes, absolutely. Even for the worst of the worst, their should be rehab attempts, whether it's anger management, getting them away from gangs - whatever it is they need. I think there are only small numbers of people, if there are any at all, who are really irremediably violent and dangerous, but even for them I'm not exactly happy about putting them away indefinitely.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I remember listening to an episode of hardcore history about capital punishment, it detailed public executions throughout the ages, and the takeaway is this:
You could literally publicly rip people limb from limb with horses and rope, people are still going to steal, assault, and rape.
If seeing someone getting skinned alive isn't enough of a deterrent, I don't know why prison would be.
Sure, but the fact that fear of punishment doesn't deter everyone, doesn't mean it doesn't deter anyone. Good example from my own life would be speeding; the fear of losing my license is the main reason I don't do it.
Sure, but I wouldn't exactly categorize speeding as an 'evil' act - just reckless.
But then there are malicious crimes. These kinds of crimes are driven by motivations which regularly transcend punishment.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Necessary for what? The word necessary implies a goal. Evil also implies a religious type objective morality. I don't think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.
I don’t think though, that for the goal of living a happy life, any harm is theoretically necessary.
Whose happiness are we talking about? Surely if one person's happiness conflicts with someone or something that already exists, they can't both have happiness and harmlessness. (Also, what are you considering harm? Just harm to people? What about animals? Plants? The planet as a whole?)
Modern human life is inherently very harmful to a wide range of things.
load more comments
(1 replies)