You are arguing against killing Hitler. You’re right that this sounds stupid, because it is.
But your whole post is really beside the point: there are absolutely, positively, beyond any doubt politicians who could justifiably be assassinated. Set aside guesswork about how such an act would have played out – the act itself would obviously be justified. It would in no way make you worse than Hitler, or even anywhere near as reprehensible.
At this point your faced with 2 options. Assassination or choosing the lesser evil.
The most absurd false dichotomy I’ve seen in a while, nice.
“Honestly the first choice just makes you the greater evil.”
“Killing Hitler just makes you worse than Hitler” – outstanding logic. Literally everyone outside of hardcore pacifists would agree there are certain politicians that it is OK to assassinate.
I think you have a little of that, and a little of this showing that the giga-rich didn’t get that way because they are these perfect human multi-specialty geniuses like they all claim.
Sure, maybe they’re pretty bright in one or two areas. Many successful people are. But they also do real stupid, shortsighted shit like this all the time. They got as rich as they did not on merit, but on family wealth, luck, and exploiting the labor of others.
Roosevelt, believing Stalin was not serious, quipped that “maybe 49,000 would be enough.”
Gets me every time
Also worth noting that 50k represented a tiny fraction of the Nazi military – there were well over a million people under arms right up until the end of the war. So Stalin and Roosevelt were already talking about officers and units that did the worst atrocities, not some mass retribution against the bulk of the military itself.
It’s laughable to cry “whataboutism” when discussing international politics. Comparing how countries act in similar situations is one of the foundations of international law.
Which politicians, and what is your source for popular opinions in Hong Kong?
The ur-gooner
Love how you counter concrete, material facts like “guaranteed housing, employment, and childcare” with fact-free scare mongering like “political pressure” and “control over the media.”
There’s never any analysis about what this shit really means. “The fucking stasi” gets thrown out there like “the boogeyman” without even a thought towards how the U.S. security state violently repressed a nationwide movement against police violence in 2020, or how right now that same security state is violently repressing people protesting the genocide we’re supplying. You’re supposed to belive the stasi is the worst thing possible without ever digging into how it functioned, and certainly without asking how it compared to other states.
A new book by Kristen Ghodsee, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that women have better sex under socialism.
If that sounds strange to you, consider this: A survey of East and West Germans after reunification in 1990 found that Eastern women (the socialist side of Germany during the Cold War) had twice as many orgasms as Western women.
What in the world accounts for such a wide gap?
According to Ghodsee, it’s about social safety nets. If, she argues, you build a society that supports women and doesn’t punish them for having children or devalue their labor, it turns out they’ll be happier and have better sex.
But it doesn’t matter how many studies or surveys or policy differences you point to – some guy always has an old relative whose story outweighs everything.
Lmao well you sure don’t use the actual definition of genocide
[T]he ICJ ruled on Friday that it will not address whether Russia violated the 1948 Genocide Convention by using what Ukraine says were trumped-up genocide charges as a pretext for the war, even if the invasion may have violated international law broadly.
Instead, the case will proceed to assess whether Ukraine committed genocide in the eastern parts of the country, as Russia claims – a matter where judges ruled that they have jurisdiction.
massive fragile ego, frankly horrible, acting shitty, basic fucking table stakes
you come across as hostile
Go back to reddit
If you can take a moment to move your massive, fragile ego out of the way
Lmao do you think of yourself as a professional?
This will be something that’s derided as a wild conspiracy for 30 years until the CIA posts an old doc on their official website that confirms it matter-of-factly
On a more positive note, the time between speculation like this and hard proof emerging seems to be plummeting. Bushnell was not the only person inside the machine struggling with the consequences of his actions, so hopefully we get some leaks sooner rather than later.
What you’re doing here is interpreting any evidence as supportive of the conclusion you chose at the beginning. You’re making that conclusion unfalsifiable.
If Russia said he died of natural causes, you’d say they’re lying. Ukraine says the same thing, well this blood clot must be evidence of torture. Why Ukraine wouldn’t jump on that interpretation if it was at all plausible is left unanswered. If he was struck by lightning you’d say Putin used him to test a new superweapon.
So you didn’t read the first half of the headline, either!
He wasn’t killed, he died from a blood clot. Even Ukraine isn’t entertaining speculation that Russia killed him.
You’re saying Ukraine’s intelligence chief is wrong? Smdh just what a Russian bot would say
This is magical thinking. “If the enemy were to simply disappear, everything would be fixed.”
You have to engage with the reality of the situation.
I agree that Ukraine’s allies tanking immediate peace talks was criminal
And thats on record
Got a good link handy?
“Oh you think killing literally Hitler would be OK? Think again”