Lemdro.id

1 point

12 days ago

Because your rhetoric really only works if you know for a fact that Trump is a literal Hitler. We all know him to be a literal autocrat though

Lets see here… he’s constantly saying to mass deport all “illegal immigrants” and constantly demonizing them. Made statements about arresting all his poltical opponents, with miltary force if nessecary…

I dont know, i dont think the hitler guy every did any of those things…

report

[ - ]

Dasus@lemmy.world

4 points

12 days ago

Of course he did those things. He also breathed, shat and ate. Is everyone who breathes, shits and eats a Hitler?

I can name dozens of non-Hitlers who’ve done all the things you’ve said.

Did Harris run with “Trump is an actual Hitler” or “Trump is a dangerous fascist”?

Because if it’s the former, then rationally your argument is a strawman and needs to be amended before more rational conversation can take place.

report

[ - ]

1 point

12 days ago

Obviously there can only be one hitler… noone is saying “litterally hitler” as being absolute as thats impossible. Its merely saying “this person is so unhinged and is aiming to be dictator and commit atrocities of unbelievable proportions”

report

[ - ]

Dasus@lemmy.world

3 points

12 days ago

“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

But we’re not sure he will “commit atrocities of unbelievable proportions”.

He’s a demented reality TV-star, but his rhetoric is undeniably fascist and autocratic and he has a very clear history of lying and being extremely self-serving to the point of endangering both American and non-American lives with his ignorance and stupidity.

When Trump became president, he pretty much immediately gave Russia a list of top-US spies, who then started dying. He’s clearly dangerous, but is he “let’s murder a (more or less) democractically elected president elect of the United States”-dangerous? Should we just go and murder him, for the sake of justice and democracy? No. That would be like curing a headache with a bullet. Yes it would definitely work, but… it’s a bit disproportionate.

I’m not saying nothing should be done. I’m saying that straight up murdering someone without due process is a bit over-the-top.

report

[ - ]

3 points

12 days ago

Never said he should be murdered. Im strongly against the state having the power to kill anyone regardless of their crimes. However, he absolutely should have the book thrown at him for all his crimes, insurecctions, hate speech, election interference and whatever else that puts him behind bars for life.

Also, the nazis didnt start out with genocide. First there intention was to rid their problems by mass incarcerating their enemies. Sent them to labor camps for “reeducation”. But between the lack of giving a shit about their enemies and lack of resources to keep people alive, those camps quickly turned to death camps.

report

[ - ]

Dasus@lemmy.world

1 point

12 days ago

he absolutely should have the book thrown at him

That I will get behind 100%. Absolutely. I think there’s quite a lot to be done within a legal framework to make him face some consequences at least, as long as it’s not a total kangaroo court. Which a lot of these seem to have been, what with the oligarchy and corruption and whatnot.

Also, the nazis didnt start out with genocide.

No, they didn’t. We could talk all night about how some Germans would have insisted at the end of the war that they didn’t know shit about the death-camps or any killings for that matter. Would I have believed any? I doubt it. Would I have been so certain of knowing that they weren’t actually lying to me, that I could have taken it upon myself to serve justice on them? I don’t think so, no.

It’s easy to say that in hindsight, if you had the chance to stop the genocide of tens of millions of people by killing one creepy little Austrian dude who never did any good in his life, you would. But say for the sake of the argument that you right now get a weird time-machine just appear in front of, ready to take you to Braunau am Inn on April 20th, 1889. It also has several gadgets for you to use, rendering you functionally invincible and extremely powerful (so you can do whatever you fucking like without anyone being able to stop you, but not like God levels of power.)

Would you murder that baby Hitler? It’s easy to say “yes” if you don’t think about it all, but then at least history would change massively. Probably for the better, but perhaps not. As cold as it is, war did bring many advancements as well. Would you even be born, or would a paradox wipe you out if you tried changing anything? Without getting too deep into metaphysics, my point here is that you wouldn’t have absolute certainty about what would happen. Perhaps the best thing for humanity would be for you to try and influence Hitler (and/or history in general) more than just straight up murdering a baby?

The point is that you wouldn’t have the certainty, so it would be much harder to actually decide what to do, despite us now and here knowing that Hitler was mega-fucking evil and we would want to have been able to prevent the genocides of the 20th century.

A few videos that I thought of while writing this: Killing Hans Sprechter

And this Baby Hitler | DEADPOOL 2 Extended Scene | Ryan Reynolds

But yeah, that’s just the absolutes. People don’t function in absolutes. I think you make a valid point about some people sort of giving up a bit too much when people should be actually riling up and looking for what can be done about the Trump presidency, legally. But yeah, definitely throw the book, not Molotov cocktails.

report

[ - ]