Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post
Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post
I think you missed my point. It sounds like to me that you are arguing that “we the people” so to speak are supposed to be doing things to change society for the better by acting as a collective fire break, and people like Musk and Mao are examples of us not doing enough?
The person you responded to is making the point that people don’t rise up to correct certain problems in society (as an example of where the will of the people regardless of lip service is not carried out), and your answer is to provide a list of people who didn’t/haven’t died by the will of the people and who go out of their way (or did) to prevent the will of the people from being actualized.
I’m also inclined to think, after reading this entire comment thread that you might be barking of the wrong tree because both arguments have merit.
A lot of people at one time thought it was perfectly fine to own slaves. To perform public executions. To remove children from their parents to Catholicize and colonise them.
There are a lot of examples in history where most people have agreed to some truly horrific and entirely unethical stuff because it benefitted them personally regardless of the detriment to others, especially minorities.
On the other hand I do agree that change needs momentum and that needs people. No one person is an army, and no ethical change happens without that time and momentum made up of people.
Fuck, you Tankies sure like to ramble. It’s like you forget you’ve already lost all credibility before you post full page comments.
I’m not a Tankie. This right here is exactly what I expected.
I’m trying to bridge the gap between the two arguments being made in this thread.
The masses have to have an avenue to make change and decide ethics. People like Mao and Stalin and Musk and so on deliberately go out of their way to circumvent those avenues.
Eventually that leads to a pressure cooker of violent action because diplomacy has failed.
Either way, Ethics informs law, they aren’t two mutually exclusive entities.
You’re sounding an awful lot like a Mao apologist right now.
And if Mao could see what China has become he’d off the whole party.
Oh hey look at this totally-not-a-tankie worshipping big strong daddy Mao Zedong. Pathetic.
One of us is acknowledging that the current Chinese Communist party is not Maos party nor is it holding up to his ideals, and pointing out that he was a mass murdering psycopath. The other one either needs a history lesson and a social studies lesson, or is so intent on being an asshole that they speak before they think.
Mao’s party is still in charge today. Mao’s party killed landlords and starved millions when it started, and empowered Trump and Putin to starve and wage war on millions to this day. Nothing has changed.
You don’t get to have it both ways.
If saying Mao would try to mass murder a Communist party that has changed course on most of his directives is Tankie talk intent on lauding him, then saying he’s so potent that even after death his party is still in lock step with him is definitely lauding him and sounds like Tankie talk. Pick a lane, troll.
It makes perfect sense when you realize there is no sanctity of human life in the eyes of Tankies and that their brand of communism™ is and has always been bullshit propaganda.
There are a whole lot of people saying that group ethics has created a lot of horrible fallout and loss of life over human history and then there’s you with your made up perfect democracy that doesn’t exist and hasn’t really remotely existed since like the Athenians (and even then they had a fucking slave class), at least partially due to the logistics of scale, and the horrible selfishness of the general population, and then there’s you suggesting that we’re tankies because you can’t wrap your head around that fact that people disagree with you not because they are communist apologists, but because they see a fundamental flaw in your argument that the will of the people is the best ethical barometer.