Just reposting this excellent point from lemmygrad

  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      The children might not have deserved it at all even if it were needed. I would argue that the Bolsheviks made the correct decisions even if it wasn’t “deserved” simply by virtue that they would have posed a threat for the rest of their lives

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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

              • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

                • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I guess it’s because that’s usually implied whenever a critique of the Romanov execution.

                  And I don’t mean to imply that you’re against the Soviets, I just find calling the execution “aesthetic communism” anathema.

                  I think talking about “killing” in a vacuum is meaningless. I’m sure most people would be against it in the abstract, but I think killing monarchs in a revolution is a justifiable action. I don’t feel insulted by anyone saying I support the Romanov execution, because that would be true, but by the implication that I support killing for the sake of it. It’s hard not to read that into the last paragraph of the comment I replied to. I certainly don’t think it takes bad faith to interpret it that way.

                  With the whole federation thing, it’s really hard to tell between genuine criticisms and liberals concern trolling. I’m sorry for the initial reaction.

                  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    And I don’t mean to imply that you’re against the Soviets, I just find calling the execution “aesthetic communism” anathema.

                    I don’t think the execution was aesthetic communism.
                    I dislike the picture you posted, and I tried to put into words why I felt it crossed my line. One of the reasons for that was that it gave me the vibe of being something an aesthetic communist would like - I don’t know if you’ve ever met the type, but they’re kinda weird. They’re stalinists because of western propaganda, not in spite of it. I can see how my phrasing made it seem like I was accusing you of being such a type, and that was not my intent. I’m sorry.

                    I think talking about “killing” in a vacuum is meaningless. I’m sure most people would be against it in the abstract, but I think killing monarchs in a revolution is a justifiable action. I don’t feel insulted by anyone saying I support the Romanov execution, because that would be true, but by the implication that I support killing for the sake of it. It’s hard not to read that into the last paragraph of the comment I replied to.

                    I agree on the first part, I’m sorry about the second part.

                    With the whole federation thing, it’s really hard to tell between genuine criticisms and liberals concern trolling. I’m sorry for the initial reaction

                    I get it, though I also experienced this before federation (new account now, who dis?) and saw it happen as well. Wether it’s wreckers or libs, we end up being on edge, and then this happens. It’s regrettable but it is what it is. Thanks for your apology about your initial reaction.

    • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh, I disagree. The kids didn’t deserve it but it was necessary as they would have served the counterrevolution for the rest of their life’s and would have been a rallying call by the reactionaries

        • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Having royal family members can provide some legitimacy to the insurrections. They didn’t know what was going to happen, only that the kids being gone may prevent an issue in the future and I would have agreed with them. The Bolsheviks were right on this instance

            • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t want to pull the “I’m a statistics professor card”, but I’m literally a statistics professor so unless I see an integral over a sample space in the denominator I don’t want to hear about likelihood, and especially not when someone’s half-baked narrative of possible possibilities gets treated as meaningfully bearing on that likelihood.

                  Like are we just throwing that word around or is their some objective method that apparently everyone else knows about for now to compute these probabilities and arrive at these conclusions.

                  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah it’s called guesstimating janet-wink

                    There’s no way to objectively calculate the worth of an innocent person’s life anyway, so you can’t really put it into a formal equation. Sometimes you just have to make decisions based on incomplete information, I don’t see what the problem is. It’s not like I want to kill kids, but if I evaluated that there’s a high enough chance that it could save a high enough number of lives, I’d pull the lever on that trolley problem 100%. What am I, a Kantian?

              • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Obviously the kids of a deposed ruler represents far more of an issue than regular children in a country. I seriously don’t think non-revolutionaries far after the event have a leg to stand on to critique the actions of the Bolsheviks from some Ivory Tower of morality. What happened was during a revolution and they were the children and heirs to the position of the sunpreme enemy

                • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Obviously the kids of a deposed ruler represents far more of an issue than regular children in a country.

                  Right it was some great great cousin of the Tsar that opened the Soviet Union up to the west leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union and not some hereditary nobody.

                  I seriously don’t think non-revolutionaries far after the event have a leg to stand on to critique the actions of the Bolsheviks from some Ivory Tower of morality.

                  I mean, they fail even a basic “ends justify the means” test given that Russia is currently a hyper-capitalistic dystopia so yeah, I don’t think my critique of the path they set down is in fact ill-posed.

                  Capital, in all it’s algorithimic and anti-humanistic glory is the supreme enemy, not some guy wearing a funny hat in a bunch of medals . The french killed their funny hat guy and 10 years later they had an Italian in an even funnier hat running things, so this notion that we can just kill our way into socialism by executing certain lineages seems a bit daft.

                  • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Saying that I am promoting “killing our way to socialism” is patently dishonest. I am stating that the Bolsheviks took out an easy path to anti-revolutionary activity and stopped the flower of evil from flowering. I don’t wish to have a conversation if you are going to misrepresent what I said by claiming that I want to “kill our way to socialism”

            • Chapo0114 [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Having royal family members can provide some legitimacy to the insurrections.

              Are we idealists with a great man view of history now? Do we think these symbols actually hold real power to sway a insurrection’s success one way or the other?

              • SixSidedUrsine [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m just making sure we’re all on the same page about not machine gunning children.

                I’m honestly shocked that this even has to be said here, let alone that apparently so many really aren’t on the same page that machine-gunning children is both wrong and unjustifiable.

                • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Eh, I know it’s a minority position on the left but that’s why it’s a drum I beat every time it comes up. Unironically forced me back into religion when I realized that leftist politics without axiomatic moral grounding results in disaster.

                  Now I go to leftist meetings to avoid being useless and Quaker meeting to avoid being terrible.

                  • SixSidedUrsine [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t know, if the marxists or anarchists I work with irl ever said that kind of shit, I wouldn’t work with them anymore (and we have discussed the topic). Simple as a that. Personally, I’m an atheist and haven’t come up against any contradictions between my leftism and my morality or humanism. But if religion is what it takes for people to recognize that killing kids because of some hypothetical future scenario is wrong and will never be justified, then I say keep the churches full.

            • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                21
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not looking to sour relations and am not going to take your position on the matter personally, and it’s not that you stoked this argument, it’s that I’m actively evangilizing a humanism first leftism. I think as soon as machine gunning kids enters into the political toolkit, regardless of what problems it resolves, we’ve lost the plot. Whatever nuance you want to inject into the scenario is fine, but at the end of the day it does boil down to you thinking that under certain circumstances it’s acceptable, so I don’t think I’m unfairly characterizing your position at all.

                  • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It doesn’t seem to me like you’re evangelizing a human first leftism. It seems to me like you’re reducing a complex argument to “you’re celebrating the killing of kids, and you think kids should be killed” you’ve compared it to the dropping of atomic bombs on two cities.
                    Again I’d sincerely urge you to read Robespierres arguments against king Louis. It is not a question of punishing an individual, but eradicating a system. Those children existed as parts of that system, and would in most circumstances always exist as that. Pretending like the fear of counter-revolution being fomented once again decades later around the figure of a royal heir as some statistical unlikelyhood, is absurd when we can see exactly that having happened throughout history. As you said yourself there are still bonapartists, orleanists and the like. There’s no romanovists. While the orleanists are ridiculous now, they did previously and successfully lead a counter revolution. The bonarparists did as well.
                    In this sense the fear of the children becoming some later legitimising fixpoint for reaction is not some person “peering into the future”, it is us peering into the past. Those children did nothing wrong, but by virtue of the system they were at the top of, they would forever be threats to the USSR. In this way those children were as much a victim of the system as anyone else dying senselessly.

                  • supplier [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    literal infanticide becomes a political necessity as a product of MONARCHY

                    If they wanted their children to be safe, then they should not have forced them to be the sole inheritors of a brutal dictatorship

                • a_blanqui_slate [none/use name, any]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The notion that anyone can peer into the future and see all the possible outcomes to a sufficient degree of certainty to claim that the only possible outcome is to kill the kid is also very silly and Madeline Albrightesque.

                  • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    We can be absolutely certain that the possibility of reinstating the monarchy would be very bad for lots of Jewish children. It’s terrible, but Tsar Nicholas shouldn’t have created a situation where he made the existence of his family so dangerous for everyone else.

                  • rjs001@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The only possible outcome? No, it wasn’t the only possible outcome but still a quite probable one. Maybe it wouldn’t have been needed but it was still justified as they could have posed a threat to the rwvolution

    • RunningVerse [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ah it’s about that… Yeah death for me will always be a last resort. Because if it’s glorified then we will be no better. We use death as a last ditch to resolve Contradictions.