Just reposting this excellent point from lemmygrad

  • 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
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          political necessity

          Just because people stomp up and down about ‘political necessity’ doesn’t actually conjure that ideological abstraction up into material reality. China didn’t machine gun Pu Yi and incidentally, their communist party is still running the show. I don’t know how difficult it is not to machine gun a 13 year old, and no amount of “you made me do this” are going to change the fact that we’re the ones making the (erroneous) decision to machine gun 13 year olds.

          Kind to people, ruthless to systems, folks.