901
Bang!
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2026
901 points (98.8% liked)
Memes
17136 readers
584 users here now
Post memes here.
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.
- Wait at least 2 months before reposting
- No explicitly political content (about political figures, political events, elections and so on), !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca can be better place for that
- Use NSFW marking accordingly
Laittakaa meemejä tänne.
- Odota ainakin 2 kuukautta ennen meemin postaamista uudelleen
- Ei selkeän poliittista sisältöä (poliitikoista, poliittisista tapahtumista, vaaleista jne) parempi paikka esim. !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
- Merkitse K18-sisältö tarpeen mukaan
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
It absolutely does. Absolutely disgusting the number of times I have to read in this community that it's okay to kill because of blah blah blah. Horrible people! You are all horrible people for supporting such an anti-life mindset!
Bang!
Just so I understand your argument:
Killing is morally wrong.
Therefore, anyone who kills is morally equivalent to anyone else who kills, regardless of motive, scale, necessity, or circumstance.
So killing a mass murderer makes you just as bad as the mass murderer.
Is that your position?
you are joking, right?
I'm not. Do you even have an argument?
you could start by opening a history book and realize progress is never reached outside of power structures with a credible threat of violence. do you seriously think we should not have executed the rest of the top nazis after ww2? edit: typo
Yes I think we should not have killed them. What an easy way out for them...
More so I think, if we're not fostering a culture of killing again we might get over it completely some days.
But obviously you guys here don't like that, feels too good to be full of anger and hate wa? 😅
Until another group comes around promising to kill all the peace lovers.
Fine, you only capture and don't kill the evil killers. Some "learn their lesson", others only pretend to. If you release them, some will come back with a vengeance. If you keep them imprisoned, you're treating them like animals/slaves.
That is assuming everyone plays by the rules.
As it turns out, some particular people have turned playing outside of the rules as much as possible and as cruely as possible into a sport.
They won't be corrected by the rules. They won't be persuaded by common human decency. Quite the contrary even, they actively and aggressively lean into the opposite direction.
Now it's against the rules to derail a train. But how much more tragic would it be not to do so if that train is about to run into a hospital?
That of course being a lazy metaphor but I think my point stands.
Death penalties, war crimes, ... all things that are suposed to be accepted as par for the course. But for the elite...oh no, that's a finger waggin.
Killing is wrong, but it is most definitely not a monochrome issue.
No. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and we as a society have found many ways to deal with them without killing them.
I'm not arguing against justice.
I'm just saying, that, on a fundamental level, it is never okay to kill another person or make up stupidly simplified metaphors to justify killing.
It's dehumanizing brain rot and if you guys can't see that you're really not much better than the made up devils you wish to kill.
"No. Criminals by definition do not play by the rules and we as a society have found many ways to deal with them without killing them."
Have we? Because last time I checked we still have genocides going on without as much as a slap on the wrist.
Yes we have and when you look at the last century you will see a lot of progress.
What I understand of your comment, based on the context of the post, is, that because things are bad it's okay for us to be bad as well. That's really the easiest way to fool yourself.
What I'm led to understand from your comments is that you'd be an Ed Sheeran fan. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You consider someone anti-life because they refuse to stand by idly while someone kills others?
Do you hold this view consistently, such that you consider police stopping a mass shooter to be "anti-life"?
Or do you pick and choose which murders are acceptable to intervene in?
No. I consider someone anti-life that argues killing is basically okay if you think it's okay. It's a made up comic and not one of us really knows what the bad guy did.
But the tone in this comment section feels more like: yeah sure killing others is totally fine if we just find a reason to feel good about it. Wtf? What low level trigger would be okay for you to kill another person without feeling bad?
I'm not the police on a specific mission and I'm not in a country where we have mass shooting. But even in this case I would argue that we badly need to find ways to prevent mass shooting instead of being okay with killing the shooter.
As for crime in general... The more civilized society is the one without the death penalty.
Dehumanizing imaginary people and ease of mind with it, that's what's happening here.
The point of the comic is that many stories in comics and other media try to introduce a last-minute moral dilemma in which the good guy stopping a bad guy is made out to be as bad as the bad guy. Often it's a lazy mechanism that doesn't work from a writing standpoint because the reader/viewer has experienced the entire story solely from the protagonist's POV, empathizing with and seeing the victims of the 'bad guy', and never the bad guy's view, and suddenly asking them to empathize with the 'bad guy' at the last moment with this lazy argument doesn't actually work. That's what this comic is about.
But the reason this is likely resonating with more people right now outside of commentary on literary tropes, is that people are experiencing a world in which many governments have broken the social contract to execute justice fairly and protect their populaces, and sided with companies and wealth-holders in allowing them to harm said populace. Given that backdrop, and recent reactions by billionaires and CEOs (e.g. Flock's CEO's recent call for "compromise" in which he gets to keep surveilling people), this comic may feel for many people very personal.
Sure, but that is dodging the question of whether you accept that killing someone may be necessary to prevent them harming others.
I agree 1000%, because a government can never be trusted to actually serve the interest of its constituents. It will always be pulled towards accumulating and protecting power. That's the nature of Authority.
Ultimately, you can't claim to believe in preserving life above all else if you refuse to stop something that is threatening life. The "pro-life" reaction to a Hitler is not to refuse to intervene in a Holocaust. You can personally choose not to take action, but you don't get to dictate to others when and what the line is between pro- and anti-life actions.