127
rule (lemmygrad.ml)

Just reposting this excellent point from lemmygrad

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 year ago

This, I agree with. It's easier to judge from a current perspective when not facing that danger. I do think it is important to maintain the context though, as you pointed out, the children were victims of the same system and should be treated as such. Just because an act was monstrous does not mean it may but have been necessary. And just because an act was necessary does not mean that it was not monstrous.

[-] Egon@hexbear.net 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think I take issue with the choice of calling the act monstrous. It was both necessary and understandable, while we can be detached from emotion, that family sat at the top of a system that had plagued people for centuries. Expecting cold rationality, especially in those conditions, is silly.
I don't think a monstrous act can be necessary.

[-] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think, as you mentioned elsewhere, this is such a situation where it's not black and white. The family had been a true blight on the people and could not be allowed to continue their rule. You are absolutely correct in that expecting cold rationality is a mistake humans are emotional creatures (something that I've had to get comfortable with myself). To me, killing a child will always be a monstrous act and being found necessary or understandable doesn't change that.

[-] Egon@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago

Fair enough, good point.

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
127 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13551 readers
754 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS