Stolen from reddit
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2025
939 points (99.6% liked)
Political Memes
9413 readers
4718 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean this dynamic is not only found on the right. Many Lemmings seem to be caught up in the same mode of thinking.
I hope we can all agree that people suffering and dying, in isolation, is bad. Obviously the implications of a death can vary widely and that’s where things get complicated. But the basic moral principle should be widely shared.
I think the current moral question society is wrestling with is along those lines. Something to the effect of, how removed from the outcome of a decision does one need to be in order to absolve themselves of responsibility for that outcome? Essentially, why is it OK for a CEO or a President to cause thousands of deaths by signing a piece of paper but not OK for that same person to go out and shoot those thousand people one at a time? The outcome is the same there's just more obfuscation along the way in the first case. The greed motivation seems to be the difference. The CEO isn't usually killing people because he wants them dead, he's doing it because he views them as acceptable casualties in his quest to make money.
Charlie Kirk is a great example of that phenomenon as well. He may not have directly shot anybody but he undoubtedly influenced people towards doing exactly that. To what degree should he bear the blame for their actions? He certainly didn't do it in complete ignorance of the possibility that people could die but does the separation from the actual crime make his actions morally acceptable? Does it make any difference if his motivations were money and power as opposed to bigotry and hatred?
To me, diffuse harm is very obviously just as bad, but it is more difficult to quantify and fix. Furthermore, these types of harms are not comparable to a mass shooter where the danger is ended by killing or capturing them. The harms are produced by systems. Does killing Charlie Kirk end the harms he committed or will the billionaires propping him up simply replace him with another identical mouthpiece?
Individual assassinations don’t usually solve systemic problems.