That’s the wall the Russian royal family was executed in front of. Those are bullet holes in the photo. Two of the Romanovs were underage children at 13 and 17 years of age when they were executed by the communists. In hexbear world this is fine because they may have hypothetically formed a counter revolution against the communists if they were allowed to live. They’re not wrong that this may have happened, they’re just dickheads for rationalizing why it’s ok to murder children.
And who are the transphobes? Everyone who doesn’t agree with everything they say. That spider-syndicalist (who can’t spell anarcho-) in that thread is right to be worried, they will repeat those same “mistakes” as the “mistakes” are baked into the core of them.
Wow, pretty disturbing considering that on Hexbear I stated that in very particular about supporting each individuals prefered he or she or them pronouns, but I draw the line at neopronouns, and at that point they decided I was a mega transphobe anyway.
Not that there’s any chance of any of these basement dwellers getting real power, but eye opening to the radicalization that can happen in online echo chambers.
17 isn’t really a child, I must point out. Wars have been started by 17 year-old rulers. It’s more unforgivable that the daughters and son of the Tsar had done nothing worthy of death, unlike the Tsar and Tsarina, than their youth.
I mean, to a degree. I accept that collateral damage includes child death, as in with the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2 which targeted industrial areas (not supporting the terror bombing campaigns - those were murder, plain and simple). I also accept that the difference between a 17 year-old death camp guard and 18 year-old death camp guard is so small as to be practically worthless.
Age modifies responsibility, it isn’t a simple boolean for culpability. We would regard, and rightly so, a 10 year-old as having little-to-no capability for realistic moral responsibility. But how responsible is a 16 year-old who takes up arms to murder Jews? The answer, I would say, is not the same ‘Nil’ I would say about a 10 year old.
If Anastasia had knowingly given orders to shoot down protesting workers, I would be entirely onboard with executing a 17 year-old royal, within the context of an unsteady revolution before the information age. She did no such thing, nor was she ever even in a position to do any such thing. As such, the crime in murdering the 17 year-old Tsarevna Anastasia was predominantly not of her age, but that she, personally, had done nothing wrong, unlike the Tsar and Tsarina.
On the other hand, the crime in murdering the 13 year-old Tsarevich Alexei was predominantly his age, as, though he also was entirely innocent, even if he was guilty it would not be reasonable to hold him to a standard which merited the possibility of death for his moral transgressions.
I don’t get it, can someone explain ?
That’s the wall the Russian royal family was executed in front of. Those are bullet holes in the photo. Two of the Romanovs were underage children at 13 and 17 years of age when they were executed by the communists. In hexbear world this is fine because they may have hypothetically formed a counter revolution against the communists if they were allowed to live. They’re not wrong that this may have happened, they’re just dickheads for rationalizing why it’s ok to murder children.
Thanks, but what does it have to do with transphobia ?
Nothing, they are crazy.
I think they’re saying they won’t execute everyone from the west when they get to power, just the transphobes
And who are the transphobes? Everyone who doesn’t agree with everything they say. That spider-syndicalist (who can’t spell anarcho-) in that thread is right to be worried, they will repeat those same “mistakes” as the “mistakes” are baked into the core of them.
the first “get” is “understand this joke”
the second “get” is “have this happen to them”
Wow, pretty disturbing considering that on Hexbear I stated that in very particular about supporting each individuals prefered he or she or them pronouns, but I draw the line at neopronouns, and at that point they decided I was a mega transphobe anyway.
Not that there’s any chance of any of these basement dwellers getting real power, but eye opening to the radicalization that can happen in online echo chambers.
Royalty always travels separately for that very reason though.
17 isn’t really a child, I must point out. Wars have been started by 17 year-old rulers. It’s more unforgivable that the daughters and son of the Tsar had done nothing worthy of death, unlike the Tsar and Tsarina, than their youth.
Can you go into more detail what you mean? it sounds like you’re fine with child death.
I mean, to a degree. I accept that collateral damage includes child death, as in with the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2 which targeted industrial areas (not supporting the terror bombing campaigns - those were murder, plain and simple). I also accept that the difference between a 17 year-old death camp guard and 18 year-old death camp guard is so small as to be practically worthless.
Age modifies responsibility, it isn’t a simple boolean for culpability. We would regard, and rightly so, a 10 year-old as having little-to-no capability for realistic moral responsibility. But how responsible is a 16 year-old who takes up arms to murder Jews? The answer, I would say, is not the same ‘Nil’ I would say about a 10 year old.
If Anastasia had knowingly given orders to shoot down protesting workers, I would be entirely onboard with executing a 17 year-old royal, within the context of an unsteady revolution before the information age. She did no such thing, nor was she ever even in a position to do any such thing. As such, the crime in murdering the 17 year-old Tsarevna Anastasia was predominantly not of her age, but that she, personally, had done nothing wrong, unlike the Tsar and Tsarina.
On the other hand, the crime in murdering the 13 year-old Tsarevich Alexei was predominantly his age, as, though he also was entirely innocent, even if he was guilty it would not be reasonable to hold him to a standard which merited the possibility of death for his moral transgressions.
They’re basically saying that it was necessary to kill the children of Nicholas II