• DJDarren@thelemmy.clubEnglish
      361·
      11 months ago

      Thatcher was responsible for many societal ills, but she did at least provide a public, gender neutral toilet for all to use.

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
          14·
          11 months ago

          Piece of Shit Pie as the internet usually refers to him, was an office holder in the FCC appointed by then sitting US President Donald Trump in 2017. His most noticeable policy stances included a complete end to Net Neutrality regulations in the USA and to or from abroad, despite previously claiming that he didn’t think the board of unelected members had the authority to dictate it. Once he switched his stance to deregulation it would have had the effect of letting telecommunications companies and other intermediary ISPs decide what content or sources their users have access to: the internet as a whole to all US citizens could have been completely controlled by a small group of companies, their customers potentially seeing only what they want them to see and not having access or freedom to send or receive connections.

  • DJDarren@thelemmy.clubEnglish
    29·
    11 months ago

    Who’s the guy that looks like Elon Musk in lipstick, and who’s the guy above Epstein?

  • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
    18·
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand how Henry Kissinger was left to live peaceably and undisturbed his entire life when he was committing such atrocities for decades. Why were the masses not tar-and-feathering him and harassing him with a bounty on his head, trained assassins not pursuing him all these decades?

    • rurutheguru@lemmings.world
      61·
      11 months ago

      Because those are the types actions of people who use hate as a tool (same as Kissinger did). You can ask the same about Trump and why he hasn’t been assassinated yet (I know, apples and oranges). But what I’m trying to say is that people who are against such attrocities usually don’t prefer violence as a means to any end. Just my opinion on the matter.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.eeEnglish
    13·
    11 months ago

    I couldn’t remember the clowns name, but a quick search found one John Wayne Gacey.

    In a messed up way, it’s kinda fun to see how many people in the image you know the names of.

  • kboy101222@lemm.eeEnglish
    131·
    11 months ago

    Who’s the bowl cut guy on the right? I recognize everyone but him (sadly)

    Also damn, did not know about Confucius

    • rabbit_wren@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      20·
      11 months ago

      It’s the piece of human excrement that killed my friend and nearly all of her 1st grade students at Sandy Hook Elementary.

      • Zealousideal_Fox900@lemmy.world
        11·
        11 months ago

        I remember hearing about it on the news and I was in just… total shock for at least 10 minutes. I just stood there after hearing it on the news. It still spins my brain round how someone could be such an evil fuck.

    • vegantomato@lemmy.world
      143·
      11 months ago

      For the person that down-voted me, it is estimated that Mao was responsible for several times as many deaths as Hitler. Estimates range from 40 million all the way to 100 million people.

      You don’t have to be a Nazi to point out that ~100 million people dead because of Mao is worse than ~20 million dead because of Hitler.

      Unless you value Chinese lives less than the victims of Hitler, it shouldn’t be an issue to see Mao as having been more evil, even though both were very evil.

      • Lycerius@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        11 months ago

        Most of Mao deaths, terrible though they are, were not intentional like those of his two peers.

        • vegantomato@lemmy.world
          41·
          11 months ago

          To gain power of an entire country like China, Mao had to be very intelligent. Him not being informed of the consequences of his policies is highly unlikely. The consequence of claiming that he was ignorant is that it enables you to absolve him of some of his guilt. You are downplaying how bad he really was. This is not fair. Mao ruled China for 33 years and has caused more destruction in his own country than most rulers (if not all) in recorded history.

          • Lycerius@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            11 months ago

            I’m not absolving anything. I’m not downplaying anything. I don’t care enough to make an argument one way or another. I’m simply saying that motives should count for something when making grandiose claims about who the worst person in all history is.

  • hexabs@lemmy.world
    102·
    11 months ago

    Woah wait… Why is Confucius there?

    Genuinely want to be informed here.

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        1·
        11 months ago

        ??? That would be more accurately describing Lao Zhu if you’re really willing to stretch your interpretations. I’m not sure how you get Machiavelli, Confucius is about as far away from realpolitk as it gets.

    • orrk@lemmy.world
      65·
      11 months ago

      because Confucius isn’t as good a person (or ideology) as people seem to think, unless you are the current ruler, then it’s amazing

      • andros_rex@lemmy.world
        9·
        11 months ago

        Have you read any of Confucius writings? Rulers actually have higher expectations for them than common folk. If a ruler doesn’t act properly and conduct the proper rituals, then their people can’t be expected either. I’m not sure how familiar you are with Confucian thought, I’m struggling to understand what you are basing that statement on.

        “The Master said, "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.

        “If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”

        • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          11 months ago

          “If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good.”

          I have no real context other than what is here, and maybe Frogfucius, and I’m not great at reading between the lines so bear with me, because that doesn’t seem so awful for medieval philosophy. Lead by virtue rather than punishment? Sounds almost enlightened.

          I mean with the part about rules and propriety, it sound a bit like the Broken Window Theorem which has been shown to be a cover for racist policing, but it also came out in the 80s.

          Anyway, I’m not Staning Confucius

          • andros_rex@lemmy.world
            2·
            11 months ago

            Not medieval, Confucius was writing in 500 BCE. I’m not staning Confucius, but he was far harsher on rulers than he was peasants. Rulers are supposed to act like rulers, if they want their people to follow. There are more restrictions on them - a bad ruler (not just bad as in ineffective or cruel, but sexual deviance or drunkeness) can cause droughts or other disasters.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          and the joke is, who sets these traditions and rules? go a bit farther, and you learn the justification of these rules is “there wasn’t a natural disaster recently”

          like sure there are stringent rules the leader must follow, but whatever the leader decides the rules should be is what even these rules are

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.eeEnglish
    8·
    11 months ago

    Okay, we all need to prepare for the day that he escapes from hell. You know what’s going to happen, it’s been foretold. We need to get one of those books from Myst