this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
8 points (61.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

44834 readers
687 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

These people obviously have unquestionable control over everything by wealth and influence. People underneath them suffer under their 'leadership' whether it is working unhealthy hours for shit pay to working in unsafe environments where they're subjected to abuse or harm.

Yet there are pockets of people, where if you express the desire of these kinds of people who lead to die, will defend them because reasons. The top reason being that they don't like the idea of life being taken away. However, the way I see it is that, if you are in high positions and anybody suffers by a big number because you're a poor leader or so. I think the idea of jail or any justice imposed sentence is beyond them.

Lots of people forget because it's been 5 years, but Trump allowed 350,000 americans to die under a mishandled pandemic. Was the pandemic going to take lots of lives anyways? Yes, but I argue that it could've been negated and handled better. But no, that's not what we saw happen.

And it is because of that kind of gross example, I wish death on Trump everyday, anyday.

And people argue "oh, he should be in jail to think about his crimes and the law will prevail" blah blah. People have been clamoring for jail time for lots of powerful people, only to find that very few of them do. To them, time is like money, they're too busy counting how many days they have left before they're back out and will attempt to re-capture their influence and wealth to resume what they did before again.

So I feel that by sentencing these people to death, we are taking away immediately, what enjoyment they have, in spending making hundreds to thousands to even millions of people suffer and having their lives be worse off.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 18 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

Wishing death to someone for any reason is quite an extreme position to take outside of these niche internet bubbles that influenced you to think this way in the first place. I honestly struggle a bit when I try to imagine how you deal with the cognitive dissonance of trying to distinguish yourself from the worst people in history. You might not have the power to do the atrocities that they did, but your aspirations aren't that different in practice. You just have a different justification for why you think what you wish to happen is actually a good thing - just like these people did as well. You even admit that you don't really care whether they're actually bad people or not. Your criteria is "rich and executive position," which is quite indiscriminate.

[–] Candice_the_elephant@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Trumps policies have killed many people.

The cholera epidemic in South Sudan worsened significantly after the Trump administration cut funding to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which had been providing critical medical support. These cuts led to the closure of clinics that were essential in treating cholera patients, resulting in increased mortality rates during the outbreak.

For example. We're not talking about someone who did something wrong, we're talking about a man who's at best indifferent to suffering and dying of people based on their skin color. This isn't some regular murderer or even assassin, this is wholesale killing.

Wanting someone who has the power to kill innocent people and does to die is a pretty natural response.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 3 points 2 hours ago

Trump is an individual. My criticism is about the blanket judgement of everyone rich and powerful.

[–] danciestlobster@lemmy.zip 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure this is categorically true. If you are in a situation where another person is clearly and obviously killing everyone around you one after the other and you could stop them by killing them, I think most would argue it is morally ok to do so. Same for a situation of like a home invasion where someone means to do immediate harm to your family and loved ones. Murder in self defense is often considered morally ok. When people in the world through their actions are killing people in enormous numbers, it is not too hard to see how someone could make a parallel to self defense.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 6 points 4 hours ago

Sure, but that's a bit of a motte-and-bailey. It's like saying that one wishes death for all black people and when challenged they then retreat back to claiming that they were talking about just the ones who rape and murder.

My point is that wishing death for someone simply for being rich and in an executive position is barely different from wishing that to someone because they're black. It's unreasonable to be categorically against something purely based on superficial features. It's a thought-terminating cliché that ignores all nuance and reduces a diverse group of people into a stereotype.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 21 points 11 hours ago

I actually might be the rare ones that don't actually want them dead. Well I mean like I don't care if they're alive either, doesn't matter to me, just seize their assets above 999Mil, if they resist, it's tax evasion so jail them.

Distribute the wealth. Simple. I don't need to see bloodshed.

Killing them doesn't make a difference, their heirs will just take their place. I'm not gonna endorse killing entire families and expecially not their children who didn't chose to be born to nacissistic rich parents, its just generational trauma and atrocity, do they even have free will but to continue the path they've been on for their entire bloodlines? Do humans really have free will? Fix the system, don't just decapitate people. We don't need vengeful heirs trying to bring down the new system in order to "avenge their dead parents".

[–] missingno@fedia.io 10 points 9 hours ago

The top reason being that they don't like the idea of life being taken away.

Well then it sounds like you know the answer to your question. Are you actually asking to ask, or just to soapbox?

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 14 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Death sentences are a slippery slope. Today its okay to kill the rich, tomorrow its protests that block roads, or LGBT people.

Even if we still to a hard line of "only the ultra rich", how rich is ultra rich? $1B networth? Sure. $10m net worth? Maybe. Anyone who earns more than you?

[–] danciestlobster@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I get what you are saying and it is a slippery slope, but it is very doable to draw clear, objective lines around it. "Anyone with so much money there is absolutely no way they got it without heavy worker exploitation, ie 10bn+" for example. Nothing even remotely close to the average working class individual or even minor wealthy individual

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 8 points 5 hours ago

You used so many subjective terms in that description. You can draw the line at a number, that is objective (but see tax evasion for how that works in practice), but "heavy worker exploitation" is entirely subjective.

In my mind, most failing hospitality businesses fall into "heavy worker exploitation", but many of them are owner by people who arent billionaires.

[–] j4k3@piefed.world 15 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Don't kill them. Just make them poor and cut off their connections to their former caste.

[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago

That would be great, of course, but history tells us they either get away with it and die (sometimes) peacefully in their sleep or they're killed by a mob.

I like the way Stalin went. "Oh no, he fell down, call a doctor." Doctors (who had been relentlessly persecuted): "We're not treating him, bugger off." Stalin's cronies: "Whelp, we'll just put him to bed and see what happens."

[–] CM400@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

This. I’d much rather see them suffer being poor for a while before learning they can be reasonably happy at the level most people are at, and using their seized assets to bring the poorest up to a livable level.

[–] flamiera@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah but, how likely is it that they'll ever see such a fate?

Next to zero. This is all just fantasizing.

[–] FilthyHands@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 hours ago

So you think government execution of the elite is realistic?

[–] db2@lemmy.world 0 points 11 hours ago

And their nuts.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 12 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

I think it's more the line of "If this person dies, who will take their place?"

It's kind of a Hydra situation from the MCU. Killing one person won't do much. Everyone expects the next in line to keep doing the same thing.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 4 hours ago

its also like goauld situation sg1, as soon as they off one goauld a worst one takes thier place.

[–] NaibofTabr 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 5 points 4 hours ago
[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I don't.

Sure, there are many people that deserve it, and sure, there will always be the ability for someone to try to be a shitstain on humanity, but to pretend that the effort is futile is literally just ignorant defeatism.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] MotoAsh@piefed.social 2 points 10 hours ago

Expect the next person in line to take the first's place. Eventually, the greedy cunts will figure out they're just stepping in line for the guillotine.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 7 points 10 hours ago

I just think that dying is unethical in general and represents a maximal state of suffering (well, more a minimum of non-suffering, since you have no capacity to experience anything when you dont exist anymore, not maximal suffering in the "hell" sense. I know many or most people would disagree with me on that point, but its not something I feel like spelling out my reasons for at the moment.) I also do not believe in the concept of deserved suffering (that is to say, in my view suffering as punishment only has value in its capacity to rewire a person's future behavior, and that once you have achieved that so as to cause them to live without continuing whatever harms have led to the punishment, anything more is wrong, no matter what they've done, even if they were literally the most heinous person of all time). If you're actually in a position to execute them, then youre in a position to take their money and power too, pointing out that they rarely face justice isnt actually relevant to this, because if your legal system is too corrupted to hand out a jail sentence and make it stick, its also going to be too corrupted to hand out a death sentence and go through with it. These people arent wealthy because they're inherently good at making money, they're wealthy because wealth begets wealth and they either started with some or lucked out somewhere or have relations that have it, so if you both take their wealth and the wealth of their friends and relatives, how are they going to get it back?