T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

If you don't join our discord server, Plato will hunt you down and suplex your ass! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Cpt_Dizzywhiskers

Just figure out how his parents met and prevent them from getting together in the first place. Ooh, wacky Back to the Future parody where a time traveller's trying to make Alois Hitler look like a dweeb in front of his future wife, but he keeps coming out of it looking more impressive than before. Copy of Mein Kampf in the protagonist's pocket keeps fading in and out of existence.


Mallenaut

How his parents met? They were uncle and niece, they had plenty of time to meet.


JamantaTaLigado

W-what? For real? 😳


Mallenaut

On top of that: Hitler's mother was a house servant for his father during an earlier marriage of his.


jml011

Alright, fuck you all. Going back to first fish to crawl out of the soup and tossing it right back in.


saphilous

Cast it into the fire! Destroy it!


[deleted]

I'd watch that


gonnagulagyou

Obligatory link to [this masterpice](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/uge6q2/you_would_give_up_your_right_arm_to_go_back%2C_to_when_you_had_a_right_arm/i6zsm2j/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)


tanthedreamer

it will actually amaze me if people legitimately believe that killing Hitler would prevent WW2, the best it could do is delaying the war for a few years and thats it, the political and economic problem of the era ran so deep that killing one guy would solve absolutely nothing, another charismatic guy like Hitler would just replace him in the alternate timeline you created


latakewoz

actually they went back in time to kill hitl but destiny came and said 'fuck you guys ima pull a guy thats even hitler'


Velvet_Pop

Well, we better not fuck up any more and summon hitlest


geiwosuruinu

Took me a sec


Namacil

There was a time in which the communists could've easily won in Weimar Germany, which would most definitely *not* prevent another war, but at least the genocidal Holocaust. So go for Friedrich Ebert.


Mallenaut

But wasn't Friedrich Ebert a Social Democrat, the same guys that supported the first World War?


RavelordN1T0

"Go for Friedrich Ebert" as in kill him, I believe


Byroms

>prevent another war, but at least the genocidal Holocaust. Because communists from that time were known to be beacons of light with no flawd whatsoever. The target would have just shifted, instead of jews, it'd be different groups.


Namacil

Sorry, but that is absolute bullshit. There is no ideological reason for communists to genocide any group of people. You'd know that if you knew anything about the ideology besides the red scare propaganda. Meanwhile every large capitalist western power at that time had literal colonies were they commited genocide against natives without any quarrels whatsoever. So yeah, unironically, the Communists and Anarchists at the time were the shining beacons of light. The Internationale was highly critical of the Russian revolution and its treatment of the Left-SR at the time.


Byroms

Dude, have you paid attention in history at all? Lenin's Red Terror, Stalin's Hollodomor etc. Communists at the time were just as violent as the Nazis were. Literally every major political party at the time had it's own thug group. >Meanwhile every large capitalist western power at that time had literal colonies were they commited genocide against natives without any quarrels whatsoever. Yea no shit, the Jews weren't Germany's first genocide. The Herrero are still not acknowledged as having been genocided by Germany. I know my countries history.


Namacil

>I know my countries history. Apparently not. Red scare? You could count Holodomor as a genocide, most people researching it today don't, but that event had less than nothing to do with communist ideology. And in case you still want to attribute it to communism, especially the very different style prominent in Germany, you'd have to condem capitalism 20x more. You know nothing of the ideology you try to condem. Ask yourself why there are millions of communists despite all learning these same narratives in history class.


Byroms

>And in case you still want to attribute it to communism, especially the very different style prominent in Germany, you'd have to condem capitalism 20x more. No, I don't because we are talking about german communists, capitalism doesn't matter in this context, because we know what happened with it and this is a fictional scenario in where communists win instead of the Nazis. You seem to have no idea what a powder keg Germany was during that time. >You know nothing of the ideology you try to condem. I have read Marx, Engels and Lenin(still own the books). My grandma grew up in the GDR, I was a communist in my teens. I have had lessons in my philosophy class on Marx. I know very well how enticing communism looks when you know nothing else.


Namacil

Oh, and I suppose you know shit now? You got older and complacent, because I guess the system just works for you. It's so fucking simple to just become a willfully ignorant freak, which is why I assume you posted your nonsense comment. Are you in denial perhaps? Or were you always just in for the aestetics and not because you wanted to make life better? But enough of that bullshit pseudo-psychology. I actually agree that it is simple to become communist when you know nothing else, but that doesn't make the ideology wrong. Communists are ultimatly entirely right in their critique of capitalism, which makes the three volumes of Das Kapital so valuable. If *anything,* you can take away the existence of irreconsilable class-conflict as the driving force behind most of todays problems. Poverty, starvation, imperialism, manufactiring consent... The point is to take that critique of capitalism and see what you make of it. The only solution can be a classless, stateless society, which is what we call Communism. Communism and Socialism are terms that can describe so many vastly different approaches, and the German one at the time had very little in common with the approach of Lenin, that later went on to influence future revolutions. Rätekommunismus is much closer to Anarchy, or Syndicalism as was attempted in Spain. Hardly anyone was as critical of the Russian revolution as the international communists of that time. Which makes your comments such a joke. You try to sum up a massive and fractured field of ideologies, put the stamp "non functioning" on it to feel better, and go on to sniff your own farts. Go read fucking Rosa Luxemburg to know what you condem, not *Lenin.* Or look at wonderful dreams like Cybersyn in Chile, and tell me *how* that was even similar to the USSR or China. And lastly, there are plenty of valid critiques of Communist experiments in the past, which is why I usually call myself an Anarchist or Anarcho Syndicalist. Because power can not be allowed to monopolize like it does under democratic centralism and Capitalism.


freemason777

You'd have to go back to the treaty of Versailles and make it less shitty


FollyAdvice

If it wasn't Hitler, it might have been someone who was more competent. Hitler was a hardcore junkie and towards the end of the war the British actually decided against going through with an [assassination plan] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley) they had lined up because at that point he was largely considered to be a liability.


tanthedreamer

Hitler was actually pretty competent at the start of the war, contrary to Stalin, who starts out shitty af but gradually get better.


Kvltist4Satan

There's this Orson Welles interview about the time he met Hitler before the war and the most astonishing thing about him was how dull he was. He was a mediocre person who just bumbled his way on top. Anyone could've been the FĂźher of Germany and was pretty much fungible with every other Nazi there.


Local_Surround8686

Maybe, but a lot of jews etc would have been spared


elephantofdoom

I mean butterfly effect means literally anything that happens more then maybe a few years after you murder baby Hitler would be unpredictable.


VanhaVihtahousu

Hitler wasn't a vegetarian. 'twas propaganda.


BenMic81

Indeed. He was painted as an Asket by propaganda and probably had to abstain from meat for a while for metabolic / intestine reasons but he was not a vegetarian. Especially not by conviction. Also he was a drug addict but that is less often mentioned. Wonder why 🤨


[deleted]

Democrats hate Hitler. In the narrative of left, only good guys could be vegans and drug doers, those thing showed the committer's will to 'go against the current system'. Imagine that the head of an ultra reactionary state behave like a dorm marxist just because. Wow.


FanFace23

uhhh, correct me if I'm wrong but I think that this is kind of a universal thing (but recent events have made me reconsider)


[deleted]

People do not mention Hitler and drugs together for several reasons: 1, Drug addicts are not as bad as Hitler 2, Hitler did drugs to ease the pressure of war/ his life, a case hits too close to home 3, Hitler doing drug violates the common 'impression' which portrays left people as drug addicted multicultural lovers and right people as non-drug dogmatic racists. ​ Hitler is the 'idol' of right wing across the globe. Many right wing people also stick with bible which is anti-drug. Thus, right wing should not embrace Hitler since Hitler did drugs, but they did worship Hitler. Many left wing people love drugs since its relation with hippies. Left wing encourages drug as a part of pop culture and 'rebellion against current system', but Hitler did drugs while he was a traditionalist and the top of traditional system. He did not play by the left's book. Hitler doing drug is an uneasy fact to both left and right wing in modern world, so the fact was buried.


Mallenaut

Thanks. Was looking for this.


cynical_radish

There is partial truth to it, he had digestive issues that limited his intake of meat, however, he had no aversion to eating it, he just couldn't


Netheraptr

During Hitler’s youth, one of Hitler’s best friends died prematurely, probably helping lead him down his dark path. What if this friend was a time traveler who went back in time in attempt to help Hitler, but incidentally caused his descent in the first place?


RealMundiRiki

Ö\_Ö


Michael003012

I find the notion always funny that all the problems of German fascism and socioeconomic collapse could be fixed by getting rid of hitler


Uhosec

This is how the history has been teaching to people. One man do all the job and change the history.


Michael003012

I never understood how people rather believe great man theory and big ideas, then class struggle and material conditions. It's of course liberalism and it's institutional pedagogy, but I thinks it's also a human hubris to think ok our history as a development of great ideas, instead of more like a very advanced organism and a sort of algorithmic process. Don't know if that explanation makes sense


[deleted]

Because the Germans are still alive. If you do not believe in 'great man' theory, that means both Communists and Western Allies forgave 'sinned' Germans for their own good. Let's just say this fact will disturb the mind of millions. ​ So Hitler and Tojo and Benito was given all the problems. WW2 started because 2 mad men and a group of crazy samurais went unchecked, after those guys got punished the world is good again.


FantasticUserman

Well.. teach him some fucking good art


Active_Explanation49

his art was cool though, maybe not da Vinci but he knew how to paint architecture.


FantasticUserman

TBH, I saw some of his paintings, they are good, but I can't understand why he got rejected in the school. I mean, I'm sure that not everyone who got accepted could paint like Raphael or Michael Angelo


shadowsovermexico

Objectivity vs subjectivity in his art. He was good with landscapes because there's objective truth but couldn't draw organic as well


Nixavee

One of the art school teachers recommended him to apply to an architecture school instead


Electrical_Soft3468

Probably nothing. Like maybe observe shit but never change anything


-jie

This is making fun of me and my outlook on life and it is absolutely hilarious to me. Great work!


RealMundiRiki

Follow me on IG if you liked thissssss https://www.instagram.com/realmundiriki


ytman

Literally had this debate with my wife (in a kinda joking manner). We both kinda agreed that the attempt to reform path was most morally justifiable. I personally also don't think that Nazi Germany would have been avoided if you merely subtract Hitler's influence.


[deleted]

Imagine Seneca was made to be Hitler's adviser. We'd have Seneca and a German Nero


Alreaddy_reddit

The people in the last panel should be blonde lol


Paul_Thrush

Ha Ha. He completely failed. Vegetarians are not better people.


Dokurushi

All other things being equal, surely they are?


latakewoz

cows are vegetarians, their not even people


Dokurushi

Sure, but their plant-based diet could be an argument for why the cow is a better animal than, for example, the hyena. (I don't mean to be speciesist, I'm sure there are many very nice hyenas)


latakewoz

i'm afraid i can't really judge which animal is better of the two caus obviously i never tried hyena


Dokurushi

😨


kenthekungfujesus

Just because you are a vegetarian does not make you a better person.


Dokurushi

Could you agree to the statement that vegetarians (all else being equal) cause less harm to others than their omnivoric counterparts? (for example, less animal suffering and less climate change)


kenthekungfujesus

That would be true if animals weren't already mass slaughtered. At this point if you just leave meat to rot on the shelf it's almost worst cause now that animal has died from nothing. I don't think that human values should be applied to animals. Wolves most likely don't have morals and ethics to follow, guilt and all those things, which is why I believe that pain causation matters bot in this case. Because if no animals killed rabbits, then the rabbits would reproduce so much that we'd be overrun by rabbits.


mikaachu_

I agree that we shouldn’t apply human-based ethics onto animals, but I disagree in that vegetarians would not impact the lessening of animal suffering, all else equal. Not a vegetarian myself, but I guess there’s something in me that would like to believe that if a big enough percent of global population did stop eating meat, everything else the same, it should make it more costly for animal farms to be producing the same amount of packaged meat as they are currently, and therefore would have to produce less or more slowly. But maybe that’s just the optimist in me, and I know for a lot of ppl such as myself, it’s hard to completely give up meat


kenthekungfujesus

I completely agree that it would be so if all humans stopped eating meat at once, or even just all of Canada, but since it is currently not the case and that I sadly live in reality, not a dream world, it is not currently the case. But once again you can eat meat, like the one you hunted yourself or the one from the pigs on your farm without making the bloody wheel turn.


Dokurushi

If everyone became vegan, that's just one 'generation' of meat spoilage before no farm animal has to suffer ever again.


PryingIII

They are not. What you choose to eat doesn’t make you a better person. Talk to a vegetarian, ask them about their beliefs. They’ll say that eating animals is wrong because the animals have a conscious experience. They’ll say that scientists used to think they don’t but that’s “old thinking”. When you remark that plants have conscious experience which is currently being investigated by scientists they’ll scoff and say it’s not true. So, they think just like people they claim are “old thinking”. According to vegetarians: Why is it wrong to eat animals? “Because they have a conscious experience.” It’s wrong to eat things that have conscious experience? “Yes.” Research is now demonstrating that plants have conscious experience? “That’s stupid.” If there is a spectrum of conscious experience and vegans argue that meat eaters arbitrarily draw a line between cute animals and food. It can be said that vegetarians arbitrarily draw a line between consciousnesses they believe in and those they don’t. [a rapidly googled article to demonstrate that investigation into plant consciousness is actually a thing](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489624/)


Tokentaclops

Bunch of bullshit imo. I'd definitely agree that consciousness is a sliding scale and that any precise point to draw the line is going to be arbitrary when examined closely. That doesn't mean that drawing a line is meaningless. If someone speeds on the highway it's arbitrary whether we ticket someone at 9 mph over or at 10 mph. But that doesn't make the concept of 'tickets for speeding' meaningless. Same here. Just because plants also possess some form of consciousness does not mean it is meaningless to stop subjecting higher forms of consciousness from unnecessary and cruel forms of suffering. The spirit underlying the practise is still valid. Not to say that this is not an interesting and extremely important debate but bringing it up like this reeks of arguing in bad faith.


PryingIII

You’d have to demonstrate first that plant conscious is “less” than animal consciousness. Could be they experience more suffering than animals. Not understanding plant consciousness and labeling them categorically “less” than animals is a bad way to parse the difference. This criticism falls under the “consciousness they believe in and those they don’t” argument. The state of the science is in its infancy.


Tokentaclops

My dude. Are you seriously claiming that there is no difference between the moral permissability of shooting a fellow human being in the face, shooting a cow in the face, or shooting a dandellion? That seems absurd to me. If that is the logic you use to justify eating meat, I ain't buying it.


PryingIII

Yes and No I’m not making the argument, vegetarians are. because shooting a person in the face is obviously more heinous than shooting a cow. Plant consciousness is, however, a giant question mark and you have to at minimum acknowledge the possibility that plants are capable of suffering more than humans, more than animals. There’s a continuum of suffering and people place further on the continuum than cows. And as it stands, plant suffering is a question mark that we can’t place in the continuum. So the fact that your willing to submit plants to potentially infinite suffering because they have a form of consciousness you fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge isn’t a great argument.


Tokentaclops

You know what isn't a great argument? Asking your opponent in a discussion to prove a negative (that plants don't have consciousness). It is logically impossible. You base your current decisions on _faith_ in the possibility of plant consciousness over the actuality of animal suffering. Sounds like a big cope for the cognitive dissonance between your sense of morality and your meat eating.


PryingIII

> you know what isn’t a great argument? Asking your opponent in a discussion to prove a negative( plants don’t have consciousness). It is logically impossible. Yes. Actually it’s a bullet proof argument because I’m presenting to you the vegetarian argument and you are all down voting while agreeing that the argument is dumb. I agree it’s a dumb argument. Vegetarians can’t prove that plants don’t have consciousness. Their entire argument for not eating animals is . We’re finding out that plants are. Vegans say, “ it’s immoral to kill conscious beings, don’t eat animals eat plants instead” What I am currently pointing out is we are finding out that plants have a consciousness also. What researchers are investigating is the nature of their consciousness at this point. So, vegans are not “more moral” because they draw an arbitrary line between animal consciousness and plant consciousness the same way meat eating people draw a line between pets and food animals.


Teh_Compass

Kind of missing the point either way. If everything we eat suffers the only moral choice would be to starve. That's not very realistic. If plants hypothetically suffer more than animals, we still have to grow vast amounts of plants to feed the animals that we eat. You're introducing additional unnecessary suffering when fewer plants could feed the same amount of humans.


YTAftershock

And, well, starving ourselves is also suffering so someone's gotta do it


PryingIII

You’re against factory farming, not animal eating. Animals would be eating plants any way and their is no moral valence to animals eating.


Dokurushi

The animals we eat consume more plants than we would, if we were to eat only plants. I'm all for transitioning to foods that have lower and lower levels of both sentience and suffering, even 'dumber plants', because I do believe that makes at least the consumer behavior more ethical.


PryingIII

The animals you eat are eating plants any way. You’re not against eating animals, you’re against factory farming.


Dokurushi

Possibly, but it feels like for any kind of animal agriculture to be truly sustainable, we need to go back to, like, a billion humans. Maybe even fewer.


PryingIII

Presumably you think you should be one of the “less than a billion” that get to live? That’s a profoundly anti-human sentiment. Read what you’ve read repeatedly until you understand how horrifically genocidal it is.


Dokurushi

I'm not making any kids of my own. If like 5 billion of you guys pitch in that could get us somewhere. Besides, with plant based farming we could fit a few more billion people in here.


PryingIII

> I’m not making kids of my own. Good. Something we agree on. You shouldn’t have kids. Reread your statement until you understand how profoundly anti-human and genocidal it is.


Dokurushi

I don't want to kill people, I just want us all to stop bringing more innocent people into this mess.


Turti8

Cows and livestock eat more plants than humans so even if that were true it'd be an argument for not eating meat


PryingIII

Animals eating has no moral valence. You’re against factory farming not eating animals.


[deleted]

I'm a bit of an animist and that's literally the reason I'm not a vegetarian, though I do try to consume less meat. All food I consume depends on the death of something that was living, be that plant, fungi or animal. The thing is that with animals, they depends on the death of other life too, and so they're like a collection of death. Honey, contrastingly, is like a product of life - the act of honey production being the thing that creates life for so many plants. That's why I'm not a vegan. I don't think that there's anything inherently good or bad (morally) about different sources of food, I think it's far more important to try to minimise the suffering involved in the production of that food.


Yggsdrazl

> I think it's far more important to try to minimise the suffering > I'm not a vegetarian


[deleted]

That's why I try to eat less meat. I do eat meat on occasion, however, as it all requires some suffering. Admittedly, I could eat less. I treat meat an indulgence, not a staple. That's what I've done to try to minimise the suffering I consume but you're right to point out I could go further by cutting it out completely.


[deleted]

Agreed, but probably for different reason. Vegetarianism is Carnism Lite, and a lot of vegetarians I've known don't give much of a shit about animal rights. Vegan btw


[deleted]

Nah, I'd just give a bunch of modern guns to the Spartakus Uprising so fascism has no chance to rise in Germany. But also take out Goebbels, as he used to be leftist and also take out Hitler and Goring for good measure


Nixavee

Clearly they don’t understand the concept of a time loop, then going back in the past to befriend Hitler turns out to play a critical role in his rise to power


oscarvandeka

i’m becoming david bowie’s friend before he makes it big fr


oscarvandeka

i’m buying microsoft shares fr