• Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    4 days ago

    his children are better off without him.

    That’s certainly not true. You don’t have to dehumanize someone you see as your enemy.

    I recently watched 1917, and ::: spoiler spoilers I’m proud of the way the plane was handled. One can see the necessity of war without dehumanizing the other side. :::

    I’m sorry for his kids. I’m sorry for his family. I can continue to hope for a better way.

    We’ve been through this history enough times. I, for one, would rather not repeat it. If this is the way things are gonna go, it’s going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better.

    • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      4 days ago

      Dude had no qualms about dehumanizing the people he stole money from and didn’t give life saving treatment to. Just because he could do it from the cover of corporate mandates doesn’t make it any less evil.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      4 days ago

      It depends. It appears he wasn’t really in the picture and has a history of being a piece of shit. Who’s to say that his kids aren’t better off without him, and honestly, probably heavily enriched by his demise?

      Losing a father isn’t always a bad thing.

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      That’s certainly not true.

      That’s certainly not something you can determine with the knowledge we have. Many children are, or would be, better off without their shitbag parent. God knows I would have been.