3 ms·
This is satire, surely? Downplaying the severity of despots like Mao by comparing them to democratically elected leaders is incredibly disrespectful to the 45,
by cooper_ganglia 1y ago
This is satire, surely?
Downplaying the severity of despots like Mao by comparing them to democratically elected leaders is incredibly disrespectful to the 45,000,000 people that died as a direct result of catastrophic and coercive policies.
- vaidhy 1y agoWhy is "democratically elected" so important? Democracies can also kill a lot of people. Hitler was democratically elected, so is Netanyahu. If you are so inclined, one was had good intentions, but backfired badly while other is explicitly cruel.
- mathgradthrow 1y agocare to say which you think is which?
- spauldo 1y agoA democratic leader remains democratic throughout their term. W did his time and bowed out at the end of it. Another party stepped in peacefully afterward. The only way Hitler could have gone out was in a pine box. That's the difference. He may have been democratically elected, but he wasn't a democratic leader.
- danielheath 1y agoI assume the reference was to Bush’s foreign wars, which killed _dramatically_ fewer people (under a million even in the most expansive estimates I can find)… although they also brought widespread poverty, rather than mass industrialisation and wealth.