this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
827 points (95.0% liked)

Memes

45244 readers
2310 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 41 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I always hate the "time traveller kills Hitler" stchick.

Killing Reagan does not change the political climate that allowed him to rise to power. In fact killing him could have made things worse for the USA. See 9/11 for a recent example.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Mr_Blott@feddit.uk 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also, Trickle-Down-Assassination... Every president after him would get shot too. Or not I dunno

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

It’s what happened after Lincoln. All presidents since him have not survived or are expected to die within the next few decades.

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I wouldn't have killed Regan had I gone back in time, I would've gone a bit further back and after Rockerfeller got forced to sell standard oil, I would've offed him just before he was able to use the money he gained to form Chicago University and it's dreaded Chicago school of economics.(home to the ludicrous idea that the free market will regulate itself) Which I think had even worse consequences than Reganomics, if not directly influencing it.

At the very least, it would've likely extended the 30 years worth of post Roosevelt economic prosperity that decreased wage gaps, and actively created the middle class at least a bit longer before some other rich butthole got the same or a similar idea as Rockerfeller.

[–] CrapConnoisseur@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's called the University of Chicago. And yup, it continues to be a vicious pile of shit to this day, fucking over the vulnerable communities around it, providing substandard health care and sitting on a 10 billion dollar endowment that they refuse to use to either raise employee wages or lower tuition. (Fun fact: They're projected to become the first university in the country to have six-figure tuition.)

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

The problem isn't even free market concepts, it's the idea that you can advocate for a free market in a highly regulated country. When the definition of corporation is controlled and liability is removed from individuals you can't have a free market.

[–] GreenMario@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Take him out before he becomes an actor. Oh no random nobody in California got hit by a car. Too bad drunk driving is still legal 🤣

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Killing Reagan does not change the political climate that allowed him to rise to power.

...

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In fact killing him could have made things worse for the USA. See 9/11 for a recent example.

Pretty sure they're responding to that part.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That assumes you're only pulling off one time-travel assassination. What if you just keep doing them until the lack of the relevant people shifts the political climate by itself? Like in the "go back and kill Hitler (or just push him onto a different life path at a young age, if you have time travel, you can probably remove someone as a leader without just killing them), sure, maybe a different fascist rises in Germany instead, but if you take out that one too, and the next one, and the next, eventually someone who isn't a fascist will manage to get into office, or if you keep it up long enough, the german fascist movement will run out of viable leaders, and cease to be a major factor in the political climate of the time.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And then you change history so much that you were never born..

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To be honest, going back and just taking Hitler or any similarly historically important person out of the equation is likely enough to do that, for most people, given the impact he had on the world, or at the least removes the reason for you to go back in time, so presumably if you're seriously contemplating doing this, whatever time travel mechanism you have going on probably has to be one where you are shielded from the consequences of whatever changes you make anyway.

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Your authoritative repels about something that is a complete fiction is a bit worrying.

you have going on probably has to be one where you are shielded from the consequences of whatever changes you make anyway.

That's the fun about making shit up, you chose the rules that apply.

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago

The trick with Reagan is to shoot him at the end of his union leader period, in a way that incriminates a conservative group.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Just go a bit farther back and teach Bonzo how to do the deed.

[–] takeda@szmer.info 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing is that often those people created that climate. This was the case with hitler and today similar thing is being done with trump.

[–] torpak@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know about Trump. But the climat that allowed Hitler to gain traction was widespread poverty and hopelessness in post world war one Germany.

[–] ZILtoid1991@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To do a real change in the course of history, kill Calvin, the very moment after he was born, thus killing Calvinism in its cradle.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 5 points 1 year ago

But then who will talk to Hobbes?

[–] Pons_Aelius@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not just strangle Jesus in his manger?

Definitely no Calvinism then.

[–] PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're assuming he existed and was necessary for the cult to start. Paul may be a better target.

[–] SolarNialamide@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

You don't have to assume Jesus existed, you just have to accept the historical evidence which there is plenty of