Am I the asshole for being insistant about “wanting to murder the entire Romanov family”?
Around 4 months ago I was invited to see the school musical “Anastasia” by some theater kids that were friends of mine. I already knew the framing and content of the play is utter reactionary nonsense, but I decided to actually go yesterday night to watch to support my buddies.
The musical itself had good production quality, and there were some great unintentionally funny moments in there, too. I was dissapointed that the one communist didn’t brutally blow Anastasia’s brains out, but I definitely think the play gave me some resolve and inspires violence in me.
Anyway here is the main part, lol. It isnt the most precise retelling of events, but generally what went down, spare the details. After the play I was chatting with a bunch of the cast, and apparently one of them heard that I would have shot the Romanov family, if I was in the position to, (which they heard from a seperate friend that is actually socialist. ) I didn’t deny it, and I actually fully leaned into it. “The Romanovs had no qualms on the treatment of their people. There would be no room for abdication, no humbleness to step down, obly death, ETC…” One giggled, another person gasped, “Do you feel no sympathy for them?” My friend (who played Tzar Nicholas) asked me something like:"Would you shoot the Romanov’s even if it was me?! " “No sympathy. And yes, I would shoot regardless of personal connections” and I quickly left into the crowd. Since then, my friend has been avoiding me? idk he seems not happy with me. Am I the asshole here?
Either way, I would rather be perceived as an asshole than be a liberal in content.
It’s sort of beside the point, I think? Because litigating the morality of an argument over hypotheticals is a red herring to begin with. The real point is about the conditions those people were living under, the power dynamics in play, and the response necessary to secure liberation. What they did is try to put you firmly within a framework of idealism, which is about doing the “right thing” (as abstract moral principle) even if the circumstances surrounding it would tempt you to do otherwise. So in their minds, you affirmed that you are hypothetically morally bankrupt and would not do the abstract moral principle “right thing.” Naturally, that’s going to make them uncomfortable around you because idealism is all about what people are capable of and whether they are willing to strive to overcome their “base urges.”
The question is, do you want to be friends with them? If so, you’ll probably need to go out of your way to be more diplomatic about this stuff. If this were a question of organizing, I’d say, don’t bother. Friendship and making sure you stay safe, that people aren’t viewing you as some kind of loose cannon when you aren’t, can be a little different.
We shouldn’t have to go above and beyond to deal with people like this, and let’s be real: sometimes we’re not going to. The idealist position would say we should always strive to, no matter what. Well, sometimes it’s just not going to happen. BUT, that doesn’t mean you have to leave these situations to impulse either. What you can do is try to learn from it by reflecting on what about it didn’t work, how you would like to present yourself and your views going forward, what outcome it is that you’re even wanting. For example, are you wanting to vent? to persuade? To be the opposition when everyone is affirming the norm? Keep in mind the last one can be very difficult to do alone and it’s easy to slip into defense mechanisms instead of keeping a clear head, especially when people are throwing nonsensical hypothetical gotchas at you or citing some of the same talking points you’ve heard a thousand times.