Poll of the Day > Who is/was the most evil person to have ever lived?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Topic

Whichever Rothschild started putting central banks in every country
---

Muscles posted...

Whichever Rothschild started putting central banks in every country

Definitely todays villain.

No idea how Genghis Khan and Jesus got on that list... Khan, relative to his time, was not any more violent than anyone else.
---

LOL

Jesus, the only sinless human ever, is evil?
---

Whoever invented the clock.

Me.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

No idea how Genghis Khan... got on that list.

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more, germ warfare, terrorism, destruction of Baghdad, and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

SushiSquid posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

No idea how Genghis Khan... got on that list.

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more, germ warfare, terrorism, destruction of Baghdad, and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

Someone who proclaims themselves "ruler of all" must definitely be evil.

SushiSquid posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

No idea how Genghis Khan... got on that list.

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more, germ warfare, terrorism, destruction of Baghdad, and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

Cool, except 800~ years ago that wasnt unusual. Thats like calling everybody a dumbass when bloodlettings were a thing. It is a different world. Those actions are not justifiable, but thats how things were... Hirohito was much worse in terms of virtually everything, directly or indirectly, but that was during the 20th century.
---

this guy is the worst that isn't already on your list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

ReggieTheReckless posted...

this guy is the worst that isn't already on your list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Yeah, he was a massive piece of shit. Per capita, Id agree.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

SushiSquid posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

No idea how Genghis Khan... got on that list.

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more, germ warfare, terrorism, destruction of Baghdad, and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

Cool, except 800~ years ago that wasnt unusual. Thats like calling everybody a dumbass when bloodlettings were a thing. It is a different world. Those actions are not justifiable, but thats how things were... Hirohito was much worse in terms of virtually everything, directly or indirectly, but that was during the 20th century.

What do you mean it's a different world? Some things change, some things don't. Murder was bad then and it's bad now.

Khan ruled the biggest empire the world has ever seen. They killed everybody who wouldn't bow.

Rape has always been wrong. Murder has always been wrong. Firing diseased bodies into a city to infect its inhabitants has always been wrong. Slaughtering every living thing in one city so that other cities would fear you has always been wrong. Destroying the most beautiful city in the world and then salting the earth has always been wrong. Regardless of his time period, Temujin was one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived. Comparing his actions to literally anyone else shows a serious ignorance of scale.

Jesus or Mohammad from that list.

SushiSquid posted...

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more,

You hate conquerors. Got it. That's fair. Acting like the Mongols were the only conquerors to do that is absolutely not, though. They certainly were better at conquest than anyone else, but they were no worse about it than any other invading "barbarians" throughout history. They liked to propagate wildly exaggerated claims of their brutality in order to get enemies to surrender without fighting (which in turn, they'd spare the populace, something most other invaders weren't nearly as generous about), and they did a pretty damn good job of it since 800 years later people still think they're especially vile.

SushiSquid posted...

germ warfare

I don't recall Genghis Khan's armies actually employing the tactic of hurling diseased bodies over the walls of cities being sieged. Certainly later generations of Mongol generals employed that tactic, though.

SushiSquid posted...

terrorism,

Like what, exactly? He lead an army. They traveled in a big formation of cavalry. Not exactly AL-Queda hiding in caves. He employed spies, and intentionally tried to use fear as a weapon to cow enemies into surrender, as noted above. So did all armies after him, he was just the first one smart enough to realize the importance of psychological warfare.

SushiSquid posted...

destruction of Baghdad,

Maybe the ruler shouldn't have stolen the goods from his merchant ambassadors and had some of them executed...TWICE...
Not very smart.

SushiSquid posted...

and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

Uniting his people? Giving them their first set of laws and a written language? Giving far more rights to women in his empire than anywhere in Europe at the time? Allowing freedom of religion? Making the Silk Road safe to traverse, enabling the explosion of trade and communication between East and West that lead to the Renaissance?
Going to have to be more specific about which "evil deeds" you're speaking of.

SushiSquid posted...

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

He doesn't even crack the top 500, dude.

streamofthesky posted...

SushiSquid posted...

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more,

You hate conquerors. Got it. That's fair. Acting like the Mongols were the only conquerors to do that is absolutely not, though. They certainly were better at conquest than anyone else, but they were no worse about it than any other invading "barbarians" throughout history. They liked to propagate wildly exaggerated claims of their brutality in order to get enemies to surrender without fighting (which in turn, they'd spare the populace, something most other invaders weren't nearly as generous about), and they did a pretty damn good job of it since 800 years later people still think they're especially vile.

SushiSquid posted...

germ warfare

I don't recall Genghis Khan's armies actually employing the tactic of hurling diseased bodies over the walls of cities being sieged. Certainly later generations of Mongol generals employed that tactic, though.

SushiSquid posted...

terrorism,

Like what, exactly? He lead an army. They traveled in a big formation of cavalry. Not exactly AL-Queda hiding in caves. He employed spies, and intentionally tried to use fear as a weapon to cow enemies into surrender, as noted above. So did all armies after him, he was just the first one smart enough to realize the importance of psychological warfare.

SushiSquid posted...

destruction of Baghdad,

Maybe the ruler shouldn't have stolen the goods from his merchant ambassadors and had some of them executed...TWICE...
Not very smart.

SushiSquid posted...

and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

Uniting his people? Giving them their first set of laws and a written language? Giving far more rights to women in his empire than anywhere in Europe at the time? Allowing freedom of religion? Making the Silk Road safe to traverse, enabling the explosion of trade and communication between East and West that lead to the Renaissance?
Going to have to be more specific about which "evil deeds" you're speaking of.

SushiSquid posted...

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

He doesn't even crack the top 500, dude.

Why do you have such a hard on for Khan?
---

TheOrangeMisfit posted...

Why do you have such a hard on for Khan?

Why do you equate knowing stuff w/ having a hard on for it?
Are those the only subjects you know anything about?

Obama

No seriously Stalin. That dude was just a huge dick and it gets covered up in history books for some reason. Obviously Hitler is evil, but he's talked about so much that I feel like Stalin deserves more recognition for the evil shit he did.
---

Id say Stalin or Mao.

The dude who was in charge of Naruto fillers.
---

SushiSquid posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

No idea how Genghis Khan... got on that list.

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more, germ warfare, terrorism, destruction of Baghdad, and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

First of all, Genghis Khan never went anywhere near Bagdhad - that was his grandson, Hulagu Khan, and the siege took place roughly 30 years after Genghis's death. Nor was he the Khan credited with one of the first applications of germ warfare - that one was Uzbeg Khan, another one of Genghis's descendants, and the event in question - the Siege of Kaffa - took place roughly a century after Genghis's conquests. So already I question your knowledge on this subject.

Secondly, while Khan was a ferocious enemy, he was actually relatively benign as a ruler. He allowed conquered peoples to largely keep their customs, culture, and religion, something that was almost unheard of at the time, and he also created one of the first postal systems, which was surprisingly efficient given its day. He was also a proto-multiculturalist, being highly accepting of non-Mongols and allowed them to hold positions of power based on loyalty and merit - again, something that was centuries ahead of its time. His regime was relatively friendly towards women (for the time) and they did hold some positions of power. He also emphasized education and medicine in his Empire.

He was power-hungry, sure, but that could be said of dozens of warlords throughout history, many of whom are responsible for far fouler acts. Khan is still looked upon with a degree of reverence in East Asia; only when you hit the Middle East (which took the brunt of his and his descendants' worst attacks) does the reputation start to sour.

I have no idea where this Disney Villain image of Genghis Khan started from, but it's seriously out of touch with what he was actually like as a person.

SushiSquid posted...

Rape has always been wrong. Murder has always been wrong. Firing diseased bodies into a city to infect its inhabitants has always been wrong. Slaughtering every living thing in one city so that other cities would fear you has always been wrong. Destroying the most beautiful city in the world and then salting the earth has always been wrong. Regardless of his time period, Temujin was one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived. Comparing his actions to literally anyone else shows a serious ignorance of scale.

Which "most beautiful city" are you talking about? I hope it's not Baghdad, because that would make you look really stupid.
---

Fair enough. I've attributed to Temujin the actions of his descendants. That isn't fair. He did conquer, which still means needlessly killing people for personal vanity. He also raped plenty. Still not a good person.

streamofthesky posted...

TheOrangeMisfit posted...

Why do you have such a hard on for Khan?

Why do you equate knowing stuff w/ having a hard on for it?
Are those the only subjects you know anything about?

This. I don't even like him. I'm just not ignorant.
---

That kid that abandoned his charmander alone in the rain and then laughed about it
---

Here's a moral question that we can hopefully keep as a civil debate:

Who is worse, one who kills with or without prejudice? This isn't about justifying any atrocities, just so we're clear. Let's not go down that road. It's a very complex question, in the sense that is somebody who impulsively kills anyone (almost at random) ethically more horrible than the one who focuses resources actively eliminating a particular group while putting another on a pedestal?... My position is that it's relative. If you're part of "the chosen team", the latter is probably less problematic. If you're not, the former certainly would be.

Take Mao Zedong or Josef Stalin, for instance: anyone and everyone was on their radar as a potential target and they had no remorse with regards to starving any of their own people, working them to death, or throwing them at the enemy, unarmed, until the opposing force ran out of bullets. They had no functional strategies beyond what amounted killing their own people. Without prejudice...

On the other side of things, you have Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, who, if you were the right type of human, really had nothing to fear as long as you didn't choose to be disruptive to their agendas. With prejudice...
---

SushiSquid posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

No idea how Genghis Khan... got on that list.

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more, germ warfare, terrorism, destruction of Baghdad, and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

Tens of thousands? Try millions. The man was responsible for the greatest genocide until ww2, and that's only because more victims just weren't available.

Muhammed by miles.
---

Other: George Soros
---

SushiSquid posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

No idea how Genghis Khan... got on that list.

The rape of tens of thousands, slaughter of even more, germ warfare, terrorism, destruction of Baghdad, and all of his other horrific deeds doesn't strike you as evil?

I voted Genghis Khan. Easily one of the most vile and evil people to have ever lived, and probably does take the top spot.

Someone drank the cool aid and hasn't seen unbiased reports.

I imagine the most evil person who ever lived is somebody most people never heard of, like some guy who raped and tortured children then convinced them that this was normal and this was how love was expressed. Everybody goes for the big names but, honestly, I'm not sure that any of them are depraved enough. Even Hitler probably pales in comparison to some third-world dictators, with his big selling point being that he did his crimes on a much larger scale.

Colloquially-speaking, though, Hitler's name is synonymous with evil.
---

A tie between Bob Dylan and Walt Disney and Thomas Edison as a runner up.
---

to be fair, jesus probably didn't exist.
---

SushiSquid posted...

Fair enough. I've attributed to Temujin the actions of his descendants. That isn't fair. He did conquer, which still means needlessly killing people for personal vanity. He also raped plenty. Still not a good person.

This is a fair assessment, although it more or less puts Khan on the same level as, say, Napoleon (which he more or less was, albeit a 13th-century version of him from a different culture). He was no saint, no disagreements here, but I don't think his actions really put him in the running for the "Most Evil Asshole" title, especially considering what some of the others on that list did.

Also, I read back over my last post and realised I came off like a bit of a hostile asshole, so I apologize for that.
---

darkknight109 posted...

SushiSquid posted...

Fair enough. I've attributed to Temujin the actions of his descendants. That isn't fair. He did conquer, which still means needlessly killing people for personal vanity. He also raped plenty. Still not a good person.

This is a fair assessment, although it more or less puts Khan on the same level as, say, Napoleon (which he more or less was, albeit a 13th-century version of him from a different culture). He was no saint, no disagreements here, but I don't think his actions really put him in the running for the "Most Evil Asshole" title, especially considering what some of the others on that list did.

Also, I read back over my last post and realised I came off like a bit of a hostile asshole, so I apologize for that.

The thing is while history is written by the victors this is one time where it was not. In fact he was happy to have conquered people write and exaggerate to make his next conquests more willing to surrender. Which some did because the mongols did eliminate entire cities.

He went from being an agent of god against the Muslims to the "scourge of god" when they started moving in on christian lands.

The reports of his actions sit in our memory largely because he was a "other". His actions were brutal, but not uniquely brutal. What was unique was how successful the mongols were. It isn't until relatively recently that people have started to actually research into ghengis khan and accept information that doesn't come from church propaganda from almost a thousand years ago. It seems people want to view the amount of people killed as their scale rather than the reason people were killed.

The list isn't even supposed to be about this, throw in some controversial religious leader options with some basic agreed upon evil people. How about evil individuals like Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain? Nah we can make jokes about the inquisition but we will favor them for funding Columbus and completely ignore how many muslims and jews they murdered.

I guess us history buffs just had to go and ruin it.

Muhammed easily. Not only was he evil himself, he inspires generations to be evil.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Here's a moral question that we can hopefully keep as a civil debate:

Who is worse, one who kills with or without prejudice? This isn't about justifying any atrocities, just so we're clear. Let's not go down that road. It's a very complex question, in the sense that is somebody who impulsively kills anyone (almost at random) ethically more horrible than the one who focuses resources actively eliminating a particular group while putting another on a pedestal?... My position is that it's relative. If you're part of "the chosen team", the latter is probably less problematic. If you're not, the former certainly would be.

Take Mao Zedong or Josef Stalin, for instance: anyone and everyone was on their radar as a potential target and they had no remorse with regards to starving any of their own people, working them to death, or throwing them at the enemy, unarmed, until the opposing force ran out of bullets. They had no functional strategies beyond what amounted killing their own people. Without prejudice...

On the other side of things, you have Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, who, if you were the right type of human, really had nothing to fear as long as you didn't choose to be disruptive to their agendas. With prejudice...

I say one who kills without prejudice is worse, as they have no loyalty to anything, even their own countrymen.

Very easily kimbo
@Kimbos_Egg
---

yup
---

Donald "I'm ushering in a new dark ages" Trump.
---

Has to be Abraham Lincoln. Incredible how history has twisted the facts about this tyrant.

Hyyr posted...

Has to be Abraham Lincoln. Incredible how history has twisted the facts about this tyrant.

Please elaborate.
---

Abradolf lincler
---

Albert Einstein
---

Mead posted...

Hyyr posted...

Has to be Abraham Lincoln. Incredible how history has twisted the facts about this tyrant.

Please elaborate.

Conservatives rewrite history.

Okay Hitler was fucked up but his intentions werent even pure evil.
He legitimately thought he was creating a superior human race.
---

ZBug_ posted...

Okay Hitler was fucked up but his intentions werent even pure evil.
He legitimately thought he was creating a superior human race.

Yup, super not evil to kill jews for no reason.
---

EvilMegas posted...

ZBug_ posted...

Okay Hitler was fucked up but his intentions werent even pure evil.
He legitimately thought he was creating a superior human race.

Yup, super not evil to kill jews for no reason.

Im not going to pretend he wasnt a bad person. But hes not cut and dry all around badguy that people think he is. History doesnt play out like a video game or a story book, life is often more complicated than good vs evil.
You can find old footage of Adolf Hitler flirting with Eva Braun. He could love and care about people; He might have had something knocked loose in that head of his but he wasnt a psychopath.
Believe it or not, Hitler believed his actions would better the human race as a whole. That once all the impure was weeded out (Nazi mentality not mine) that what was left would be a genetically superior race.

For the sake of an example, have you ever thought to yourself: Geeze stupid people should not be allowed to have kids? If yes, then congratulations you and Hitler have something in common.
The difference is you wouldnt go out commit genocide against the people you dont like. He did, yes he was a terrible terrible person.
No I am not defending his actions in any way shape or form.
That said, a random no name serial rapist/ murderer is probably more Evil than Hitler. Hitler just had much more power and resources.

Thats my two cents
---

ZBug_ posted...

EvilMegas posted...

ZBug_ posted...

Okay Hitler was fucked up but his intentions werent even pure evil.
He legitimately thought he was creating a superior human race.

Yup, super not evil to kill jews for no reason.

Im not going to pretend he wasnt a bad person. But hes not cut and dry all around badguy that people think he is. History doesnt play out like a video game or a story book, life is often more complicated than good vs evil.
You can find old footage of Adolf Hitler flirting with Eva Braun. He could love and care about people; He might have had something knocked loose in that head of his but he wasnt a psychopath.
Believe it or not, Hitler believed his actions would better the human race as a whole. That once all the impure was weeded out (Nazi mentality not mine) that what was left would be a genetically superior race.

For the sake of an example, have you ever thought to yourself: Geeze stupid people should not be allowed to have kids? If yes, then congratulations you and Hitler have something in common.
The difference is you wouldnt go out commit genocide against the people you dont like. He did, yes he was a terrible terrible person.
No I am not defending his actions in any way shape or form.
That said, a random no name serial rapist/ murderer is probably more Evil than Hitler. Hitler just had much more power and resources.

Thats my two cents

If Zbug's posts go un-modded, I'll have lost my last shred of respect for the mods on this site.

streamofthesky posted...

ZBug_ posted...

EvilMegas posted...

ZBug_ posted...

Okay Hitler was fucked up but his intentions werent even pure evil.
He legitimately thought he was creating a superior human race.

Yup, super not evil to kill jews for no reason.

Im not going to pretend he wasnt a bad person. But hes not cut and dry all around badguy that people think he is. History doesnt play out like a video game or a story book, life is often more complicated than good vs evil.
You can find old footage of Adolf Hitler flirting with Eva Braun. He could love and care about people; He might have had something knocked loose in that head of his but he wasnt a psychopath.
Believe it or not, Hitler believed his actions would better the human race as a whole. That once all the impure was weeded out (Nazi mentality not mine) that what was left would be a genetically superior race.

For the sake of an example, have you ever thought to yourself: Geeze stupid people should not be allowed to have kids? If yes, then congratulations you and Hitler have something in common.
The difference is you wouldnt go out commit genocide against the people you dont like. He did, yes he was a terrible terrible person.
No I am not defending his actions in any way shape or form.
That said, a random no name serial rapist/ murderer is probably more Evil than Hitler. Hitler just had much more power and resources.

Thats my two cents

If Zbug's posts go un-modded, I'll have lost my last shred of respect for the mods on this site.

Im sorry you dont wish to discuss the topic at hand?
Its well within the parameters TC laid out.
---