Not your guy, pal. And I mean if that were true, you would actually respond to my points instead of taking this strange position where my direct response to you is somehow just me arguing with myself.
but ok:
You didn’t specify a state, country or territory that your meme is addressing. Do all countries have these sad little metaphorical guillotines? Even democracies?
When and why should the killing start? Because when someone is this unspecific about killing people, I’ll be honest, it’s pretty repellent to me. Think about all the different images and ideas this meme conjures in the mind of your upvoters. How many do you think have their own personal kill list?
You didn’t specify a state, country or territory that your meme is addressing. Do all countries have these sad little metaphorical guillotines? Even democracies?
Yes, absolutely. Especially democracies. Institutions of force don’t acquiesce to the will of the voters out of the kindness of their hearts, they do so because they understand that there is a very real threat of violence if they don’t. As the saying goes, the three boxes are the soapbox, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. This has been understood on a basic level for as long as democracy has existed.
When and why should the killing start?
Ideally, not at all. But it becomes necessary the more calcified and unreactive to popular opinion a society’s institutions of power become, and institutions of power tend to become insulated from popular opinion when they hold disproportionate power compared to the masses. The more disproportionate their power, the less they heed the voices of the people and the more nakedly they pursue their own interests.
Because when someone is this unspecific about killing people, I’ll be honest, it’s pretty repellent to me. Think about all the different images and ideas this meme conjures in the mind of your upvoters. How many do you think have their own personal kill list?
If you think someone is about to begin a revolution because they saw someone post a crying guillotine on a political meme forum, then there were much deeper problems afoot than the hungriest little guillotine.
Implicit in your argument is that the outcome of political violence is always (or at least often) a net positive for the public. Not really buying that.
As the saying goes, the three boxes are the soapbox, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. This has been understood on a basic level for as long as democracy has existed.
It’s four boxes, you have (unironically?) omitted juries. And democracy existed long before 19th century US politics.
If you think someone is about to begin a revolution because they saw someone post a crying guillotine on a political meme forum, then there were much deeper problems afoot than the hungriest little guillotine.
Because you didn’t address it, my point remains. I am not saying someone is going to start a revolutions. I’m saying that things like your meme contribute to an environment that normalizes violence as a solution to political problems. None of the nuance of what you said above is connoted in the OP, and as with most memes, the majority of people upvote and keep scrolling.
You don’t have any control over what “good political violence” means to the people for whom it is normalized. All you can control is the decision not to post the meme about how beheadings are good.
Implicit in your argument is that the outcome of political violence is always (or at least often) a net positive for the public.
How so? The argument posits that political violence or the threat of it is necessary in all interactions with institutions of power that are not just rolling over and taking what is given, not that all exercises of political violence or threats thereof are good.
It’s four boxes, you have (unironically?) omitted juries.
So I did, mea culpa.
Because you didn’t address it, my point remains. I am not saying someone is going to start a revolutions. I’m saying that things like your meme contribute to an environment that normalizes violence as a solution to political problems. None of the nuance of what you said above is connoted in the OP, and as with most memes, the majority of people upvote and keep scrolling.
I have a question: if someone makes a movie about the French Revolution, and that movie is clearly meant to have parallels in its narrative with modern class structures and issues, would that be contributing to an environment that normalizes violence?
I can rephrase, maybe wasn’t clear. The word “necessary” implies a confidence in some desired outcome, and certainly that such an outcome would not make things even worse.
Like if something like this happened in America, what happens next? The Constitution is already in tatters at that point, do we try to put it back together? And where is America on the world stage then? France had few friends after the revolution.
I have a question: if someone makes a movie about the French Revolution, and that movie is clearly meant to have parallels in its narrative with modern class structures and issues, would that be contributing to an environment that normalizes violence?
I would welcome such a movie because it would probably have far more of a textual/historical basis, point of view and coherent philosophy than “I’m so hungry 😞”.
Actually seeing a depiction of the violence carried out against French nobles would provoke way more critical thinking in viewers than a cartoon guillotine.
Would this film also contend with la Terreur? By all accounts most of the blood spilled by revolutionaries was that of “suspected” counter revolutionary spies, near 30K people. Lot of spies! Almost an unbelievable number.
lol every point is taken from your comment.
My guy, if you’re interested in having a serious conversation, I’m game, but that precludes having arguments with yourself or weird one-line remarks.
Not your guy, pal. And I mean if that were true, you would actually respond to my points instead of taking this strange position where my direct response to you is somehow just me arguing with myself.
but ok:
You didn’t specify a state, country or territory that your meme is addressing. Do all countries have these sad little metaphorical guillotines? Even democracies?
When and why should the killing start? Because when someone is this unspecific about killing people, I’ll be honest, it’s pretty repellent to me. Think about all the different images and ideas this meme conjures in the mind of your upvoters. How many do you think have their own personal kill list?
Yes, absolutely. Especially democracies. Institutions of force don’t acquiesce to the will of the voters out of the kindness of their hearts, they do so because they understand that there is a very real threat of violence if they don’t. As the saying goes, the three boxes are the soapbox, the ballot box, and the cartridge box. This has been understood on a basic level for as long as democracy has existed.
Ideally, not at all. But it becomes necessary the more calcified and unreactive to popular opinion a society’s institutions of power become, and institutions of power tend to become insulated from popular opinion when they hold disproportionate power compared to the masses. The more disproportionate their power, the less they heed the voices of the people and the more nakedly they pursue their own interests.
If you think someone is about to begin a revolution because they saw someone post a crying guillotine on a political meme forum, then there were much deeper problems afoot than the hungriest little guillotine.
Implicit in your argument is that the outcome of political violence is always (or at least often) a net positive for the public. Not really buying that.
It’s four boxes, you have (unironically?) omitted juries. And democracy existed long before 19th century US politics.
Because you didn’t address it, my point remains. I am not saying someone is going to start a revolutions. I’m saying that things like your meme contribute to an environment that normalizes violence as a solution to political problems. None of the nuance of what you said above is connoted in the OP, and as with most memes, the majority of people upvote and keep scrolling.
You don’t have any control over what “good political violence” means to the people for whom it is normalized. All you can control is the decision not to post the meme about how beheadings are good.
How so? The argument posits that political violence or the threat of it is necessary in all interactions with institutions of power that are not just rolling over and taking what is given, not that all exercises of political violence or threats thereof are good.
So I did, mea culpa.
I have a question: if someone makes a movie about the French Revolution, and that movie is clearly meant to have parallels in its narrative with modern class structures and issues, would that be contributing to an environment that normalizes violence?
I can rephrase, maybe wasn’t clear. The word “necessary” implies a confidence in some desired outcome, and certainly that such an outcome would not make things even worse.
Like if something like this happened in America, what happens next? The Constitution is already in tatters at that point, do we try to put it back together? And where is America on the world stage then? France had few friends after the revolution.
I would welcome such a movie because it would probably have far more of a textual/historical basis, point of view and coherent philosophy than “I’m so hungry 😞”.
Actually seeing a depiction of the violence carried out against French nobles would provoke way more critical thinking in viewers than a cartoon guillotine.
Would this film also contend with la Terreur? By all accounts most of the blood spilled by revolutionaries was that of “suspected” counter revolutionary spies, near 30K people. Lot of spies! Almost an unbelievable number.