You're winning an argument that no one is having with you, great job 👍
You didn't respond to the substance of my comment. Links to paywalled articles are trivial to paste into a site like archive.is. Archive sites are taken down all the time, it makes no sense to provide them as the primary source of a link.
You didn't really read or engage with any of my points, so I'll ignore your lecture about misunderstanding.
I would have upvoted this if it didn't have a pointless tumblr caption on it.
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.
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.
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?
Sounds like a personal problem. Try using a little more imagination.
~~my wife left her~~ I carefully posed ~~my wife's~~ a purse on a chair
Nope sorry, Youtube gets punished for bad ad practices. You don't get to pretend that the content creator is the victim of the ad-blocking user when YT controls the platform.
Americans who understand the first amendment will tell you that freedom of association is inseparable from freedom of expression. The government (plus its agents) is the only entity constrained by the First Amendment. Everyone else benefits from it, including certain instance owners who don't want to associate with certain others.
Or they both turn their backs on him and start pooping and eating at the same time.