Good quote put pretty ironic coming from the guy that ruined France economically and demographically for the next 100 years, and left it to lag behind the UK and the other Empires of the 19th century.
A coalition of monarchies did gang up and wage war on the French republic, to stop their crazy ideas from spreading.
Kind of parallel to France demanding Haiti pay them compensation for slaves being freed.
In both cases we'd generally look more kindly on republics and freeing slaves from the modern perspective, and maybe put more blame on the people trying to undermine them.
The Empire was formed after Napoleon's success in the wars of the Republican era, which occurred exactly because "A coalition of monarchies did gang up and wage war on the French republic".
Napoleon did not just emerge from the head of Zeus as a fully-formed Emporer.
And, technically, Napoleon headed the French government first while it was still nominally a Republic, under the Consulate of the Constitution of Year VIII.
Ok but as a French, we don't really think as 1789-1804 as "Napoleon's time". His empire was and remains what he his most remembered for. He's literally referred to as "l'empereur" (the emperor).
I don't think I need to expand on how his Empire wasn't really democratic, or a republic.
That's not a "slight" nitpick. While we can be grateful to Napoleon to bring modern law and scientific advances to the rest of Europe, he certainly didn't conquer it in the interest of democracy.
The post I replied to said Napolean ruined France compared with nearby empires.
I said the nearby empires were hostile to revolution and so keen to keep a Franch Republic down.
Wikipedia says:
> As early as 1791, the other monarchies of Europe looked with outrage at the revolution and its upheavals; and they considered whether they should intervene, either in support of King Louis XVI to prevent the spread of revolution, or to take advantage of the chaos in France. Austria stationed significant troops on its French border and together with Prussia issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which threatened severe consequences should anything happen to King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette.
Ok but did he have to go as far as Russia? Couldn't he just consolidate his forces instead of getting drunk on conquest and waging war all the way to eastern-most Europe?
That's probably exactly what the other "side" is thinking.
For example:
They think that allowing people with penises to to change in women's locker rooms just because they identify as women is wicked, so they aren't being silent about it.
Look I think we should disagree on fiscal and social policy, and be able to deliberate over these issues.
And have a system of government that allows for that kind of debate and representative vote.
But "one side" is dismantling everything that was still democratic about the United States and turning into a massively one-sided (even one-manned) system of control. So whatever your opinion or mine on social policy no longer matter, because it's all up to the whims of a single person, with no recourse for the rest of us.
A strongman. A Caesar. Someone to champion the cultural values and identity we believe in. You don't have to like it, agree with it or understand it for it to happen.
Honestly I am trolling a little bit(maybe a lot) but this is literally how people think and no amount of discussion is going to change their minds. They want outcome A, you want outcome B, and there are very little (perhaps 0) shared values to build a cohesive foundation on which to compromise.
> no amount of discussion is going to change their minds
It's a slow process. A MAGA extremist isn't going to read "LGBT rights are human rights!" and say "Ah, I didn't realize! Of course!" and become a liberal.
Maybe they argue with someone about how tariffs are going to be great for the country, and they don't change their mind. But a few months later their neighbor in trucking loses their job, and their friend in construction is talking about how hard it is now, and they start to have a few doubts. They think back to how the guy they were arguing with said this would happen.
And then they argue with someone that only illegal aliens are going to be deported, and they don't change their mind. But then when US citizens start being sent to the camps, they remember that they thought this wouldn't happen and even argued against it.
People do change their mind eventually. Even violent fanatics have changed their minds: the Maoist Red Guards lost steam, the IRA followed a peace process as did FARC in Colombia. If you love liberty, democracy, peace, and prosperity, then I think your best move is to persist in trying to convince MAGA extremists, while understanding that it will take a long time and potentially a lot of chaos and conflict.
One of the most important lessons I've learned is that minds are not changed overnight, and thinking you can will drive you crazy. One's goal in engaging with people whose mind you want to change shouldn't actually be to convince them right there and then, but rather to encourage them to think about their position over time.
cultural values you say? like rape, corruption, extreme pettiness and selfishness?
these people are in a cult. their sunk cost bias is overwhelming most of their sanity.
and of course the world is not going in the way they wish, so their conflict resolution is to write a blank check to said strongman. (and project everything on him.)
If that's what it takes to undo the moral decline of the last 30 years then so be it.
I'm sick of seeing insanity in schools, at work, and on the news everyday.
Our culture has been totally deconstructed and reversed where drag and pedophilia is celebrated, being diverse is more important than being skilled/having ability, being white is seen as tainted or somehow lesser than someone who has a diverse background. Beauty has been replaced with vulgarity and queerness.
The reversal has been a long time coming. We have had a silent majority that was too afraid to act because of the legal implications of going against powerful special interests.
But shipping people out of the country without due process, into a foreign high security prison, and ignoring a court order to bring him back, is a whole lot worse.
Good quote put pretty ironic coming from the guy that ruined France economically and demographically for the next 100 years, and left it to lag behind the UK and the other Empires of the 19th century.
A coalition of monarchies did gang up and wage war on the French republic, to stop their crazy ideas from spreading.
Kind of parallel to France demanding Haiti pay them compensation for slaves being freed.
In both cases we'd generally look more kindly on republics and freeing slaves from the modern perspective, and maybe put more blame on the people trying to undermine them.
Slight nitpick, but France was no longer a Republic in Napoleon's time. It had become the First French Empire.
The Empire was formed after Napoleon's success in the wars of the Republican era, which occurred exactly because "A coalition of monarchies did gang up and wage war on the French republic".
Napoleon did not just emerge from the head of Zeus as a fully-formed Emporer.
And, technically, Napoleon headed the French government first while it was still nominally a Republic, under the Consulate of the Constitution of Year VIII.
Napoleon was a French military officer from 1785 to 1800.
During that time, France was a monarchy and republic, before becoming an empire when he rose to political power and directed its military as ruler.
So, all of the above in his time?
Ok but as a French, we don't really think as 1789-1804 as "Napoleon's time". His empire was and remains what he his most remembered for. He's literally referred to as "l'empereur" (the emperor).
I don't think I need to expand on how his Empire wasn't really democratic, or a republic.
Napoleon is definitely remembered for his military campaigns and political actions before 1804.
Napoleon's Italian campaign of 1796-97 is one of the most brilliant campaigns in history.
Napoleon's legendary (and disastrous) Egyptian campaign took place from 1798-1801.
The 18th of Brumaire, Year VII (9 November 1799) is an extremely famous date in history, as the date that Napoleon overthrew the Directory.
Napoleon's crossing of the Alps and the crucial Battle of Marengo occurred in 1800.
If Napoleon had retired in 1803, he would still be one of the most famous figures in French history.
That's not a "slight" nitpick. While we can be grateful to Napoleon to bring modern law and scientific advances to the rest of Europe, he certainly didn't conquer it in the interest of democracy.
It's an incorrect nitpick.
The post I replied to said Napolean ruined France compared with nearby empires.
I said the nearby empires were hostile to revolution and so keen to keep a Franch Republic down.
Wikipedia says:
> As early as 1791, the other monarchies of Europe looked with outrage at the revolution and its upheavals; and they considered whether they should intervene, either in support of King Louis XVI to prevent the spread of revolution, or to take advantage of the chaos in France. Austria stationed significant troops on its French border and together with Prussia issued the Declaration of Pillnitz, which threatened severe consequences should anything happen to King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette.
Ok but did he have to go as far as Russia? Couldn't he just consolidate his forces instead of getting drunk on conquest and waging war all the way to eastern-most Europe?
That's probably exactly what the other "side" is thinking.
For example:
They think that allowing people with penises to to change in women's locker rooms just because they identify as women is wicked, so they aren't being silent about it.
> the locker room situation with Thomas, who although she has transitioned to being female hormonally and identified as a woman, still has male body parts https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/lia-thomas-teamma...
The pendulum eventually swings to the other side.
(I'm somewhere in the middle with I suspect a majority of people - it's the extremists that are the loudest.)
So both-sides then?
Look I think we should disagree on fiscal and social policy, and be able to deliberate over these issues.
And have a system of government that allows for that kind of debate and representative vote.
But "one side" is dismantling everything that was still democratic about the United States and turning into a massively one-sided (even one-manned) system of control. So whatever your opinion or mine on social policy no longer matter, because it's all up to the whims of a single person, with no recourse for the rest of us.
The biggest problem is that everyone has their own version of good and bad, so all need to get up and action, to form sort of equilibrium.
[flagged]
> The democratic process is failing the majority of people so the people are replacing it
I see. And what is it that you are replacing it with?
A strongman. A Caesar. Someone to champion the cultural values and identity we believe in. You don't have to like it, agree with it or understand it for it to happen.
Honestly I am trolling a little bit(maybe a lot) but this is literally how people think and no amount of discussion is going to change their minds. They want outcome A, you want outcome B, and there are very little (perhaps 0) shared values to build a cohesive foundation on which to compromise.
> no amount of discussion is going to change their minds
It's a slow process. A MAGA extremist isn't going to read "LGBT rights are human rights!" and say "Ah, I didn't realize! Of course!" and become a liberal.
Maybe they argue with someone about how tariffs are going to be great for the country, and they don't change their mind. But a few months later their neighbor in trucking loses their job, and their friend in construction is talking about how hard it is now, and they start to have a few doubts. They think back to how the guy they were arguing with said this would happen.
And then they argue with someone that only illegal aliens are going to be deported, and they don't change their mind. But then when US citizens start being sent to the camps, they remember that they thought this wouldn't happen and even argued against it.
People do change their mind eventually. Even violent fanatics have changed their minds: the Maoist Red Guards lost steam, the IRA followed a peace process as did FARC in Colombia. If you love liberty, democracy, peace, and prosperity, then I think your best move is to persist in trying to convince MAGA extremists, while understanding that it will take a long time and potentially a lot of chaos and conflict.
One of the most important lessons I've learned is that minds are not changed overnight, and thinking you can will drive you crazy. One's goal in engaging with people whose mind you want to change shouldn't actually be to convince them right there and then, but rather to encourage them to think about their position over time.
> You don't have to like it, agree with it or understand it for it to happen.
Sure but the problem is: he's going to fail the majority as well, which means they're going to step in and replace him next.
> which means they're going to step in and replace him next.
Or discover they can't. The thing about strongmen dictators is they aren't that easy to just replace.
cultural values you say? like rape, corruption, extreme pettiness and selfishness?
these people are in a cult. their sunk cost bias is overwhelming most of their sanity.
and of course the world is not going in the way they wish, so their conflict resolution is to write a blank check to said strongman. (and project everything on him.)
If that's what it takes to undo the moral decline of the last 30 years then so be it.
I'm sick of seeing insanity in schools, at work, and on the news everyday.
Our culture has been totally deconstructed and reversed where drag and pedophilia is celebrated, being diverse is more important than being skilled/having ability, being white is seen as tainted or somehow lesser than someone who has a diverse background. Beauty has been replaced with vulgarity and queerness.
The reversal has been a long time coming. We have had a silent majority that was too afraid to act because of the legal implications of going against powerful special interests.
> these people are in a cult
yeah and I propose that "othering" anyone is the root of a problem, in itself. Don't become the thing you hate.
Othering is bad, sure.
But shipping people out of the country without due process, into a foreign high security prison, and ignoring a court order to bring him back, is a whole lot worse.
Let’s keep our eyes on the ball.
Is it the democratic process failing, or it being destroyed by monied interests?
Oh yes the country is going to shit but let's focus on fairness in sports that's really what matters
Yea, there's like 10 Trans NCAA athletes out of 10,000 so let's stop everything and focus on that.
Why aren't we laughing all day at the right because they're a bunch of fucking clowns?
(I identify as an independent).
>I'm somewhere in the middle with I suspect a majority of people - it's the extremists that are the loudest
Trump is the loudest and he represents his supporters
[flagged]