I believe if everyone who was against the current oligarchy started placing guillotine stickers everywhere, like you might for a favorite band, people would feel less isolated in their distaste for the current system.
And in an ideal world those who the guillotines are for might realize just how much they are in the minority.
And this can be for the working men and women:
It even comes with a slogan waiting to be shopped into a better version of itself.
Either we get our cut or you (the rich) do.
I think it’s a good wood working and general building project to teach the young folks how best to operate them properly and well maintained
It’ll be great for the children one way or another.
In the US, the problem is that the guillotine has no cultural context like with France.
But still
It’s a great symbol of the revolution, but it’s not a great “common man” symbol. The common man is the worker just trying to improve society/home for their friends, family, and selves. A guillotine isn’t a great symbol of that.
It’s a rather horrible symbol. I say this as a French leftist.
I was thinking of the “common man” as the opposite to the Epstein class. What would be a good symbol?
Tools that represent the working class?
Hammer and sickle have an unfortunate association but perhaps the intent behind the symbols can be recaptured.So, keyboard & electric screwdriver?
Not sure. There are a lot of symbols used in the past that have come to mean one party or another. That’s likely to happen again with any “common man” symbolism.
For now, during times of fighting against the oppression, a guillotine works to symbolize the movement.
I don’t know, I’m kind of beholden to the gallows myself. Less gore, more spectacle. And a historical punishment for treason, specifically.
Yeah I’m not a fan of the types of punishment for treason that don’t include pain.
Let’s not pervert the word “treason;” it’s a very specific term.
Meanwhile, the guillotine was used in this exact context for this exact purpose.
Jan. 6 was treason.
Barely related, but sure, we can talk about 1/6.
I would use the term “insurrection” because treason is too broad and more typically associated with helping an enemy wage war against your country.
You see, the man and his ilk have sworn an oath to act in the interest of the country and its people. What they’re doing is treason because they are betraying the public and the nation. As for whether there is a conspiracy with foreign powers in play, we don’t know for sure. But there are worrying signs such as his private conversations with Putin off the record.
Treason incorporates more than helping an enemy wage war against your country.
I’m aware of that, which is why I said “too broad.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/treason https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/treason
Both Mariam Webster and Cambridge defines it as trying to overthrow the government. That’s what was attempted in jan 6.
So your point is that an insurrection is a type of treason?
-
I like using the more specific term.
-
In US law treason pertains to helping enemies wage war on the US; it requires the US be at war and you are helping its enemies.
-
I prefer lemon-lime treason myself
“Treason is the crime of betraying one’s own country, typically by trying to overthrow the government or helping a hostile foreign enemy.”
Ignoring all facts and common sense to elevate and empower a single man who behaves like a tyrant, abuses his powers, violates the Constitution, vilifies millions of Americans, and has made it clear he isn’t a fan of democracy is a betrayal of the United States of America and its core values. That makes Donald Trump, every single Republican voter, and Republican member of Congress a traitor to the United States of America.
Reminder that Donald Trump instigated an attempt to violently overthrow the government and thousands of his followers took part.
If Donald Trump, the members of Congress who allow him free reign to do whatever he wants, and the citizens who voted for him AFTER he incited an insurrection and subsequently PARDONED the insurrectionists doesn’t amount to treason, then the word itself should simply be erased from our vocabulary.
As I already said and you already replied to, “insurrection” is a better word to describe 1/6.
The last three paragraphs of your comment appear to just be virtue signaling, maybe because you assume I disagree with you.
How about insurrection AND treason?
It’s not virtue signalling. It’s explaining why Donald Trump, Republican congress members, and Republican voters are traitors and why traitor is an appropriate term for them. Whether you agreed or not is kind of beside the point.
Yeah but you see how you’re making an argument for why we should call something a “bug” instead of a “spider?”
I like being specific. Yes, the broader term technically works. You don’t have to convince me of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYJ5ZViYhHQ
Very based song.
Really really reminds me of King of Carrot Flowers pt. 2.
Great song. AJJ actually covers…2 headed boy…I think that’s the one anyways. NMH are awesome.
sure did. they even did their own version of the NMH cover.
Ohhh, Andrew Jackson Jihad wow I haven’t seen that name forever. Definitely didn’t recognize them as AJJ.
We should popularize using the guillotine
as a symbol of the common manFixed that for you.
Violence does work to change society, but usually not immediately.
Slave rebellions in the US led to people changing their views of slavery and strengthened the abolitionist cause
The Haymarket Affair led to increased labor protections
Coal wars led to improved mine safety standards
Stonewall basically created the movements that seek to protect LGBTQ+ people.
Attica prison riot resulted in reforms of prison management.
Watts rebellion changed views on poverty and discrimination
1992 LA uprising led to increased attention on police misconduct
Of course, none of the people involved in the violence saw immediate improvements, and most of them suffered for their involvement.
Violence informs the Epstein class that they’ve pushed too far, so they ratchet things back a bit to try to keep their heads.
Don’t pretend that they care about the signs and chants or some commuter inconvenience. They’re motivated by a fear of starvation, fire, and blood.
Also, if you look at some of the examples I listed, the violence was started by the police or private security sent to suppress otherwise non-violent (albeit loud and threatening) protest.
None of the No-Kings protests have become anything that anyone would feel the need to suppress. However, they give a small chance of hope that it will lead to something real.
Violence informs the Epstein class that they’ve pushed too far, so they ratchet things back a bit to try to keep their heads.
Maybe if we finish the job next time violence breaks out things will be different.
Unfortunately, that’s the tipping point that results in massive innocent suffering and deaths.
The only people who think that’s a good thing are the people who are lying to themselves about how bad it will be.
As opposed to continually being oppressed to the absolute limit?
Yeah. You have to be alive to be oppressed.
In most cases, when the violence reaches the point of complete destruction of the entire government, what rises to replace it is exponentially worse.
The phrase “Off with their head” is about to be hip again.
With the Epstein Class, start with the lower one.
how about a nice flag with AKs on it like Hamas. yeeeeaaahh so coool
try the ballot box you thugs
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Here’s your choice of trust-fund-idiot or oil-baron-tyrant that will both bomb the nearest country of brown people… Go ahead and change the world with that
Gods forbid a leftist gets you better pay or healthcare you apathic liberal.
see the great thing is that both things can be done
Russia already rigged the last one.
Plan B: abbdandon our accursed civilization.
How about trying some of these:
https://www.aeinstein.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action
…before getting violent.
Violence is committed against the public everyday. Stripping the public of healthcare is violence. Stagnating wages are violence. Decreasing Affordability is violence. The For-Profit prison system is violence. The stripping of environmental protections is violence. The stripping of food safety regulations is violence. The shooting of protestors is violence. The beating of protestors is violence. The use of chemical warfare against the public is violence. The installation of spy cameras to limit free movement is violence.
Violence is fine as long as it is committed by the state to enforce the status quo and further the interests of the elite.
Most of these have been tried and we now have a new Gestapo rounding up minorities and letting them die in detention camps, while the rich bid on how they will redesign Gaza once the genocide is complete.
Nonviolent action has not stopped this regime, but one assassinated CEO has rippled changes in healthcare and made the epstein class scared. While I do advocate for nonviolence first, we are well beyond the point where violence isn’t reciprocal
Non violent methods work but you need far more organisation for it to work. 1 person can kill a billionaire. It takes action of millions to starve a large corporation.
Takes people like you and me being brave enough to not show up to work.
Boycotts are so much easier than strikes, just need people to organise and actually do it
If you can point to one actual change directly from that CEOs death you would shock the hell out of me.
Prepare to be shocked.
Immediately after his death, his company loosened their standards and offered care to thousands who had been previously denied, and so did every other health care company. I have read many stories of people who had been denied previously, and were suffering, and even dying, who finally got treatment following the Corporate Serial Killer’s justifiable execution.
It didn’t last, and they went back to business as usual, but that only demonstrates that we have to eliminate a random health care CEO every few months, to keep these Parasites under control.
I was hoping for more than just an anecdote, but really that’s on me for not saying that. Everything I’ve seen from UHC is doubling down the idea that they “only deny <X% of claims, yada yada”
UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty defended the company’s claim denial practices in an internal video which was leaked after the fatal shooting of Thompson. Recorded on December 5, the day after Thompson’s death, Witty emphasized the company’s role in ensuring “safe and appropriate” care and that the insurance giant will continue to prevent "unnecessary care”.[166] Two months after the shooting, UnitedHealth hired a defamation law firm to take action against social media posts critical of the company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Brian_Thompson
Witty did step down, and a bunch of executives hired body guards, but I don’t see any lasting change from the whole thing. Even if they did allow claims they wouldn’t have for a little while, if it’s business as usual nothing has really changed (not to undersell how important that is for people who may have been affected).
their was a noticable decrease in declined claims immediately following his death, some lives were saved (or improved, if only temporarily) as a direct consequence of that parasite finally being taken out
Now imagine if EVERY corrupt action/rulebreak was meet with a bullet? Everyone who is there for the scam, would not bother applying.
Nonviolence is only effective with the threat of violence.
Why destroy a perfectly good object when there are faces that need punching?
Non violent and legal protest are not the same thing. Then there is violence to property only too.
Boycotts can work if you have mass support and are totally legal. Blockades are usually illegal but non violent.
Currently seems like there is a lack of organisation. Even simple stuff like stop using the massive evil corporations as much is difficult to get anyone to do. Even if it saves them money!
Here in the UK, attacking certain property gets you prosecuted for criminal damage, then sentenced as a terrorist.
Perversely, this leads to a longer prison sentence than you’d get for direct violent action.
Fuck I forgot about that. Still, we are allowed to mass boycott Amazon.
and when that’s not enough
I could get behind a “Normalize bullying the Espstein Class” one. I’ve also seen a guillotine meme renaming it as “Guwutine”, which was funny AF. Memetic guillotine has potential.
The guillotine was primarily used against innocent commoners during the French Revolution, and the last guy guillotined was the guy who had been in charge of deciding who to guillotine next. If anything, the guillotine symbolizes the fact if you normalize political violence against your opponents then you also normalize it against yourself.
Exactly, people fantasise the idea of quickly disposing of political enemies (for a higher goal, of course) but never really read about what that leads to.
Once you normalise killing people who are the wrong people, guess what happens.
Politely asking for brown shirts to stop abducting families will never work.
Sure, the guillotine in practice wasn’t used the way it would be/is used as a symbol. But as a symbol it current represents the working class revolting against the rich. That sentiment isn’t a bad one, it’s desperately needed at this time.
They’ve given no room for peaceful resolution. The next step is the natural result.
But as a symbol it current represents the working class revolting against the rich.
Only to those who are ignorant of its history. And you know what they say about people who are ignorant of history.
I disagree. You can be knowledgeable about its history while still recognizing its new found symbolic meaning.
Just like language, symbols change over time. If I say “goodbye”, I am not telling you " God be with you" as per the original meaning.
Being stubborn about using the original meaning of things isn’t helpful, it’s ignorant of the current meaning.
Don’t forget the history of the first time the brownshirts were defeated. It wasn’t through peaceful means.
Being stubborn about using the original meaning of things isn’t helpful, it’s ignorant of the current meaning.
OK. In this context, what does the guillotine symbolize if not the mass execution of political opponents?
But as a symbol it current represents the working class revolting against the rich. That sentiment isn’t a bad one, it’s desperately needed at this time.
revolting against the rich
But a guillotine is not a weapon of war. It’s not even something that the powerless can use against the powerful. Quite the opposite, actually.
Which makes the guillotine is a terrible symbol for a revolution. Not only is the symbolism ahistorical, but the actual history directly contradicts the supposed symbolism. The modern people who invoke the guillotine as a symbol of revolution are making the exact same mistake that the French Revolutionaries made.
You can be knowledgeable about its history while still recognizing its new found symbolic meaning.
Just like language, symbols change over time. If I say “goodbye”, I am not telling you " God be with you" as per the original meaning.
As a side note, was it a mistake to bomb, kill, and invade nazi Germany?
If violence was not the answer there, what was the answer?
if you normalize political violence against your opponents then you also normalize it against yourself.
Their political violence against us (their opponents) has always been normalized and it never led to what you said.
Sure that’s a fair criticism, but it was a symbol of anger the common man had with the nobility. Political violence is already on our streets. ICE has murdered people in the street.
When political violence is normalized on one side already, why shouldn’t the other fight back?
I swear the conditioning is real with all these folks :(
“This guy is literally stabbing me repeatedly and currently ripping my intestines out, but if I try to stop him or defend myself in any way shape or form then I’m stooping to their level and that’s worse than dying.”
For fucks sake…
I think because you don’t have the historical context about what the guillotine lead to you are misunderstanding what they said.
Because the cycle of violence always escalates and is ultimately self-defeating.
Does it though? Read back through history
I mean in the case of the guillotine it literally is. St Just ended up guillotined himself, having sent hundreds of people to their deaths as one of the guillotine’s most zealous proponents.
Just make sure you finish the fight
So defending yourself is self-defeating?
Interesting take…
No, that would be a most uncharitable interpretation of what I’ve been saying (and rather a loaded question.)
You’re still simply wrong about political violence never working.
Love it or hate it, through the vast majority of history, it has accomplished tons.
It has also occasionally backfired or otherwise made the situation worse.
For whatever reason, you want to focus on the latter and call it “always.”
The problem that I’m getting at is that it works both ways, not that it never works.
It’s a gamble, to be sure.
But the gamble of inaction and apathy isn’t working very well either; I’m sure you can point to just as many horrifying historic examples of when doing little to nothing didn’t work out.
All that to say, “Sometimes things don’t work out” is true but not very helpful unless you intend to feed apathy, at which point it’s a highly effective strategy.
There’s never been a successful revolution?
Violent revolutions have a huge risk of producing prolonged violence, authoritarianism, or other disastrous outcomes, even if they succeed in overthrowing the old regime.
On the other hand here are some successful non-violent revolutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
Also watch out for selection bias - we tend to remember revolutions that became enormous historical events. Check out this table of pitiful forgotten revolutions and note how many “Suppression of the rebellion” there are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
Holy liberal brainrot. Did you just seriously link the wikipedia article for “color revolutions”, a series of CIA-backed counterrevolutionary and deeply reactionary insurgencies, as a list for successful non-violent ‘revolutions’?
All of those color revolutions had massive detrimental effects on the population, skyrocketing inequality, destroying decades of progress in women’s liberation (the ex-Yugo regions for example still aren’t close to catching back up), and destroying education systems and economies, forcing them to sell out to international capital.
So how exactly did they produce “better institutional outcomes” than actual Socialist revolutions? Easier to exploit on the world market? Better startup culture? Lmao
Is the CIA in the room with us right now?
On August 23, 1989, a momentous event unfolded that would forever leave its mark on history. Two million people joined hands, creating an unbroken human chain that spanned over 600 kilometres, linking the capital cities of Vilnius in Lithuania, Tallinn in Estonia, and Riga in Latvia. This awe-inspiring display of unity and determination became famously known as “The Baltic Way.” It was a peaceful protest against the illegal Soviet occupation and also one of the earliest and longest unbroken human chains in history.
The Baltic Way was more than just a physical connection; it was a profound political demonstration for freedom.
Remarkably, within just six months of this transformative protest, on March 11, 1990, Lithuania declared its independence, becoming the first of the Soviet Republics to do so.
You don’t even know what you’re talking about, conflating apples and oranges. The Baltic independence movements aren’t referred to as color revolutions, those happened in the 2000s in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.
And of course, something cannot be the result of foreign involvement, awful racial-nationalist thought that has plagued the Baltics for ages (and still does), and malevolent capital interests if lots of people are holding hands, that much is clear.
That depends on how you define success. It also depends on how you define revolution. If the French Revolution can be defined as ending when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, then I think that qualifies as a failed revolution.
But there’s been successful revolutions, so the cycle of violence does not always escalate.
The cycle will escalate until it is broken. How long it runs before it gets broken might be a useful part in defining “successful revolution”: the successful ones break the cycle of violence as early as possible.
Violence is inescapable.
Do you eat food? That is an act of violence.
Not all acts of violence use physical force; not all uses of physical force are acts of violence.
Did the food consent to being harvested?
No, because no food can, other than arguably humans, but that’s usually illegal.
I would count killing and eating an animal as a non-violent, physically forceful act, all else being equal. I realize that puts me at odds with many vegetarians and vegans, but in the context of violence against other human beings I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
deleted by creator
Violence is any act which removes the rights from another being, this includes the right to live, this includes the right to autonomy.
Even vegans commit violence, plants can feel, and don’t consent to being eaten. (Gets a bit funny when it comes to stuff where it’s not actually alive though, just a vector to spread seeds)
Edit: bad internet connection made this post 3 times
A spiral of unmeasured violence against everything I don’t like will work this time. I promise.
Yes yes. And Guy Fawkes was a religious nutter and completely unsuccessful at his goals.
Symbols change.
This seems fundamentally different because a mask of some guy does not itself contain information about what that guy was all about, but a guillotine is very unambiguously a machine for efficient and gruesome executions.
and what part of, “machine for efficient and gruesome executions” implies, “political violence between ruling factions and definitely not commoners rising up”?
It doesn’t matter because the method is inherently a bad idea because
if you normalize political violence against your opponents then you also normalize it against yourself.
is just the truth whether or not anyone remembers it, and the symbol is inseparable from the method.
Nope. Purely wrong. The answer to the paradox of tolerance is to only use violence in defense.
Yes, that is also a grey zone to many perspectives, but things rapidly become clear if you expand the scope of the question… For an example: Trump’s ignorant, braindead policies on immigration and “sanctuary cities” DOES make sense … if you’re an isolated dipshit desperately trying to climb the unfair social ladder Trump and his ilk constructed… Though if you expand it to the scope of humanity and all the gains we see when people (let alone disparate cultures) work together, his policies are a HUGE loss.
Spoilers: If someone wants to go out of their way to kill someone who will only get violent in defense, that means that they want to ATTACK those people.
Ok, but guillotines are inherently infrastructure for mass killings, that is itself only “defense” from a detached and twisted perspective that renders the distinction between defense and attack meaningless. That the scope of its use rapidly expanded in the French Revolution is just naturally how it goes, once you’re at the point of such mass killings as a primary tool “tolerance” is fucked no matter how you slice it and it cannot be the case that those methods are sincerely working in its favor.
This isn’t to say that any form of self defense is going to go that way, but I think the form of violence represented by guillotines always will.
lol have fun on your moral high ground while the world dies around you.
MAGA doesn’t understand, or respect history, so it’s still useful symbol to scare them. We don’t want to take our ultimate threat against them off the table. After all, they’ll never remove the threat to murder us all, so we shouldn’t either. When the time comes, we don’t HAVE to deploy it, but we should always keep the option, in case of worse case scenarios.
That’s an interesting angle. I had thought the OP was talking about billionaires and oligarchs, a few thousand people tops. But you’re talking about an entire political bloc consisting of tens of millions of people.
No, I’m not, I’m talking about the High Command, but it doesn’t hurt if the Sociopathic Oligarchs worry that we’ll apply it to their families, too.
As for the rank & file, they’re just tough talking cowards. They’ll evaporate the second their loudmouth leaders start paying the price for their treason.
It was normalized against us decades ago
No. The last one was [this gent] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamida_Djandoubi), in 1977, for ‘kidnapping, torture, and murder’.
The last guy guillotined *during the French Revolution
Ok, my bad then. But, anyway, that fact didn’t ring a bell at all, and a quick web search doesn’t get me anything, and it sounds a bit like a made up folk tale, honestly. So if you could get me some source on that last feller guillotined during the French Revolution it would be great.
Not sure if he was 100% the final person guillotined during the French revolution but I’m pretty sure they’re referring to Robespierre. I thought he was pretty well known but idk maybe that’s just because I watched a load of nerdy shit growing up.
It’s Maximilien Robespierre, head of the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror.
My point is less about him being the literal last person executed by guillotine, and more about his execution by guillotine marking the end of a period of mass executions by guillotine, largely because he had been the leading champion of mass executions by guillotine.
facts.
The last guy guillotined was a POS who deserved it
All guillotines are equal. But some are more equal than others.
I had a conversation with a guy who I thoght was on my level. Stand up for racism, stand up for the minority, action things yourself instead of waiting.
Turns out he thinks the Palestinians are racist, the minority was being an ant masker, and his actions are… Well a rsult of those ideas.
Same ideologies different outcomes.
What is an ant masker?
“anti-masker” probably.
Where’s my fucking Guillotine emoji?!
🛠️⚖️💣
Best I can do right now 🤷🏻
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠟⠛⢉⣉⡀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠘⠛⠋⣉⣁⣤⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠋⠉⠁⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠘⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢈⣉⣉⣉⡁⠀⠀⠀⢈⣉⣉⣉⡁⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠟⠛⢉⣉⡀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠘⠛⠋⣉⣁⣤⣤⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⠛⠋⠉⠁⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠘⠛⠉⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠉⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢈⣉⣉⣉⡁⠀⠀⠀⢈⣉⣉⣉⡁⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⡇⢸⣿⣿⣿⣷⣤⣤⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢸⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
I like this :)
When I think of guillotine, I think of the French revolution, which is about as far from a common man protest as you can get. It’s a good example of minority rule and authoritarianism
Well. Yes and no. It actually started off good.
Did you know it was women who initiated it and then after they got control then the men came in and pushed them out and put Napoleon in charge.
There were a couple more steps in between, with most of them ranging from “awful” to “sickeningly awful.” But yeah, acknowledged that the initial intention was noble. Unfortunately, that’s not what ended up being the vast majority of the revolution
