Maybe Sean Spicer will take the job back? Someone check the bushes.

It seems like you’re advocating mass murder.

I’m saying that the bombing, etc. of Nazi Germany was a justifiable level of force under the circumstances. I’m splitting hairs and making a big deal over the difference between “force” and “violence”. I think it’s important to know exactly where that line is so as to avoid stepping over it, so I’m not just being intransigent and clinging to a minor point here.

The guillotine symbolizes to me a clear stepping over of the line from justified force to mob violence. And I think we would be better off if everyone shared my opinion.

It looks like you ninja-edited in the second part of your comment. I was responding to the original that only had quotes of prior comments and nothing else.

was it a mistake to bomb, kill, and invade nazi Germany?

No. But it would be a mistake to start bombing political rallies today, for example.

I don’t feel like you’re putting in the same effort I am in having a sincere discussion.

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.

So why not use a symbol from a successful example? Why use a symbol from an example we should avoid repeating at almost any cost? I think it’s because most people see the guillotine as a symbol for retribution against the ruling class.

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?

If eating an apple fits the definition of violence, then it’s a poor definition.

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.

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.

The problem that I’m getting at is that it works both ways, not that it never works.

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.

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.

No, that would be a most uncharitable interpretation of what I’ve been saying (and rather a loaded question.)

Not all acts of violence use physical force; not all uses of physical force are acts of violence.

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.

Because the cycle of violence always escalates and is ultimately self-defeating.

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.

The last guy guillotined *during the French Revolution