8 ms·

“A nation is not lost because of the actions of the wicked, but because of the silence of the just.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

by armini 1y ago

thrance 1y ago
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.
- ZeroGravitas 1y ago
  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.
  - thrance 1y ago
    Slight nitpick, but France was no longer a Republic in Napoleon's time. It had become the First French Empire.
    - Tainnor 1y ago
      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.
      - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
        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.
        thrance 1y ago
        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?
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      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?
      - thrance 1y ago
        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.
        DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
        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.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      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.
RandomBacon 1y ago
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-teammate-situation-is-unfair-and-ncaa-is-discriminating-against-cisgender-women-locker-room-discomfort/ 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.)
- neogodless 1y ago
  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.
  - fleek 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - mcphage 1y ago
      > 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?
      - fleek 1y ago
        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.

“A nation is not lost because of the actions of the wicked, but because of the silence of the just.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

by armini 1y ago

“A nation is not lost because of the actions of the wicked, but because of the silence of the just.” — Napoleon Bonaparte

thrance 1y ago

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.

ZeroGravitas 1y ago
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.
- thrance 1y ago
  Slight nitpick, but France was no longer a Republic in Napoleon's time. It had become the First French Empire.
  - Tainnor 1y ago
    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.
    - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
      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.
      - thrance 1y ago
        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?
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    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?
    - thrance 1y ago
      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.
      - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
        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.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    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.

RandomBacon 1y ago

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-teammate-situation-is-unfair-and-ncaa-is-discriminating-against-cisgender-women-locker-room-discomfort/ 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.)

neogodless 1y ago
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.
- fleek 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - mcphage 1y ago
    > 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?
    - fleek 1y ago
      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.