PrimeWire

Unfit: The Psychology of Donald Trump (2020)

JackYancovicKohen 1 points 3 years ago.

Well we seem to agree on Marat at least, but I extend my distaste for him to the entire movement. There are a great many wars initiated for noble causes, and while this one on the surface may look like one, it was not. Nearly everyone was personally motivated. The 3rd estate only convened at all at the urging of Abbé Sieyès. What was he motivated by?

And for the record, 3rd estate existed for centuries before the revolution. All the revolution did was kill the First and Second Estates, along with 2/3rds of the representation for the Third. We can argue that they extended the vote, but that has gone back and forth a few times.

And anyway, according to Francois Furet, a French Revolution historian (highly recommend his book if you’re into the topic):

“the ambiguity of the word “popular” when it is applied to this period: “popular” the French Revolution was certainly not in the sense of participation by the people in public affairs. But if the word “popular” is taken to mean that revolutionary policy was formed under pressure from the sans-culotte movement and organized minorities, and received an egalitarian impetus from them, then yes, the Revolution had well and truly entered its “popular” age.”

The majority of the population was not even involved! So I’m probably enjoying being a part of the 3rd Estate as much as the regular French populace was at the time.

permalink

somniloquist 3 points 3 years ago*. (Contains Spoilers)

Okay, let’s review what’s just happened here.
I quoted Furet.
Then I told you I quoted Furet.
Then you recommended that I read Furet.
I’ve (fairly obviously) read Furet, but thanks for homme-splaining the Third Estate to me. The entire point I was making is that the Estates are dead. (And before you try to claim that, some-crazy-how, they’re not really dead: Which lord’s land are you currently working? Which monastery runs your particular town? Are they Dominician or Franciscan?)

And I neither endorsed nor condemned the motivations of that (or any other) war. I referred strictly to “the acts of individuals during war time.” Every war, no matter the “motivation” suffers from the acts of individuals. But you talked for a long time and that sure did make it seem, if I squint really hard, like you actually addressed anything I said.

permalink