You know what that’s a good point. I guess there are technologies with no plausible non-evil purpose (thinking of torture implements and the like here).

I could nitpick most of these, but it seems we don’t actually disagree here since if an “immoral” technology were to get a morally good or neutral use it’d suddenly be moral under your definition.

Sure, but that means that ultimately use is what decides morality, so who developed a certain product or technology doesn’t matter for using it.

No they don’t? Climate concerns aside, how is that even supposed to work?

it’s being built by fascists and capitalists bent on control of broader business, government, and social systems

Which makes it about as politically agnostic as a computer. Technology doesn’t have morality.

It hurt itself generations of Arabs and Palestinians in its confusion.

Why not on the dealing end of a Gothic charge?

… the Federalists and Lyon revolts were literally reactionary, though.

I mean… no? They erupted in response to the purge of the Girondins, which wasn’t very revolutionary. Unless you define the revolution to mean Paris, fighting against authoritarian centralisation of power seems very in line with the Revolution even if the leadership of the revolts did tend to have conservative sympathties.

to the point of rallying a continent-wide coalition to reinstall them as well as a civil war to help them along?

That’s… uh… wow. You should revisit the French Revolution and surrounding wars, seriously. For reference, though, the civil war was based in pretty legitimate grievances against Paris authoritarian overreach, the purge of the Girondins for the Federalists and religious oppression+conscription for the Vandee folks. As for the Revolutionary wars, France literally declared war first; everyone else wanted it to collapse in silence so they could focus on Poland. Neither of these were significantly affected by the aristocratic sour grapes.

Which part of the calling of the Estates General was a violent uprising again?

but it was not the main thrust of the regime.

Wasn’t the main thrust of the regime disposing of political opposition of all kinds? I don’t think the Federalists were killed because they were reactionary, and the victims of the immediate aftermath of the Lyon revolt alone outnumber Terror victims in Paris.

but rather that as an expression of the potential for violence against established ruling powers,

I mean, setting aside that for the most part the Terror didn’t target the aristocracy in any significant way (sans the final month or so period not so aptly known as the Great Terror), were the aristocracy or clergy really the established ruling powers? In 1789 sure, maybe even 1790, but by late 1793, let alone early 1974, I think these guys were clearly the former established ruling powers, so I still think alluding to the Terror doesn’t imply a threat to still-in-charge ruling powers. The credit for actually deposing the aristocracy, which was an almost entirely peaceful affair, goes to money (or the lack thereof), the aristocracy (and not in a “bad decisions” kind of way) and the liberal bourgeoisie, respectively.

The title is likely inaccurate. The post only contains a summary of the user’s posting history. It makes no statements regarding the user’s beliefs.

Yeah, and also a weird affair that she wasn’t even involved in. Marie Antoinette wasn’t innocent by any stretch of the imagination, but yeah her execution isn’t what comes to mind when I think “justice”.

Just in case, which uprising are we talking about here?

It didn’t, though. See my previous comment. The French Revolution started as everyone trying to figure out a way to make the bankrupt French Treasury not bankrupt.

Yeah turns out that quote is actually ahistorical, but also she had nothing to do with the food shortages so as far as dealing the ultimate punishment to one’s oppressors goes it’s… eh.

mean, the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror are still massive examples of what happens when a lower class is pushed too far,

Not to say elements of “we’re hungry and we’re gonna fuck your shit up if you don’t feed us” weren’t involved, but as a whole I disagree. The Revolution was mostly an example of what happens when your system of government and finance is a century out of date, and the Terror was an authoritarian government using its broad mandate to resolve a national emergency to get rid of political opposition. I mean I do have to acknowledge that this was supported by the hungry Parisians because they wanted food, but reprisal for the Federalist revolts and the Vandee uprising, which created the bulk of Terror victims, had very little to do with that. And given that rich speculators would have the time of their lives just a year later, it feels like the only historically correct response to the guillotine thing is “don’t threaten me with a good time.” I do get what’s being implied, but the image of the guillotine as a tool for the masses to punish their oppressors is build more on myth than reality.

I mean, why do you think it was?