3 ms·

Yikes! Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. Having said that, I would not mind seeing King Charles

Yikes! Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. Having said that, I would not mind seeing King Charles abdicate; England, Wales, Scotland, N-Ireland become proper republics; help the remnants of upper class strongholds adapt to reality, if that's what you mean. :-)

sph 3y ago
> Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. Historically, major changes only come with a bloodshed, you forgot that part. We speak highly of Gandhi because he's an exception to this rule, not the norm. (And blood was shed in that case as well) The corollary is, don't expect much to change until there's a major societal break and pushback. That is, unless you have drunk the kool aid of modern politics and think your party will fix things for real, this time. In Britain, I'm less concerned about King Charles III and its effect on the populace, than Starmer, Sunak, and any other idiot in Westminster. They're the ones writing the government laws and budget for their own interests.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> Yikes! Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. I specifically said cultural revolution because I tried to imply a non-violent revolution. Not all revolutions are violent. Think technological revolution.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Unfortunately the usual referent of "cultural revolution" is the Maoist one which was extremely violent. You could try referencing the colour revolutions or the Portuguese "carnation revolution" maybe.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Generally when I've seen cultural revolution being used it has been in reference to the 60s or similar, but upon searching you are definitely correct; I just wasn't aware of that. There's still a lot of history I've yet to learn about.

sph 3y ago

> Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. Historically, major changes only come with a bloodshed, you forgot that part. We speak highly of Gandhi because he's an exception to this rule, not the norm. (And blood was shed in that case as well) The corollary is, don't expect much to change until there's a major societal break and pushback. That is, unless you have drunk the kool aid of modern politics and think your party will fix things for real, this time. In Britain, I'm less concerned about King Charles III and its effect on the populace, than Starmer, Sunak, and any other idiot in Westminster. They're the ones writing the government laws and budget for their own interests.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

> Yikes! Historically, revolutions are bloody and generally do not end well. Cultural revolutions less so. I specifically said cultural revolution because I tried to imply a non-violent revolution. Not all revolutions are violent. Think technological revolution.

pjc50 3y ago
Unfortunately the usual referent of "cultural revolution" is the Maoist one which was extremely violent. You could try referencing the colour revolutions or the Portuguese "carnation revolution" maybe.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Generally when I've seen cultural revolution being used it has been in reference to the 60s or similar, but upon searching you are definitely correct; I just wasn't aware of that. There's still a lot of history I've yet to learn about.