> (Yes, it is weird that Zuck goes out of his way to compare himself to a violent dictator.)
Why can't news sites just report the news? Why do they need to tell me what to think about it?
Why can't news sites just report the news? Why do they need to tell me what to think about it?
> Latest News
> Newsletters
> TechCrunch is an American global online newspaper focusing on topics regarding high-tech and startup companies. [0]
Oh, okay. My fault.
> The New York Post (NY Post) is an American conservative daily tabloid newspaper published in New York City.
Aside from that Wikipedia is not a good source to decide whether a publication is to be trusted due to its heavy political bias. The New York Post has a conservative bias while (English-language) Wikipedia has a heavy 'progressive´ bias as is reflected by its list of what they consider to be 'reliable/perennial sources' [1] which closely resembles a political litmus test.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
UK: The Independent, The Times, The Scotsman, The Guardian
NL: Het Parool, Trouw, NRC Handelsblad, de Volkskrant, de Telegraaf, Reformatorisch Dagblad and many others (most of them owned by DPG)
DK: Berlingske Tidende
SE: Dagens Industri, Dagens Nyheter, Svenska Dagbladet, Expressen, Aftonbladet and many others
There are many others, take your pick. As said these are newspapers published in tabloid format, not 'tabloid newspapers' publishing celebrity gossip and other trash although some of them do also venture in that direction on occasion.
In some ways this fits the election of Donald Trump - he was designated as a temporary magistrate who was granted extraordinary powers in order to deal with state crises - but in most ways it does not. Trump does not possess absolute power nor is a member of a small group which possesses such power as the plethora of court cases blocking his decisions make clear. The real important bit here is this:
> apparently 77M Americans
That is the majority of the voting public which you're lambasting for making the wrong decision. Here's a bit more on that subject, read it well:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/democracy and https://www.britannica.com/topic/republic-government
Don't agree with the majority and think they should listen to you or your group instead? There are names for such forms of government as well, names which are generally portrayed as being opposites of the two I pointed at earlier.
the 77M people were not the majority but a plurality, although i'm not sure there is a 2000 y.o. definition for that to help you cope
don't look too far for a president who has been elected by a minority, it happened as recently as 2016
He used a modern definition. It referenced the origin of the term.
> the 77M people were not the majority but a plurality
What distinction are you trying to make here? That not everyone voted?
He called it the majority of the voting population.
> cope
heh
Julius Caesar was not just some "violent dictator" like a Hitler, Stalin, or Putin. He wasn't sending people off to gas chambers, gulags, or out of windows. He was famous for his clemency toward his enemies in the civil war which made him dictator.
Even the title of "dictator" was a legal office in ancient Rome and meant something very different from the modern usage.
Zuck admiring Julius Caesar (which doesn't mean endorsing all his actions) puts him in the company of many of the most successful, ethical, and well informed people in history
I don't want to compare to these other guys because obviously it was a different time/culture and you can't really make such broad sweeping comparisons. I won't judge people for admiring him because I also appreciate a lot of his political and strategic savvy. But he was a very violent dictator.
You might be very surprised at how differently ancient people viewed the world compared to yourself.
Sure, no one wants to be killed or enslaved but the societies of these very people behaved in precisely the same way as the Romans and most ancient societies did. These were not peace loving hippies being invaded by alien monsters.
Anyway, Caesar was not dictator when he fought in Gaul. He was a Roman proconsul/general fighting in his provinces the way all ancient Roman armies did, and was more inclined toward mercy than most, although he also fought a much bigger war than most.
In the civil war Caesar was fighting Pompey, the guy who used his military power to control the Roman government for the previous decade. And who would have continued controlling the government had he won. The narrative that Pompey was defending the republic against a tyrant is more ancient propaganda than reality.
A reasonable and accurate summary is that Julius Caesar led a violent army against violent enemies, fought a civil war with unprecedented clemency, and was a benevolent dictator until his assassination by the envious people he had granted clemency.
He fought it against the wishes of the senate. Notice I didn't say he was a dictator "while fighting it".
> The Gauls and Germans his armies fought against were not some kind of peace loving hippies. Their armies waged war just as violently and invaded and slaughtered (including Romans) in the same way.
Sure. Notice the size of their armies in the link I provided vs. the count of dead people and enslaved people. These were civilians.
Also notice I specifically said I didn't judge him because he's a product of his time. I just criticized the parent post for misrepresenting him and comparing him to more contemporary figures.
> The narrative that Pompey was defending the republic against a tyrant is more ancient propaganda than reality.
Agreed. Both sides were terrible in that conflict. That doesn't make him a non-dictator because he won over another dictator wannabe.
> A reasonable and accurate summary is that Julius Caesar led a violent army against enemies, fought a civil war with unrivaled clemency, and was a benevolent dictator until his assassination by the envious people he had granted clemency.
I think that's revisionism. I don't know all of these things and they are very much a matter of perspective. Frankly, I don't care since none of that is grounded in fact. It's interpretation of facts.
The two facts I provided were: he was a dictator and he was violent.
Those are indisputable objective historic facts. Were others dictators and even more violent?
Sure. That doesn't dispute these facts. Notice I very specifically avoided passing judgement on him and on the OP article.
This is factually incorrect. He was a proconsul in command, fully authorized by the Senate.
You're probably referring to the fact that some of his political opponents in the Senate tried to score political points criticizing his war in Gaul. There was no real question of the legality then or now. False legal claims like this were standard practice and everyone took them for the partisan maneuvering they obviously were.
> Sure. Notice the size of their armies in the link I provided vs. the count of dead people and enslaved people. These were civilians.
These claims are all incredibly speculative. We actually have no real idea how many people (civilians or otherwise) died in these wars. Caesar himself is the primary source and we know for a fact that he tended to wildly exaggerate his numbers.
> Agreed. Both sides were terrible in that conflict. That doesn't make him a non-dictator because he won over another dictator wannabe.
> The two facts I provided were: he was a dictator and he was violent. Those are indisputable objective historic facts.
Another indisputable fact: he wasn't violent as dictator.
But it's important to understand that all of Gaul was tribal. The was no unified country. These tribes were invading each other's land constantly to loot, rape, kill, take hostages, enslave, and extract tribute.
Gallic tribes had famously sacked Rome, and if Rome hadn't become so powerful they would have happily done it again. German tribes had successfully invaded Roman territory as recently as around the time Caesar was born. They were a legitimate threat, especially to the Roman province, although it's also true Caesar's had other motivations.
Again, it's just much more complicated than when for example Hitler and Stalin jointly invaded the entirely peaceful country of Poland. Or when Putin invaded the entirely peaceful country of Ukraine.