this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
1426 points (98.4% liked)

Facepalm

3118 readers
539 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

TranscriptA threads post saying "There has never been another nation ever that has existed much beyond 250 years. Not a single one. America's 250th year is 2025. The next 4 years are gonna be pretty interesting considering everything that's already been said." It has a reply saying "My local pub is older than your country".

(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chronographs@lemmy.zip 78 points 2 days ago (23 children)

Even ignoring how obviously wrong this is about how old other countries are, America turns 250 in 2026 not 2025 lol

[–] potoo22@programming.dev 32 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I know this not because I paid attention in history class, but because I played Fallout 76 where the vault dwellers celebrate America's Tricentennial before leaving the vault and find it a wasteland.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 46 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bro he could've done a single online search and disproved himself in literal seconds.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Freedom of expression has morphed into freedom of stupidity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] redwattlebird 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I dunno, I'm pretty sure Japan is older.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Depends what you define as nation. Modern day Japan is only 157 years old since the Meiji Restoration started in 1868.

Like the US will still exist after the American empire collapses but sure as hell not in it’s current form.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You could argue that modern Japan only exists since WWII. The major changes required after losing in WWII majorly changed the country.

You could also argue that the US is a new nation since the Civil War, so it's 160ish years old. If you ignore the civil war, what about when various states were added? Does the fact they were added gradually rather than all at once mean it's the same country? It's hard to argue that a country that was founded on the idea that all land-owning white males should get to vote is really the same as one that in 2022 believed that any citizen of any race or sex over the age of 18 should get a vote. Though, I suppose in some ways 2025 USA is showing it's still the same country as 1776 USA.

It's all pretty arbitrary though. What defines the start and end of a country? Does changing names count? Does changing borders? How radically does a government have to change to mean it's a new country? How radically do founding documents need to be changed? I guess it's the Country of Theseus. When is it no longer the same one?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] redwattlebird 10 points 1 day ago

I don't consider different eras as different nations though. I think that's splitting too many hairs. I see a nation as a country that is generally united and governed by a leading entity.

Going back to the Japan example, I would consider them a nation when all the clans were united under one rule. Same with UK, India, Thailand etc.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] KurtVonnegut@mander.xyz 39 points 2 days ago (14 children)

It is wild to me how Americans forget that they built their "nation" upon the genocide of earlier (first) nations, which were there for thousands of years.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 40 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

Not really. The logic is attempting to draw a distinction between nations, kingdoms, and tribes, among other things, with emphasis on continuity in governance. So France isn't the same nation between the Revolution and the Napoleonic Empire, or after a dynasty change.

The interjection is pointless towards their argument because it doesn't understand the "logic" and is wrong in its own way.

His problem is that, as a truly stupid person, he isn't aware that the point he is trying to make is one reserved specifically for democracies, not nations, and is still wrong. The Roman Republic lasted for 482 years, just to start with the most famous "democratic" example, and Japan's government could be argued to have lasted 2,600 years depending on how much credit you want to give the mythological founding of their imperial family.

Further, the modern form of the United Kingdom government was founded in 1707. There have been changes, obviously, especially in the power balance between Lords and Commons, but the Acts of Union created what is indisputably a modern concept of nation and government.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 16 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Does this person not understand how dates work?

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

This person doesn't understand how books work. Calendars & history? doubt....

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 day ago

Even if this were true, this would be anthropic reasoning, which is always suspect. The belief that the present, the here and now, cannot be exceptional will always overlook examples where it is exceptional.

We live in interesting times.

[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 2 days ago

The 250 year thing is basically complete BS

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 36 points 2 days ago (10 children)

China, also: your dynasty is closing in on 300 years, huh? Good luck!

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›