|
Torrannor posted:Sure, those monarchs are disgusting with all their inherited wealth and power that they hardly use, but don't mind those billionaires and especially the children of billionaires, who use their inherited wealth to heavily lobby political institutions to pass laws that let them exploit their workers even more, those people are fine! Nice false equivalency, king lover.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
I thought most of southern India was vegetarian and northern India not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
The Crown Estate: I pulled this from the official website, which says that the Crown Estate isn't actually the Queen's personal property; it's owned by "the Crown" in the sense of the sovereign. Okay, that makes sense. But then it also says that the Queen gets a guaranteed 15% of the income from the estate, so isn't that kind of a personal property interest? It's really hard for me to believe that the Queen (or her people) just sit back and passively accept that their income might rise or fall, without getting involved with political/policy decisions about how the Estate should be managed. I also have some other, less politicized questions. Is this the only public land in the UK, or does the government own land outside of this legal structure? (I know from the website that the Windsor family own personal property outside this structure.) What's the management philosophy for the land? Is the main goal to generate revenue, or are there conflicting goals (environmental protection, wind power, etc). What happens when two goals conflict? I know in the US, Congress has set out broad legal frameworks to govern this (so the Interior Department can't just drill for oil in a wilderness area). But maybe in a parliamentary system, there's not that kind of check and balance? blugu64 posted:I thought most of southern India was vegetarian and northern India not. Spam is haram.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nice false equivalency, king lover. Take it back to 1789, Jacobin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:That's true only for Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, the pope is actually the King of Vatican City. Though it pains me to haul it back from three pages ago, it doesn't really make any sense to call the Pope a King, whatever CGPGrey might think. Mostly because the Pope's don't claim to be kings, and nobody else refers to them that way either. Monarchs certainly, but not Kings. And given the history of (claimed) Papal authority, it would be kinda weird for them to claim to be lowly kings anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 06:17
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Arglebargle III posted:Take it back to 1789, Jacobin. All I'm saying is if you lose your kings, you should probably take that as a sign you don't need to import his 5th cousin in law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
CGPGrey has some shitbrained opinions, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
I hate it so much when people pretend tourists come because of royalty. No, they come because of all the poo poo around it, like palaces and the changing of the guard and poo poo. "video from 1933 shows Nazi-sympathiser and later British King Edward VIII having fun giving Nazi salutes together with the current British Queen Elizabeth II and the queen mother. Edward once gave a Nazi salute to Hitler himself and claimed he was 'not a bad chap'" edit: oh wait this is the map thread, uh, here's a map: 
ekuNNN fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Sure, those monarchs are disgusting with all their inherited wealth and power that they hardly use, but don't mind those billionaires and especially the children of billionaires, who use their inherited wealth to heavily lobby political institutions to pass laws that let them exploit their workers even more, those people are fine! If we get rid of the symbols best fitting for capitalist society it's easier to pretend we live in a meritocracy. Anyway, ~¤the people¤~ are in favor of the monarchy so we're going to keep it around and ya'll can suck it. When we get bored with it maybe we'll get rid of it. Or maybe we'll crown an emperor, a pope or a viking chieftain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Anyway, ~¤the people¤~ are in favor of the monarchy so we're going to keep it around and ya'll can suck it. Really? Through which democratic channels have they expressed that preference?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Republican sophistry like that may as well ask why the public haven't expressed their preference for every crackpot minority special interest. When there's sufficient public clamour and protest for a referendum on the monarchy and politicians think that they can ride the wave into power by adopting republican opinions and getting elected, one will take place. There's not, so there isn't. It's weird that for people who claim to be such good, progressive democrats republicans think that the rules shouldn't apply to them. Backing up to some things raised in the last page: quote:Wait, so are the royal family canny political operators surviving the vagaries of the public will only by the skin of their teeth or not? It shows that the Royal Family are good and effective enough in the public sphere that any slip-ups they make are seen as minor and really not that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. All in all the Royal Family seem to be rather more in tune with the spirit of the British people than most republicans. quote:It's still ethically a huge step forwards from a loving monarchy. Given the history of the 20th century it's hilarious to have a bunch of socialists think they have any high horse from which they can lecture monarchists about ethics. While you're salivating over your photo of the shooting of Romanovs maybe you can mop it up with Lenin's letter to Smirnov ordering the execution of striking workers. You have to call it "People's Democracy" because it's, y'know, not actually democracy. quote:It's a completely spurious bullshit relationship. If there's a causal effect at all, it's that Northwestern European countries are still monarchies because their political institutions in general have historically been more stable and deep-rooted, not the other way around. Certainly there are more factors in play Than just the Head of State, I said as much in my linked post. What it does do however immediately falsify republicans' glib and backwards 18th-century assertion that they are categorically further along the Great Chain Of Progress and that republicanism necessarily - or even potentially - advances social good. History shows us that frequently the opposite is true. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Really? Through which democratic channels have they expressed that preference? Every year parliament passes a budget and the court is included in that. Incidentally the Danish royal court costs about 55 million USD, equivalent to 0.04% of the state budget. Evidently a majority thinks it's money well spent. States spend money on silly poo poo and meaningless prestige projects all the time and one of the silly things these countries have decided to spend money on is the monarchy. People in those countries sure are silly and it's a frightening realization that humans get emotionally invested in things for no good reasons but that's a part of the human condition. Why do you people care so much about tiny budget items when it's not hurting anyone, least of all outside of the countries where people want it? Principles and symbols? Evidently the people living there find that it's a very fitting symbol of their society and principles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 08:02
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Why do you people care so much about tiny budget items when it's not hurting anyone, least of all outside of the countries where people want it? Principles and symbols? Evidently the people living there find that it's a very fitting symbol of their society and principles. But muh freedoms and the republic and the  Being against a monarchy (because kings are evil and taxes are evil) play well with the ideas of the american republic. If the king isn't a monolithic evil then it all falls to the floor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Nice false equivalency, king lover. Perhaps Americans could get rid of their president with quasi-royal powers first before lecturing others about their symbolic heads of state. Oh wait, you would rather have a choice between electing the second Clinton or the third Bush president, take that you monarchist swine!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Perhaps Americans could get rid of their president with quasi-royal powers first before lecturing others about their symbolic heads of state. Oh wait, you would rather have a choice between electing the second Clinton or the third Bush president, take that you monarchist swine! 1968 could have been another Kennedy v. Nixon if it wasn't for RFK's assassination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:But muh freedoms and the republic and the This is such a stupid argument, particularly when what everyone is basically saying is that it's the idea of inherited power that is evil. Which it is. And Britain is a country of happy slaves who apparently do not really care that their royalty have been, among other things, nazis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:This is such a stupid argument, particularly when what everyone is basically saying is that it's the idea of inherited power that is evil. Which it is. And Britain is a country of happy slaves who apparently do not really care that their royalty have been, among other things, nazis.  When has the British royalty been nazis? Do you mean Prince Harry in a nazi costume? Really? Also, I don't know where you come from, but if you are an American, please shut up about inherited power. George Bush became president after his father, nuff said. Torrannor fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:
They were not actually Nazis, but some of their number (specifically King Edward VII) were sympathizers of the Nazi party, and thought they were doing good work and should keep it up before the world knew they were putting the Jews, Communists and other undesirables into camps and chambers to die. After his abdication from the throne, when he became a Duke, he continued his Nazi sympathizing, being in touch with Nazis and even having a friendly meeting with Hitler in Germany. Keep in mind that in this time however that not everyone hated the Nazis. They saw them as reviving a sick man in Europe rapidly, and as the strong enemy of Communism, which was widely feared in capitalist nations. Edward reigned for 11 months before his abdication, so the British monarchy supporting the Nazis is not a big page in our history books.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v10/n16/paul-foot/the-great-times-they-could-have-had I'm not American, and it was super obnoxious of Boiled Water to throw that "Americans think they're sooo moral with their republic" poo poo too. Of course nepotism happens anywhere, but we've progressed to a point where we don't actually have to institutionalise that to make sense of the word. You know, the way we have other books than The Bible too now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Did you miss the whole Queen doing a Nazi salute thing. Not that that was her fault, it was Edward who was extremely sympathetic to the Nazis (as were quite a lot of the aristocracy, unsurprisingly) to the point they diverted a cruise liner to pick him up and ship him off over the Atlantic where he couldn't cause trouble when he finally stopped loving around in France as Hitler rolled in. Monarchy is stupid and anachronistic and inherited wealth and power is bad whether it's part of a formalised aristocracy or an informal one. Alas the British are an anachronistic and servile race so we're stuck with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:And Britain is a country of happy slaves who apparently do not really care that their royalty have been, among other things, nazis. Oh cool, you're pulling that one out. I can do it too: Mussolini began his political career as an active socialist, edited the socialist newspaper Avanti!, led riots against Italy's involvement in Libya and was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party. Fascism is just another flavour of socialism. If you object to that, kindly do the same for the monarchy Godwinning, thanks. quote:Did you miss the whole Queen doing a Nazi salute thing. Not that that was her fault, it was Edward who was extremely sympathetic to the Nazis (as were quite a lot of the aristocracy, unsurprisingly) to the point they diverted a cruise liner to pick him up and ship him off over the Atlantic where he couldn't cause trouble when he finally stopped loving around in France as Hitler rolled in. I'm not sure that all these tenuous efforts to identify monarchy as a Nazi institution can succeed seeing as Nazi Germany itself was, y'know... A REPUBLIC. In fact, here's Herr Hitler himself on monarchy, from the pages of Mein Kampf: "If the value of this institution lay in the momentary person of the monarch, it would be the worst institution that can be imagined; for monarchs only in the rarest cases are the cream of wisdom and reason or even of character, as some people like to claim. This is believed only by professional lickspittles and sneaks, but all straightforward men - and these remain the most valuable men in the state despite everything - will only feel repelled by the idea of arguing such nonsense" #NotAllRepublicans, of course. So can we let these Nazi jibes drop now? kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Perhaps Americans could get rid of their president with quasi-royal powers first before lecturing others about their symbolic heads of state. Oh wait, you would rather have a choice between electing the second Clinton or the third Bush president, take that you monarchist swine! Its not an American thing, European countries like Ireland or France have a really strong sense of republicanism that's important to the national identity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
The gently caress are you even arguing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:34
|
|
|
That is a complete non sequitur.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Mussolini began his political career as an active socialist, edited the socialist newspaper Avanti!, led riots against Italy's involvement in Libya and was a leading member of the Italian Socialist Party. Fascism is just another flavour of socialism. Well, it very definitely isn't (though fascist Italy was the first European country, along with Germany, to open trade relations with the USSR). But it brings me to a relevant tidbit - Churchill's wife had a prized signed photograph of Mussolini displayed in her parlor (and said it made other ladies jealous), while Churchill at least for a time held fascism as a force rendering service to the whole world (largely because he saw it as a wall against Germany and Communism). In short, the early 20th century was an era of enormous political turmoil and holding people accountable for tenuous relationships and casual flirting with later discredited ideologies is kinda pointless because it happened almost universally. Instead focus on things that are inherently bad with monarchy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:37
|
|
|
This is the dumbest motherfucking derail, post maps. The Refugee Map of Europe
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
my dad posted:The gently caress are you even arguing? That it's about as fair to call the royals Nazis as it's to call socialists fascists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:. In short, the early 20th century was an era of enormous political turmoil and holding people accountable for tenuous relationships and casual flirting with later discredited ideologies is kinda pointless because it happened almost universally. Which is what I was getting at, thanks for coming round to it. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
 He's editing it but it's not making any more sense. How is pointing out (correctly) that one member of the royal family had a bit of a hard on for Hitlerism arguing that monarchy is an inherently fascistic institution.e: Oh, so you did misread both our posts? I don't know exactly what Ras was intending but "the royalty have been amongst other things Nazis" might be disparaging the royal family but doesn't really imply to me that he thinks they are currently Nazis just that they have been real scumbags, which is inarguable even if it's irrelevant. My post was clearly responding to someone asking when a member of the royal family had been a Nazi with the famous example of the one with the Nazi sympathies. XMNN fucked around with this message at 14:05 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:So can we let these Nazi jibes drop now? This hasn't worked for you personally either or has it
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
What a loving poo poo thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:What a loving poo poo thread. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
Welcome to poo poo city
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
How does one consume radio?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
I've seen a picture of Kim Jong-Un so I'm almost certain this make is wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Perhaps Americans could get rid of their president with quasi-royal powers first before lecturing others about their symbolic heads of state. Haha you don't know anything about politics. Why don't you go ahead and describe these supposed quasi-royal powers (which are probably just powers that the prime minister or whatever the gently caress has in other countries), Torrannor posted:
1930s, the one who abdicated. Real piece of poo poo, that guy. Jerry Cotton posted:How does one consume radio? Very carefully. Anyway try this one: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
So, the northern part of Greenland is grey presumably owing to an absence of inhabitants, yet all of Siberia and the Russian Arctic is pink? And what's with the eastern tip of Brazil?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Anyway try this one: Skin colour, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Haha you don't know anything about politics. Why don't you go ahead and describe these supposed quasi-royal powers (which are probably just powers that the prime minister or whatever the gently caress has in other countries),
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 19:38 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Haha you don't know anything about politics. Why don't you go ahead and describe these supposed quasi-royal powers (which are probably just powers that the prime minister or whatever the gently caress has in other countries), Evelation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 15:34
|
|