|
Should troll Fancy Pelosi be allowed to stay? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
160 | 32.92% |
| No |
|
326 | 67.08% |
| Total: | 486 votes | ||
|
evilweasel posted:the delay between shots is 4 weeks for moderna, 3 for pfizer (because that's what they tested in their trials) Mr Luxury Yacht posted:Pfizer originally recommended the second shot at 21 days while Moderna recommended theirs at 28. Oh right, I meant four. Don't think that free week ever materialized for pfizer users that I knew, was all I meant. Might've just been convenience for the sticking sites, but I somehow missed that free week in the messaging.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:08
|
|
Glory to Italia! 
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Judakel posted:Despots are, by definition, evil and oppressive. Whatever their impression of themselves may be, they're not morally just by definition. And no, all power does not inherently corrupt. You're gonna have to take that definition up with Sid Meier and Leonard Nimoy. quote:Despotism is a form of government characterized by a ruler who wields absolute power over his people. Despite the word's negative connotations, a leader doesn't necessarily have to be a corrupt, evil megalomaniac to be a despot; it is possible to be a benevolent despot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:You're gonna have to take that definition up with Sid Meier and Leonard Nimoy. Succdem's Civilization IV
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
I haven't read plato in absolutely ages, but i'm almost positive that is a very close paraphrase of plato talking about tyrants (in the greek sense). Also imo it's hella wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I haven't read plato in absolutely ages, but i'm almost positive that is a very close paraphrase of plato talking about tyrants (in the greek sense). Literally half of The Republic is about "Philosopher Kings" and "Enlightened Despots." (Also, every quote in Civ4 is a quote from a historical figure/work of culture)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
The idea I'm pretty sure is that the more you do extralegal things, ignore procedure, and bend the rules; the easier it is, until laws essentially cease to be worth anything. It's like that Penn & Teller skit that they did both on their show and in the West Wing where they say, "the Chinese bill of rights is not worth the paper it's not printed on"; the constitution, the law, in the long run won't be able to protect anything. To use another example, the social contract. The more people violate it, the less meaningful such a thing becomes. Most people intuitively understand "no litering", but properly throwing away your garbage takes effort, so there's an incentive to just toss the garbage on the ground, in the green, on the sidewalk; even if you can justify it, "I need to get to where I'm going" or if you toss is somewhere where it isn't an eyesore like behind a bush; without strong pressures to get people to conform to these unwritten rules it's inevitable the whole park is filled with trash. "Hey the things I want to do aren't like trash!" Sure, that's what you think now; but you can't say the same thing about everyone who wants to ignore the rules, ignore the fact that we live in a society. Because eventually at some point, it's just trash all over everyone's lawns. Every repressive state in history did things that were de jure illegal, but "doing the right thing", "Protecting the revolution from wreckers" took precedent over establishing a law abiding society; and millions perished.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:23
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I haven't read plato in absolutely ages, but i'm almost positive that is a very close paraphrase of plato talking about tyrants (in the greek sense). "Enlighted Despotism" or "Benevolent Despotism" was all the rage immediately post-enlightenment as it was essentially the royalist's answer to the enlightenment. Whether despotism is inherently bad is one of the fundamental philosophical battle betweens the monarchists and the republicans during the 18th and 19th centuries; the fact that in colloquial usage it carries negative connotations is in large part because the republicans won that fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
ILL Machina posted:Oh right, I meant four. Don't think that free week ever materialized for pfizer users that I knew, was all I meant. Might've just been convenience for the sticking sites, but I somehow missed that free week in the messaging. To be honest based on the data coming out of countries that delayed the second shot, up to at least three months seems to be just as good for efficacy other than the whole "you're waiting longer for full protection" thing. But nobody has tested a reduced interval as far as I know so it's a bit bizarre a nurse would tell someone to come back in two weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:29
|
|
|
Mr Luxury Yacht posted:To be honest based on the data coming out of countries that delayed the second shot, up to at least three months seems to be just as good for efficacy other than the whole "you're waiting longer for full protection" thing. while that might be accurate it seems that full protection is a bigger deal these days: quote:Fauci referred to data from Britain’s public health agency that shows two doses of the vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca are 88 percent effective in preventing symptomatic disease caused by the new variant, also known as delta. He said in an interview that the Pfizer data would be similar for Moderna’s product, which also is an mRNA vaccine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Literally half of The Republic is about "Philosopher Kings" and "Enlightened Despots." BEEP... BEEP... BEEP... BEEP
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Every repressive state in history did things that were de jure illegal, but "doing the right thing", "Protecting the revolution from wreckers" took precedent over establishing a law abiding society; and millions perished. Why does this not apply to anything relating to anything to do with the "security services" or anything to do with foreign nations? It always seem to be "no, it's fine when we do bad things elsewhere and spy on people and kill people, because they are foreigners and they don't count." Every nation state does hideously illegal and immoral things all the time. It just sometimes also does it to it's own citizens that we make a fuss about despots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Civilization VII but instead of running a civilization you run a forum. Just one more post! Goons need you! Josef bugman posted:Why does this not apply to anything relating to anything to do with the "security services" or anything to do with foreign nations? It always seem to be "no, it's fine when we do bad things elsewhere and spy on people and kill people, because they are foreigners and they don't count." Every nation state does hideously illegal and immoral things all the time. It just sometimes also does it to it's own citizens that we make a fuss about despots. I'd say it's a mild form of whataboutism/appeal to nihilism. Emmanuel Kant had I think a pretty clever answer to this by separating Sovereigns/Governments from individuals when it comes to the categorical imperative and deontological "duty" ethics; because they have access to more information than the average person and have a higher duty to defending the people from outside and internal threats they operate according to different standards. What a nation does outside its borders is a different story from what it does to its own people; we've had several hundred years and many different experiments; democracy to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, may not be the best form of government, perhaps it is the worst form of government, but it is still better than every other permutation that's been tried. These are simply wholly different categories of things; international and state to state relations are an entirely different mettle of lobster from from state to person. States ostensibly, have a far greater means of disputing, protesting, and resistancing unlawful, illegal, or aggressive acts from other nations, even the United States, through counterbalancing coalitions and networks, or even (like China) use it to advance their own illegal, unlawful, and aggressive acts towards other nations. We can criticize the actions of the United States because the United States fundamentally is a democracy, with freedom of speech, association, and assembly. Unlike in China where each of these things are contingent on the tolerance of bureaucrats in Beijing; because when it comes down to it; there exists laws and norms in the United States that certain fundamental freedoms may not be abridged (United States of America: The Abridged Series Not Coming To You Soon by Team 50 Star) and thus allow you to criticize those things. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Why does this not apply to anything relating to anything to do with the "security services" or anything to do with foreign nations? It always seem to be "no, it's fine when we do bad things elsewhere and spy on people and kill people, because they are foreigners and they don't count." Every nation state does hideously illegal and immoral things all the time. It just sometimes also does it to it's own citizens that we make a fuss about despots. E: And I mean, "they're foreigners so they don't count" has been a historically common position, one that is becoming less common over time and I don't think is very common in this subforum at all. You're not American so you probably don't know this, but 20 years any international disaster would be reported as like, "the blast killed 20 people, 3 of them Americans", as if the Americans were inherently more important, and you see a lot less of that these days. We're still a long way from respecting the sovereignty of the rest of the world (obviously!) but things are improving, as we would expect as globalization continues apace. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Because even in the event that a country gains the capacity for massive international, worldwide power projection, as the US has and as China likely will soon, rulers still have more power over their own people than any outside force does. (Is this not blindingly obvious????) I am saying that if the point is "we cannot let this be a slippery slope" then we've already started down it by saying "it's fine for us to do it to foreign people". If we are supposed to be so concerned about how much trouble even setting off on this particular line of thought is, maybe don't do it anywhere or to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Why does this not apply to anything relating to anything to do with the "security services" or anything to do with foreign nations? It always seem to be "no, it's fine when we do bad things elsewhere and spy on people and kill people, because they are foreigners and they don't count." Every nation state does hideously illegal and immoral things all the time. It just sometimes also does it to it's own citizens that we make a fuss about despots. people are talking about the rule of law and you're talking about the categorical imperative. the rule of law doesn't preclude doing bad things (just make them legal), but respecting the rule of law is a fundamental principle of modern liberal democracies. that's distinct from the idea that laws themselves should be created in order to act morally (in part because the concept of universal moral laws no longer is particularly accepted, but thats neither here nor there) i'm highlighting this because this breakdown happens over and over in your posts: the idea that because something is right it doesn't matter if its legal or illegal - that moral righteousness trumps the rule of law, period, forever. there's two problems with that approach: one - more abstractly - is that is antithetical to the premise of a functioning modern democratic state (which is premised on the state respecting the rule of law, particularly rights granted to individuals) and, two - more practically - what you think is moral and correct is not what someone else thinks is moral and correct, and when you've legitimized subverting the rule of law in favor of acting based on principle, then you open the door for your opponents to the do the same. we've had this conversation a hundred different times and you seem to struggle with this. if it helps there have been literally millions of words written on this and i am happy to direct you to some much smarter people who have written much more extensively about this. but at some point you have to stop replying to all these types of issues with 'well just do the right thing, the law doesn't matter!' and then getting perplexed when people point out that yea, the rule of law actually is important. edit: fwiw i'll add this cavaet: i think 'respecting the rule of law' does not necessarily mean 'obligated to defend objectionable laws in court because they happened to be passed by the opposite party', but i do strongly disagree that the democrats should start doing illegal things because they feel justified, because if you want to go down that road you need to ensure your opponents are never in power, ever again, because that bell is not going to be unrung and if you're unwilling go all the way your republican opponents absolutely are (i know you've said before you don't agree with kant but your posts which are full of extremely rigid thinking characterized by moral absolutes 100% read as recognizably kantian to anyone who's taking political philosophy, which is very lol) Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I am saying that if the point is "we cannot let this be a slippery slope" then we've already started down it by saying "it's fine for us to do it to foreign people". If we are supposed to be so concerned about how much trouble even setting off on this particular line of thought is, maybe don't do it anywhere or to anyone. We can start by making people realize that constitutional rights apply to everybody in the United States, not just citizens of the United States (which is already legally true but not well-publicized or recognized) and expand that principle to the US respecting those rights for all world citizens. e: And like the post above me says this is getting pretty far from the concept of "rule of law". If I could throw a metaphor on there... Like, proper hygiene is a good thing. It makes you more attractive and persuasive to people and more effective in social situations. But oh no - you could use your charisma and non-smelliness to manipulate people, and you couldn't have done that if you were a slovenly mess! That doesn't make hygiene not an intrinsically worthwhile thing. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:53
|
|
|
I'm very much in the camp that the U.S. should Mea Culpa regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal, but the Saudis and other Gulf leaders are apparently "resigned" to its revival. I guess that's a somewhat good indicator that there's progress on that front. It is kinda funny to see the House of Saud treating this like the ultimate insult because they got spoiled loving rotten under Trump. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/resigned-nuclear-deal-revival-gulf-engages-with-foe-iran-2021-06-09/
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:58
|
|
|
also just to add if you legitimately think that we're at a crisis point where the ends justify the means - where the democrats should ignore the rule of law to pursue their agenda because their agenda is morally correct and would benefit millions and if they fail to do so now they will never get another chance - then you should not be arguing for meaningless half-measures, you should be arguing for things like 'suspending elections', 'outlawing the republican party' and 'seizing bezos' wealth'. because once the rule of law is gone, it's gone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:we've had this conversation a hundred different times and you seem to struggle with this. if it helps there have been literally millions of words written on this and i am happy to direct you to some much smarter people who have written much more extensively about this. but at some point you have to stop replying to all these types of issues with 'well just do the right thing, the law doesn't matter!' and then getting perplexed when people point out that yea, the rule of law actually is important. But states don't respect the rule of law in rights given to individuals. They say they do and then kill their own citizens because they were a danger. They kill other people at weddings because one of the people there was a "security threat". The state subverts it's own laws and does nothing to punish people if they have taken part in horrific action. If it did George W Bush would be on trial by this point. But he isn't and never will be, so when people start saying "oh but we can't just break the law" I kind of have to wonder if they've been paying attention. Mellow Seas posted:Like, proper hygiene is a good thing. It makes you more attractive and persuasive to people and more effective in social situations. But oh no - you could use your charisma and non-smelliness to manipulate people, and you couldn't have done that if you were a slovenly mess! That doesn't make hygiene not an intrinsically worthwhile thing. Sure, but what is the point of something if it serves only the powerful and is ignored? I think the law should be applied justly, and universally (or at least an obvious attempt made to make it so) or we should do away with the fiction that it applies at all. Owlspiracy posted:also just to add if you legitimately think that we're at a crisis point where the ends justify the means - where the democrats should ignore the rule of law to pursue their agenda because their agenda is morally correct and would benefit millions and if they fail to do so now they will never get another chance - then you should not be arguing for meaningless half-measures, you should be arguing for things like 'suspending elections', 'outlawing the republican party' and 'seizing bezos' wealth'. because once the rule of law is gone, it's gone. Your going to be if you insist that "It stands on principle that we must defend the previous occupant of this chair against rape claims", is the point where we should start hanging billionaires then sure, go ahead. I like to think that even I'm a bit less binary in my thinking. Like, I am not saying "start killing people" I am trying to say that breaking the law "for the greater good" has already been done by governments a lot of the time and to argue that this is a bridge too far seems a tad odd. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:07
|
|
|
McGahn is lying about his 302s to House Judiciary, if anyone still cares. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But states don't respect the rule of law in rights given to individuals. They say they do and then kill their own citizens because they were a danger. They kill other people at weddings because one of the people there was a "security threat". The state subverts it's own laws and does nothing to punish people if they have taken part in horrific action. If it did George W Bush would be on trial by this point. But he isn't and never will be, so when people start saying "oh but we can't just break the law" I kind of have to wonder if they've been paying attention. except this isn't true. the problem isn't states "not respecting the rule of law" its "the existing laws enable people to do immoral things under the umbrella of tenuous legality." like, the entire reason the CIA operated torture black sites overseas is because they were able to do so "legally". the entire issue with police shootings is that they are seen as legal and justified. if every police office who murdered someone was suddenly convicted and thrown in jail (which would be good!) then i can promise you police shootings would substantially decrease - which is why one of the proposed reforms is get rid of qualified immunity, which is why this doesn't happen. the real issue you've identified is that laws in the united states don't serve individuals because they do thinks like legalize police murdering people. in a liberal democracy the solution to that is to pass new laws not ignore the rule of law. if you think you cannot solve these problems through legislation, then what you're really discussing is "how do we replace the existing system with something else", which is a separate conversation, and: see my previous post about half-measures. quote:Your going to be if you insist that "It stands on principle that we must defend the previous occupant of this chair against rape claims", is the point where we should start hanging billionaires then sure, go ahead. I like to think that even I'm a bit less binary in my thinking. no, what i'm saying is that choosing not to defend a law you don't support isn't subverting the rule of law
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Sure, but what is the point of something if it serves only the powerful and is ignored? The natural state of the world is that people with power have all the power and can do whatever they want. Rule of law is a (good, necessary) infringement upon that natural state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
I vaguely recall the Obama administration announcing a stoppage on certain Marijuana prosecutions, which the Trump administration then reversed because Jeff Sessions is a big Reefer Madness guy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:which is why one of the proposed reforms is get rid of qualified immunity, which is why this doesn't happen. Actually something might happen! https://twitter.com/LACaldwellDC/status/1402694298303451141 Obviously we'll have to see what the actual language is but any legislation rolling back QI that can move through the Senate would be a welcome development
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
zoux posted:Actually something might happen! i mean "settling the issue" in that context could easily be "we decided not to do anything about it"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:no, what i'm saying is that choosing not to defend a law you don't support isn't subverting the rule of law Yes, but here's the rub isn't it. Those things are caused by power being applied against people with power. Not by saying "the law forbids this". The rule of law does not prevent these injustices, does it? Your saying that "well, we should pass new laws" and then they won't get passed, or they will and will get ignored because "didn't say we couldn't not do this". And it seems as if people were quite keen to say "no, we can't just not enforce the law" even when that law was a bad one. Mellow Seas posted:The natural state of the world is that people with power have all the power and can do whatever they want. Rule of law is a (good, necessary) infringement upon that natural state. This does not appear to have changed through the application of the rule of law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:You're just flat not right about what words mean. It is correct to say that despots are evil and oppressive, per common use, and it is incorrect to say that anything that goes against liberalism is despotic. The utility of the rule of law falls apart in situations such as these, where said laws are oppressive, and thus opposing them and overriding them is not tyrannical. The notion that there is a contradiction in rejecting liberalism, but also embracing the definition of despot that "liberalism created" is a wonderful performance of mental gymnastics. Even Marxists view despots unfavorably, and Marxism is meant to counter liberalism, yet it is also simultaneously built upon it. You tried a ridiculous rhetorical maneuver here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:This does not appear to have changed through the application of the rule of law. Ooooooookay. I wish people would stop confusing "this thing isn't happening as fast or as cleanly as I would like" for "this thing isn't happening at all."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:and 'seizing bezos' wealth'... I mean...it's not so bad. anyways, another reason why "rule is law" is important is that at does give normal people/the populace some check against powerful rule breakers and arbitrary decision making by despotic leaders. We saw this to a degree during the Trump administration when the courts reversed a bunch of his orders because they literally could not be supported by rule of law. I know some people here treat this as proof that we should do it to but basically it stopped more heinous actions by the American government at the time. But think of it another way, lets say you are an immigrant who is a legal permanent resident or just became a citizen. The INA and its rules and the law protect your ability to stay here. Removal of rule of law in this instance means that the wrong person gets in charge and you are thrown out of the country. You point to the rule that say you are allowed to be here, ok well that doesn't matter because what I say goes and there is nothing you can do about it. Now sure, the government can still do immoral things under rule of law but it also cuts the other way if it is respected. I guess a third way to think of it is jury nullification. Great when used to free slaves, bad when used to protect lynchers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The idea I'm pretty sure is that the more you do extralegal things, ignore procedure, and bend the rules; the easier it is, until laws essentially cease to be worth anything. It's like that Penn & Teller skit that they did both on their show and in the West Wing where they say, "the Chinese bill of rights is not worth the paper it's not printed on"; the constitution, the law, in the long run won't be able to protect anything. Millions have already perished under your precious rule of law. We are already living in that world and have been for decades. And the "progressive" Democrats are in charge now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I wish people would stop confusing "this thing isn't happening as fast or as cleanly as I would like" for "this thing isn't happening at all." They were always diffuse, the idea of an all powerful monarch is, one could argue, a renaissance era invention trying to justify why the king really deserves all those powers from the barons back, no really you guys it's not fair God appointed me remember! Dukes and kings and princes of all stripes have continually been involved in decision making to a greater or lesser extent and the idea that before some point it was all just "one dude says jump you say how high" is silly. Balance of forces, popular unrest and so on were and are major things throughout history across the world. Expanding the ability of people to make a decision about who deserves to be in charge, or even the idea of what does it mean to be in charge, would be great. It's just that I don't see that coming from the rule of law on it's own. Mooseontheloose posted:But think of it another way, lets say you are an immigrant who is a legal permanent resident or just became a citizen. The INA and its rules and the law protect your ability to stay here. Removal of rule of law in this instance means that the wrong person gets in charge and you are thrown out of the country. You point to the rule that say you are allowed to be here, ok well that doesn't matter because what I say goes and there is nothing you can do about it. Now sure, the government can still do immoral things under rule of law but it also cuts the other way if it is respected. I kind of agree. However I think that when we look at these sorts of things as "oh the law says I am protected" only matters as much as you can prove it and the other people care. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Millions have already perished under your precious rule of law. We are already living in that world and have been for decades. And the "progressive" Democrats are in charge now. great, so if we decide that this is a breaking point and continuing to respect the rule of law is dooming further millions to death and that cannot stand, then the solution is to break the rule of law to such a degree that there is no possibility of your opponent ever seizing power - do you think that's an appropriate next step? because anything short of that is going to leave you much, much worse off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Speaking for myself as a one-man idiot, I think all of this Law Talk deserves its own thread. It's an interesting debate on several levels, but I think in this thread it's too much of a derail. I think a topic like it deserves its own dedicated thread since it is a broad category with a lot of potential ground to cover.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:They were always diffuse, the idea of an all powerful monarch is, one could argue, a renaissance era invention the idea of an all powerful monarch is older than the pyramids
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:
None of this is easy for obvious reasons. The world and power interaction is complicated, so I totally get why people are not enamored with the idea of trying to stay in the bounds of power. But I think that's the rub to a degree, its easy to say when I abuse power its benevolent and nothing bad will come of it when I do something "good." The other part of this is that a lot of rule of law abuse of power uses the gray area of the law to do immoral things. The example I love to use is the 14th Amendment. In theory, this allows protection against laws based on racial discrimination. However, for something like housing and zoning laws, they are written in such a way that legally discriminate against people of color because in the United States because they base it on the market and income is not a protected class in the United States. This is way oversimplified by the way but the point is that people will try to find loopholes around rule of law and the government should patch it out but it can take DECADES to fix.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the idea of an all powerful monarch is older than the pyramids yep, and the actual reforms of the enlightenment was "hey the rule of law applies to the monarch too*!" * when making decisions that effect nobles
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Speaking for myself as a one-man idiot, I think all of this Law Talk deserves its own thread. It's an interesting debate on several levels, but I think in this thread it's too much of a derail. I think a topic like it deserves its own dedicated thread since it is a broad category with a lot of potential ground to cover. Fair. I am not very good at starting threads but I hope someone starts one! evilweasel posted:the idea of an all powerful monarch is older than the pyramids Yes, but everyone with power knows it is bollocks when your in charge or close to power. The idea that "oh yes the pharaoh rules everything" was always followed up with "as long as he doesn't do something that would get a kopesh stuck in his guts". The idea "the monarch is actually all powerful, you have to listen to them" finds it's expression in a lot of places. But the ideal of a "divine right of kings" in modern parlance is only renaissance era invention. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Jun 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes, but everyone with power knows it is bollocks when your in charge or close to power. The idea that "oh yes the pharaoh rules everything" was always followed up with "as long as he doesn't do something that would get a kopesh stuck in his guts". that is not correct one easy way to know that is not correct: the pyramids
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Hey, remember when Trump had a bunch of protestors teargassed so he could do a photo op in front of a church? Wanna read some bullshit? Watchdog finds clearing of protesters from Lafayette Park wasn't for Trump photo op quote:The Interior Department's inspector general said in a report released Wednesday that evidence it obtained "did not support a finding" that federal authorities forcibly cleared protesters from Lafayette Park last year so then-President Trump could walk from the White House and pose for a photo outside the historic St. John's Church. There's more to the article, but it isn't paywalled or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
the_steve posted:Hey, remember when Trump had a bunch of protestors teargassed so he could do a photo op in front of a church? How the hell did they come to this conclusion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2021 21:47
|
|
