People upset about the monarchy don’t have any real problems in their lives.

Congrats, you must have a real easy life if you’re doing the revolutionary cosplay thing over the fucking monarchy LOL.

The King-Byng affair was in a different time when the Governor General was someone from the UK. So British person overruling the Canadian Prime Minister was a big part of the controversy there.

Now that the Governor General is Canadian it’s kind of a nothing burger. A ceremonial position appointed by the PM. The Julie Payette situation was the only time there’s been any potential for anyone outside of the country might have to do something and that would’ve only been if Trudeau asked the Queen to fire her. But it didn’t come to that so whatever.

You’re a lawyer so you’re going to have a tendency to think about hypotheticals about things that aren’t codified into law. But right now we’re all witnessing the US that has all kinds of protections against these kinds of hypotheticals just ignore those laws. Hypothetically a US President couldn’t abuse power and be completely corrupt because he’d be impeached. The laws say so. But that isn’t happening.

It’s obvious now that the only protection against tyranny is the will of the people. If the King abused his position, we would remove the King from power. Unless we lacked the will to do that. If the King knows he’d be removed from his position if he abuses that position he won’t abuse his position since he doesn’t want to be the guy that ends the monarchy. Right now, no one in the US is being prosecuted for Epstein stuff despite their laws. The brother of the King is being prosecuted.

We see a republic where there’s basically an aristocracy that’s above the law and we see a monarchy where the King’s brother is being prosecuted. As a lawyer do you think evidence from the real world is stronger than hypotheticals?

Seems to me it doesn’t really matter what you put into the laws, if the will of the population is weak, the law will be ignored. In the end you have no choice but to trust the people when these hypotheticals arise.

Authoritarian forms of government will be unstable when there’s no clear line of succession. It’s the reason why monarchies come about. It’s not like people don’t understand that it’s extremely arbitrary, it’s just that it’s better than the alternative: civil wars whenever whoever is in power dies. It’s an agreement among various lords that it’s better they just accept that person over there that’s the son of the King will someday be King rather than having a civil war when the King dies.

And sure civil wars would still happen, but most of the time the succession would happen without bloodshed. When there’s no line of succession, it’s just constant power struggles when the leader dies.

Of course democracy is a far better way to determine who will run things, but that requires a literate population to work. Which didn’t exist throughout much of human history. Sure, there were republics throughout history, but they’d usually become monarchies when the illiterate masses would decide they liked that Julius guy (he threw the best parties!) and hated that Brutus guy who killed him, even if the Julius guy was becoming a tyrant.

So monarchies suck, but they’re better than civil wars. So when the population becomes too dumb, it sucks, but it’s better than the alternatives.

A lot of people have a tendency to want to show loyalty to their country by showing subservience to some rich arrogant asshole that surrounds themselves with gold. See the how a significant percentage of the US population think of Trump for example.

If there is no King the subservient portion of the population will create one. It’s better to have a King that doesn’t have any actual power so that won’t happen. The subservient part of the population don’t really care that their King has no political power, they just want to bow to someone to prove their loyalty to the country and see some pomp and pageantry. For a lot of people the concept of a country is too abstract to understand so they need some person to do all kinds the ceremonial stuff so they can express their loyalty to the country by showing loyalty to that person.

Similar to how having a separation between government and religion, it’s a separation between government and all the ceremonial pomp and pageantry stuff.

Sure, I wouldn’t directly care if there was monarchy was eliminated, but a lot of other people would. And those people would start voting in some wealthy asshole to rule over us like a king. And that’s something I definitely don’t want. So just give the subservient types someone they can bow to so it doesn’t impact the rest of us.

Yeah but did those scientists ever point the James Webb Telescope at that creepy house at the end of my street?

That’s why it used to be not orange, obviously.

Ok now apply the same kind of criticism to the anti-liberal memes you’re consuming on the internet. Who do those benefit? Who benefits from dividing people?

Where does this stuff originate from? Some millionaire trust fund baby influencers on youtube or twitch? Why is this Hasan guy on the front page of a website owned by Jeff Bezos?

Keep on repeating the bullshit that Jeff Bezos wants you to about liberals being the real enemy. You’re soooo much smarter than everyone else LOL. You’re really “fighting the power” when you consume the content the billionaires want you to consume.

Yeah I’m not into that kind of thing. Rogue One was weird enough trying to be Saving Private Ryan while having the toys I played with as a kid on the screen. And I find it kinda find it boring when shows spell out what they’re about instead of having a deep subtext so I tend just get annoyed by plot holes since there’s nothing else to think about.

Isn’t all of Star Wars about fascism?

It’s just all emotion and no rational thought now. People just go into outrage mode when certain topics are mentioned.

Really it opens a channel to criticize ICE without needing to logon to X to do so. But that’s bad because preventing communication is good?

Of course I doubt ICE will care about criticism directed towards their account on bluesky. But that means things said on the internet don’t have much of an effect on things, which means it doesn’t matter whether they’re on bluesky (or any other forum).

Mostly it’s about some weird belief by some about controlling what is being said on the internet gains power. You’d think the events that have happened would have proven this wrong, but still people continue to be upset about things being said on the internet and want some power over those things.

Really words on the internet don’t matter as much as people think, and the idea of blocking unwanted information is annoying at best and can lead to ignorance. What matters is the horrible acts ICE is doing. We should want more light being shown on them, and welcome any potential channel of discussion.

Wanting to prevent discussion indicates you feel you’re in the wrong. ICE is indicating they want discussion, while those that are outraged by ICE being on bluesky are indicating they don’t want discussion on ICE. Why would anyone want to make is seem ICE is in the right while they’re in the wrong? It’s people not thinking and only reacting emotionally and handing ICE a W because they are raging instead of thinking.

The real news here is Juilan Assange still exists? People still think he’s relevant?

To me the whole thing is stupid.

They should just flat out tell Trump they’ll give him the stupid medal at the end of his term if he doesn’t bomb any more countries.

Kinda like how the US, UK, and the Soviet Union were not aligned before the 1940s?

Alignments can change when there’s a common enemy. Sure those alignment changes may be temporary but they can last long enough to see a country bombed flat and the leaders dead in a bunker.

You’re obsessed over ideology but that’s mostly irrelevant in geopolitics. If it’s in the best interests of a bunch of countries to work together to destroy the US economy, those countries will work together regardless of ideology or internal politics. In WWII the UK had a government of national unity with both the Labour and Conservative in a coalition. Perhaps the US is incapable of having political parties working together for the common good of the country, but not every country has the same weaknesses the US has.

And countries can always go back to being adversaries for bullshit ideological reasons after the enemy is destroyed like the US and Soviet Union did after WWII. So animosity between countries can be put aside temporarily.

If Trump thinks he can be an existential threat to a large number of countries in the world, it’s a FAFO situation.

Yup. Sadly the US has handed the 21st century to China without a fight.

I remember what some Hong Kong dude said to me once… “China is the future, and it’s a bleak future”.

And so long as the US is the wealthiest nation on Earth, what’s going to deter them?

I think the answer to your question is contained within the question. Americans are greedy people and a coordinated effort by China, Japan, and the UK could sink the US economy.

But I doubt that would even be necessary. Why kill someone intent on suicide? The US economy will likely collapse on it’s own if it continues on the path it’s on. I’m not talking about some recession like in 2008, I’m talking a collapse you’ve never experienced. Something similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Also if you were going down the military strike route, an aircraft carrier would be stupid. Trump has broadcast to the entire world what the achilles heal of the US is and it isn’t the aircraft carriers. It’s something that’s dug up from the ground and needs to be processed by refineries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I mean he is a generational talent at scamming people. Even more than that, I’d say he’s the most successful grifter of all time. Who else in all of history even compares to the level Trump has scammed the US?

John Blunt? Points for being a sword-maker named blunt that founded a joint stock company. But he just scammed the upper class in the UK. Trump has so much more thoroughly scammed the US, and even many non-Americans around the world.

Yet somehow this particular Anthony Perkins is more of a ghoul than the dead actor.

It’s super-woke to define woke.

I think it’s stupid for anyone to use it at this point. The word has lost all meaning.

Company changed it’s signage? It’s woke. Didn’t like a movie? It’s woke. If you disagree with my comment? Believe it or not… woke.