3 ms·

In Saudi Arabia you can go to a public punishment, and see criminals (e.g. gays?) get hanged or have their hands cut off. If you're a foreigner apparently you'

In Saudi Arabia you can go to a public punishment, and see criminals (e.g. gays?) get hanged or have their hands cut off. If you're a foreigner apparently you'll be pushed to the front for a good view. Also cute!

Closi 6y ago
Ah yes, I forgot an absolute monarchy is exactly the same as a parliamentary democracy operating within a constitutional monarchy. I also forgot that if you think Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a tourist attraction in England you also have to think that public hangings are great and that Salman of Saudi Arabia is also a total babe. What a silly comparison.
- knorker 6y ago
  It's a difference in degree, not kind. Royalty in Europe has abused their power. It's inherited corrupt power, that time and time again has shown that given this power they abuse it. Is it the same? No. Just like how Anders Brevik is not as bad as Hitler. But yeah, Anders Brevik's crimes are "cute". Defending corruption and crimes because "at least it's not Saudi Arabia" is what's truly silly.
  - Closi 6y ago
    It’s a difference in structure and power balance. The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute, and probably needs to be further seperated from power, but I suspect that’s too much nuance considering we have already hit Godwin’s Law.
    - knorker 6y ago
      > The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. Well that's a straw man. > It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute It is. And one of the Boston bombers was considered cute. It has no baring on whether he's a good guy, or someone who should be stopped.
jopsen 6y ago
Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, no different from dictatorship. What we have in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. The article is about how queens assent still granted the crown some indirect power (mostly through access to politicians). But in practice, the crown has very little power. And is a culture institution. If the cost of peaceful transition to democracy, is paying the crown money for generations to come, and giving the crown a ceremonial role. The might be worth it, even if the current King is a murderous lunatic. (Future kings will learn that the monarchy needs to be popular, or people will vote it out of existence)
- knorker 6y ago
  Sweden and Britain both have abuses of power. The Swedish king has used his immunity from prosecution to commit crimes. Sure, not murder, but he's done "fuck you, I can't be prosecuted for reckless driving. Luckily I didn't kill anyone, but no thanks to me". Other parts of the royal family have claimed immunity when committing crimes (traffic violations), even though they don't actually have it. So the king and his family have been abusing their power. It's a slap in the face of the whole country. Look elsewhere in this thread for abuses of power from the British royal family. Also, you know, Prince Andrew… Immunity from prosecution is hardly "some indirect ceremonial power", especially when it's has ACTUALLY been used to commit crimes and getting away with it.

Closi 6y ago

Ah yes, I forgot an absolute monarchy is exactly the same as a parliamentary democracy operating within a constitutional monarchy. I also forgot that if you think Queen Elizabeth II could be considered a tourist attraction in England you also have to think that public hangings are great and that Salman of Saudi Arabia is also a total babe. What a silly comparison.

knorker 6y ago
It's a difference in degree, not kind. Royalty in Europe has abused their power. It's inherited corrupt power, that time and time again has shown that given this power they abuse it. Is it the same? No. Just like how Anders Brevik is not as bad as Hitler. But yeah, Anders Brevik's crimes are "cute". Defending corruption and crimes because "at least it's not Saudi Arabia" is what's truly silly.
- Closi 6y ago
  It’s a difference in structure and power balance. The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute, and probably needs to be further seperated from power, but I suspect that’s too much nuance considering we have already hit Godwin’s Law.
  - knorker 6y ago
    > The implication that if you think the queen has touristic value you must also think that Andres Breviks crimes were great is just a silly false equivalency. Well that's a straw man. > It’s possible to think that the queen has touristic value, could be considered cute It is. And one of the Boston bombers was considered cute. It has no baring on whether he's a good guy, or someone who should be stopped.

jopsen 6y ago

Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, no different from dictatorship. What we have in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Britain is a ceremonial monarchy. The article is about how queens assent still granted the crown some indirect power (mostly through access to politicians). But in practice, the crown has very little power. And is a culture institution. If the cost of peaceful transition to democracy, is paying the crown money for generations to come, and giving the crown a ceremonial role. The might be worth it, even if the current King is a murderous lunatic. (Future kings will learn that the monarchy needs to be popular, or people will vote it out of existence)

knorker 6y ago
Sweden and Britain both have abuses of power. The Swedish king has used his immunity from prosecution to commit crimes. Sure, not murder, but he's done "fuck you, I can't be prosecuted for reckless driving. Luckily I didn't kill anyone, but no thanks to me". Other parts of the royal family have claimed immunity when committing crimes (traffic violations), even though they don't actually have it. So the king and his family have been abusing their power. It's a slap in the face of the whole country. Look elsewhere in this thread for abuses of power from the British royal family. Also, you know, Prince Andrew… Immunity from prosecution is hardly "some indirect ceremonial power", especially when it's has ACTUALLY been used to commit crimes and getting away with it.