6 ms·

Americans fought a war to keep British nobles out of their business. Whoever they may be over there, they're nobody here.

thinkingemote 4y ago
This is the bait. It works to get people clicking and engaging with the content. Click bait won't go away because it continues to work as seen in this thread.
notahacker 4y ago
And yet they're living rent free in the heads of Americans more interested in the British title of the founder of one of the organisations that co-sponsored the bill than the San Francisco based organization that was the other co-sponsor, or indeed what the bill actually says...
bloqs 4y ago
Sigh. This is exactly the immediate emotional response this article is designed to provoke because the US doesn't understand the difference between a title that is inherited or a modern reward title for exemplary work in a field (like Sir Elton John)
- jakupovic 4y ago
  We understand it very well and still don't want it. Your explanation doesn't make any sense, let UK politicians stay politicking UK.
  - petesergeant 4y ago
    She's not a politician, though. The central point remains, which is had the original headline said "Why is a prominent British film-maker Drafting [etc]" then nobody would have bothered clicking through. It's the allusion to posh British aristocracy in silly hats that's the disingenuity at the heart.
    - stevenicr 4y ago
      I am seeing the side several are trying to point out, and sure, it's fine to educate on the issue or title inherited / given and what have you. However I must disagree with "Why is a prominent British film-maker"... nobody would click.. At least for me, and I assume many others in the US - Seeing: British X about Censorship - is a thing.. just like when we see British comedians talk about gun rights or British news people talk about Y thing. When it things in the Bill of Rights or similar documents, we are going to take influence differently than if it was British person X talks about Tea or Ships or something.
  - orf 4y ago
    > We understand it very well that the person in question is not a politician and has a peerage for their work in film and for childrens rights > However I am against this because we should let UK politicians stay politicking in the UK!!! That’s hilarious, you said you understand it very well then immediately made it clear you don’t understand it very well.
  - vagrantJin 4y ago
    I doubt you understand it. The peasant-aristocrat economic and social systems of Europe are in full swing in the US. Whether its a political family or rich ones, they stand on a peerage, exalted as demi-gods of the Americas. No different than a European title of nobility.
  - classified 4y ago
    Right, veneration for being insanely rich is much more American and makes so much more sense.
Veen 4y ago
That makes no sense. If a person is an expert or has earned influence in a particular field, they don't lose that because they are awarded a life peerage. (And Americans in fact fought a war because they didn't want to pay taxes to fund their own defense)

thinkingemote 4y ago

This is the bait. It works to get people clicking and engaging with the content. Click bait won't go away because it continues to work as seen in this thread.

notahacker 4y ago

And yet they're living rent free in the heads of Americans more interested in the British title of the founder of one of the organisations that co-sponsored the bill than the San Francisco based organization that was the other co-sponsor, or indeed what the bill actually says...

bloqs 4y ago

Sigh. This is exactly the immediate emotional response this article is designed to provoke because the US doesn't understand the difference between a title that is inherited or a modern reward title for exemplary work in a field (like Sir Elton John)

jakupovic 4y ago
We understand it very well and still don't want it. Your explanation doesn't make any sense, let UK politicians stay politicking UK.
- petesergeant 4y ago
  She's not a politician, though. The central point remains, which is had the original headline said "Why is a prominent British film-maker Drafting [etc]" then nobody would have bothered clicking through. It's the allusion to posh British aristocracy in silly hats that's the disingenuity at the heart.
  - stevenicr 4y ago
    I am seeing the side several are trying to point out, and sure, it's fine to educate on the issue or title inherited / given and what have you. However I must disagree with "Why is a prominent British film-maker"... nobody would click.. At least for me, and I assume many others in the US - Seeing: British X about Censorship - is a thing.. just like when we see British comedians talk about gun rights or British news people talk about Y thing. When it things in the Bill of Rights or similar documents, we are going to take influence differently than if it was British person X talks about Tea or Ships or something.
- orf 4y ago
  > We understand it very well that the person in question is not a politician and has a peerage for their work in film and for childrens rights > However I am against this because we should let UK politicians stay politicking in the UK!!! That’s hilarious, you said you understand it very well then immediately made it clear you don’t understand it very well.
- vagrantJin 4y ago
  I doubt you understand it. The peasant-aristocrat economic and social systems of Europe are in full swing in the US. Whether its a political family or rich ones, they stand on a peerage, exalted as demi-gods of the Americas. No different than a European title of nobility.
- classified 4y ago
  Right, veneration for being insanely rich is much more American and makes so much more sense.

Veen 4y ago

That makes no sense. If a person is an expert or has earned influence in a particular field, they don't lose that because they are awarded a life peerage. (And Americans in fact fought a war because they didn't want to pay taxes to fund their own defense)