4 ms·
Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.
by ajvs 4y ago
Except our new King has previously taken money from Saudis and supports the WEF, so they've already lost that trust.
- simonh 4y agoI don’t think you have the right to speak for the British people. Neither do I. Let’s see.
- smcl 4y agoLets take a look at what the British people think so far: https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1568923296753762304 https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/156892329675376230...
- maccard 4y agoScottish people.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoConsidering they recently publicly decided to be British, they're about as British as you can be.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- smcl 4y agoHeh touché, but I think we can all agree that’s maybe not really reflective of popular regional attitudes towards “British”-ness. And I suppose we will see as the parade travels south and crossese the border, but I don’t think you will see the same sort of anti-Charles sentiment in Manchester or London.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoFair, I didn't like what look like a dismissal of the Scottish people's Britishness.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoTechnically, Scots as in those born in Scotland and still living there voted to not be British. The vote was open to all living in Scotland (above the age of 16), which includes many people from the other nations such as England who may (or may not) consider themselves Scots, and conversely some people may consider themselves Scots but not live in Scotland.
- simonh 4y ago> The vote was open to all living in Scotland In other words, people with an unambiguous stake in the outcome.
- smcl 4y agoScots aren’t British? That’s great news, I’m gonna go update my passport!
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago1. "Let's take a look a look at what humans think about communism: <link to a video about North Koreans praising their leader>" 2. "That's just north koreans" 3. "North koreans aren't humans?" Comment #3 is not a valid counterargument to comment #2. The point is that Scots may not be a representative sample of "all Brits", even if Scots are Brits.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- smcl 4y agoNo, my (possibly too subtle) point was that this might be the moment where Scots begin to cease thinking of themselves as Brits. I don't think there's any danger of the DPRK declaring themselves non-human
- simonh 4y agoThey aren’t “the British people”. Obviously.
- sanitycheck 4y agoI'm British, I want them gone. I'm not under any illusions that we have a meritocratic society but while we have a hereditary bloody monarchy I honestly feel somewhat gaslit whenever anyone claims we do (and they do claim that).
- simonh 4y agoNo system of government or society is pure, adhering to an unblemished ideal system. No communist government has been purely communist, no democratic system is perfectly democratic, no meritocratic system excludes all possible factors contrary to meritocracy. I don’t believe anyone has ever said our system is perfectly and ideally meritocratic in every way. That’s not what any reasonable person would take the statement “our system is meritocratic” as meaning. It’s mostly meritocratic. Compared to many other systems, along with other comparable liberal democracies I’d argue it’s one of the most meritocratic systems developed so far. It’s also one of the most free, and the fact is free human beings don’t always make every decision based on merit. I think it’s clear if we chose to get rid of the monarchy we could do so through democratic mechanisms. So far we have chosen not to do so.
- sanitycheck 4y agoIt's mostly meritocratic for the little people. 94% of UK children go to state schools, but only 50% of MPs went - and that's considered good. A little bit of strawmanning there, implying I'm insisting on an unblemished ideal system. I simply think there's plenty of room for improvement on what we have, and stripping one family of a birthright to rule would count towards it. I don't think it's at all clear we could get rid of the monarchy through democratic mechanisms! But that's rather besides the point - we wouldn't try, because the amount of state & media propaganda shovelled at us will prevent most people from wanting that. Unless some troubling events fast-track Harry & Meghan to the top of the succession order, of course.
- kitd 4y agoHe was also heavily supportive of environmental concerns decades before it was mainstream, so maybe he's won it back again.
- sanitycheck 4y agoCarbon footprint of ordinary British person: 10 tonnes. Carbon footprint of Prince Charles: 432 tonnes. (2019) Talks to his plants though, allegedly.
- AshamedCaptain 4y agoI would like to point that the Spanish ex-monarch practically _betrayed_ Spain to the Saudis (he's currently self-exiled there) and he still has a non-negligible amount of support in the population. I find "support of a monarchy" an indefensible position. Bonus points if your only argument is "well the current monarch is kind of nice and therefore we're not in a hurry to remove him" because that's literally one rotten apple away of exploding in your face (see Spain) and by then it's likely too late.
- kergonath 4y agoExactly. At the very least you need strong constitutional provisions to get rid of the current one, assuming that the next in line could be better.
- petre 4y agoThat's a very nice way to put it. He took a donation from Bin Laden's family, namely from Osama's half brother, Bakr Bin Laden.