6 ms·

Coincidentally I had debates recently about traditions. In particular about Monarchies. While traditions can be there for reasons and it's OK to follow some tr

by m4nu3l 4y ago

Coincidentally I had debates recently about traditions. In particular about Monarchies. While traditions can be there for reasons and it's OK to follow some traditions, all traditions should be questioned. The amount of knowledge we have today is not comparable with what we had in any previous time in history. The article actually proves that. We now know about chronic cyanide poisoning to a level that was unknown even to the population that developed traditions to avoid it. Also traditions can: - Have lost the original problem they were developed to address. - Always been the wrong choice (but probably without giving a significant disadvantage to a population). - Be irrelevant as better methods are now available. In short the Monarchy serve no real purpose in modern societies. Even as a symbol, it's a very bad symbol.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> In short the Monarchy serve no real purpose in modern societies. Even as a symbol, it's a very bad symbol. TBH I'm sort of baffled by this stance given the events around Queen Elizabeth II's passing. To be clear, I'm not a monarchist, and I share the opinion that their continuation in modern society is, well, weird, to say the least. A modern constitutional monarch holds no real power, and often times holds less power than normal people (e.g. not being able to express any political opinion). For example, I wouldn't wish being a member of the UK Royal Family on my worst enemy - yes, you are rich and nominally "famous", but you essentially have no freedom: your job in life is pre-ordained, and your life is basically constantly under the microscope of an adversarial press. But, while I may not fully understand it, it's clear to me that a monarch can serve a real purpose in modern societies. Many, many millions of people felt an affinity and dare I say a love for QEII, and I think these traditions serve a unifying force in the UK, or at least in England. The UK monarch and royal family are essentially the ultimate "branding" exercise. Plus, since the UK has basically separated any real power from the monarch, it means that the monarchy's sole purpose is to serve as a "neutral" symbol of the state, something that pure democracies often lack. To give a good analogy: I don't really understand rooting for professional sports teams either (George Carlin has a great bit about this "The players change, the coaches change - you're basically rooting for laundry"), but clearly tons of people have a deep, strong emotional bond to their "favorite team". It's also clear to me that, even if I don't understand it that well, many people can feel the same way about their monarch, and that can serve an important purpose.
- m4nu3l 4y ago
  This person pretty much sums up my thoughts. I'll let him speak for me (although my position is probably a bit more moderate). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TzM1TO2pb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TzM1TO2pb4 He's also English while I'm not.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    At the beginning of this video, though, he makes the argument (one which I think is quite common these days) that all the news around QEII, and all of the tributes to her, are imposed from on high by media-elite overlords. My argument is that it's just as probable that the media is feeding into a desire that a large portion of the population holds. The line to see QEII's coffin was 5 miles long, with a wait time of 13 hours. Clearly some people really were interested in the queen. My point is that I see the attitude professed by the author of that video a lot "Why would anyone be interested in the monarchy? It's just stupid propaganda, I should be about as interested in them in the Kardashians." There is always a subtext of that opinion along the lines of "If you're interested in the monarchy, you're just a stupid sheeple." And the weird thing for me is that, while I kinda agree with that assessment, I think I would be the stupid one if I were so clearly dismissive of an institution that is held in such regard by a huge portion of the populace.
    - m4nu3l 4y ago
      > At the beginning of this video, though, he makes the argument (one which I think is quite common these days) that all the news around QEII, and all of the tributes to her, are imposed from on high by media-elite overlords. I think he was just criticizing the tradition as a whole because of the effects it has. But I might be mistaken. > And the weird thing for me is that, while I kinda agree with that assessment, I think I would be the stupid one if I were so clearly dismissive of an institution that is held in such regard by a huge portion of the populace. I don't think so. I was raised Catholic and I think the religion is stupid. It might have had a purpose in the past as a tradition, but that doesn't change that I think it really is stupid. Saying something shouldn't the dismissed because many people believe in it is a logical fallacy (Argumentum ad Populum).
vagrantJin 4y ago
> in short the Monarchy serve no real purpose in modern societies. Id give it a bit more thought. Wierdly,monarchs seem to be the default in human societies throughout the ages. Even our current system of government is modelled after monarchs. Supreme leader at the top, his second, close circle below, ministers below, bureaucrats below them, and finally us plebs. Maybe our times make sense for cold, efficient technocracy. But monarchs were very human. Thats why we write stories about them in wonder and awe thousands of years later.
- m4nu3l 4y ago
  > Wierdly,monarchs seem to be the default in human societies throughout the ages. The Roman Republic lasted about as much the Roman Empire. There have been a lot of Republic and Monarchies and I don't know which one more often that the other, but I wouldn't call it a default. > Even our current system of government is modelled after monarchs. Supreme leader at the top, his second, close circle below, ministers below, bureaucrats below them, and finally us plebs. This doesn't justify keeping the monarchy, actually it is an argument that we can have something that works similarly without the issues of the inherited rights.
  - vagrantJin 4y ago
    Hmm. Id say historically Republics were the exception rather than the rule. > we can have something that works similarly without the issues of the inherited rights. This argument... What exactly is the issue with birthright that monarchs have?
tim333 4y ago
>the Monarchy serve no real purpose in modern societies There may be a bit of a Chesterton's fence thing going on. You say these idiots have no function but one underrated function is preventing other idiots taking the ruler for life role. See eg: Germany - got rid of the monarchy in 1918, got Hitler as ruler for life Russia - got rid of theirs early C20th, got Stalin, Putin France - got Napoleon. etc on the other hand Thailand - kept the monarchy - only Asian country that was never colonized/occupied by the West partly because the people would object to the kind being dissed.

by m4nu3l 4y ago

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> In short the Monarchy serve no real purpose in modern societies. Even as a symbol, it's a very bad symbol. TBH I'm sort of baffled by this stance given the events around Queen Elizabeth II's passing. To be clear, I'm not a monarchist, and I share the opinion that their continuation in modern society is, well, weird, to say the least. A modern constitutional monarch holds no real power, and often times holds less power than normal people (e.g. not being able to express any political opinion). For example, I wouldn't wish being a member of the UK Royal Family on my worst enemy - yes, you are rich and nominally "famous", but you essentially have no freedom: your job in life is pre-ordained, and your life is basically constantly under the microscope of an adversarial press. But, while I may not fully understand it, it's clear to me that a monarch can serve a real purpose in modern societies. Many, many millions of people felt an affinity and dare I say a love for QEII, and I think these traditions serve a unifying force in the UK, or at least in England. The UK monarch and royal family are essentially the ultimate "branding" exercise. Plus, since the UK has basically separated any real power from the monarch, it means that the monarchy's sole purpose is to serve as a "neutral" symbol of the state, something that pure democracies often lack. To give a good analogy: I don't really understand rooting for professional sports teams either (George Carlin has a great bit about this "The players change, the coaches change - you're basically rooting for laundry"), but clearly tons of people have a deep, strong emotional bond to their "favorite team". It's also clear to me that, even if I don't understand it that well, many people can feel the same way about their monarch, and that can serve an important purpose.

m4nu3l 4y ago
This person pretty much sums up my thoughts. I'll let him speak for me (although my position is probably a bit more moderate). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TzM1TO2pb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TzM1TO2pb4 He's also English while I'm not.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  At the beginning of this video, though, he makes the argument (one which I think is quite common these days) that all the news around QEII, and all of the tributes to her, are imposed from on high by media-elite overlords. My argument is that it's just as probable that the media is feeding into a desire that a large portion of the population holds. The line to see QEII's coffin was 5 miles long, with a wait time of 13 hours. Clearly some people really were interested in the queen. My point is that I see the attitude professed by the author of that video a lot "Why would anyone be interested in the monarchy? It's just stupid propaganda, I should be about as interested in them in the Kardashians." There is always a subtext of that opinion along the lines of "If you're interested in the monarchy, you're just a stupid sheeple." And the weird thing for me is that, while I kinda agree with that assessment, I think I would be the stupid one if I were so clearly dismissive of an institution that is held in such regard by a huge portion of the populace.
  - m4nu3l 4y ago
    > At the beginning of this video, though, he makes the argument (one which I think is quite common these days) that all the news around QEII, and all of the tributes to her, are imposed from on high by media-elite overlords. I think he was just criticizing the tradition as a whole because of the effects it has. But I might be mistaken. > And the weird thing for me is that, while I kinda agree with that assessment, I think I would be the stupid one if I were so clearly dismissive of an institution that is held in such regard by a huge portion of the populace. I don't think so. I was raised Catholic and I think the religion is stupid. It might have had a purpose in the past as a tradition, but that doesn't change that I think it really is stupid. Saying something shouldn't the dismissed because many people believe in it is a logical fallacy (Argumentum ad Populum).

vagrantJin 4y ago

> in short the Monarchy serve no real purpose in modern societies. Id give it a bit more thought. Wierdly,monarchs seem to be the default in human societies throughout the ages. Even our current system of government is modelled after monarchs. Supreme leader at the top, his second, close circle below, ministers below, bureaucrats below them, and finally us plebs. Maybe our times make sense for cold, efficient technocracy. But monarchs were very human. Thats why we write stories about them in wonder and awe thousands of years later.

m4nu3l 4y ago
> Wierdly,monarchs seem to be the default in human societies throughout the ages. The Roman Republic lasted about as much the Roman Empire. There have been a lot of Republic and Monarchies and I don't know which one more often that the other, but I wouldn't call it a default. > Even our current system of government is modelled after monarchs. Supreme leader at the top, his second, close circle below, ministers below, bureaucrats below them, and finally us plebs. This doesn't justify keeping the monarchy, actually it is an argument that we can have something that works similarly without the issues of the inherited rights.
- vagrantJin 4y ago
  Hmm. Id say historically Republics were the exception rather than the rule. > we can have something that works similarly without the issues of the inherited rights. This argument... What exactly is the issue with birthright that monarchs have?

tim333 4y ago

>the Monarchy serve no real purpose in modern societies There may be a bit of a Chesterton's fence thing going on. You say these idiots have no function but one underrated function is preventing other idiots taking the ruler for life role. See eg: Germany - got rid of the monarchy in 1918, got Hitler as ruler for life Russia - got rid of theirs early C20th, got Stalin, Putin France - got Napoleon. etc on the other hand Thailand - kept the monarchy - only Asian country that was never colonized/occupied by the West partly because the people would object to the kind being dissed.