5 ms·

Once you go down this rabbithole you see how most people are hostage to their school system. Most European countries with monarchies today have a majority of th

by vasco 4y ago

Once you go down this rabbithole you see how most people are hostage to their school system. Most European countries with monarchies today have a majority of their population approving of the system - or so we're told in polls. Seeing as the monarchy is completely against any other modern values of equality and equity and diversity, the only explanation is indoctrination in the school system somehow works. I cannot fathom for example how progressive countries like the Netherlands are pro-monarchy, but I live here among them and can tell you that while there's dissent, the majority of the country supports it. It's the subject that most boggles my mind in the modern world. Sweden and Denmark being more examples of countries that say they are pro equality while keeping a family above all others.

bl0rg 4y ago
History and tradition plays a major role in those opinions. No one is saying it is fair, but most are willing to overlook it. Why do you, so confidently, state that the reason is the school system/indoctrination? I've gone to school in these countries, and I've never heard a pro-monarchy argument in class.
- antonvs 4y ago
  Have you heard an anti-monarchy argument in class? One way to maintain a status quo is just to avoid talking about it too much. That was part of the original point of the New Atheism movement: that politely keeping quiet about religious beliefs encouraged believers to think that their beliefs were universally held or at least respected, among other things. Changing that, pushing back against the status quo, made a big difference.
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    In Australia I don't really hearing much of an anti-monarchy argument in school, but also not a pro-monarchy argument either. There was just a statement of fact about the monarchy that we live in.
  - bl0rg 4y ago
    No, not that I recall. I've only heard about it being discussed in an objective manner. Who is maintaining this "status quo" according to you? The media? The monarchs?
    - antonvs 4y ago
      Society as a whole maintains it. As long as not enough people object strenuously enough, it simply doesn’t get discussed and continues on the way it is - that’s pretty much the definition of status quo, “the existing state of affairs”. > I've only heard about it being discussed in an objective manner. I doubt that. What’s an example? Objectively, the existence of a monarchy is opposed to the ideals of an egalitarian society. Any discussion of a monarchy’s mere existence without covering such topics serves to reinforce the status quo - it normalizes its existence and lies by omission about its negative impacts.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Have you hear pro-caulk arguments in class? Caulk at least might have some relevance to those kids lives, the vestigial monarchy has none.
jltsiren 4y ago
For most people, the monarchy just means a bunch of state-sponsored celebrities who participate in weird rituals. They don't bother opposing it for ideological reasons, because it's pretty inconsequential. The monarchy is a symbol, like the flag or the national anthem. It costs some money, but people don't see any particular reason to get rid of it, because there is no obvious harm in it.
noirscape 4y ago
The main reason why the Netherlands at least doesn't care so much about their monarch is because the role is completely neutered by the Dutch constitution. The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped). This is in very stark contrast to the UK monarchy, which does hold very considerable power and control over the government still. Its less "people approve of the system" and more "people don't have any issues with the system". Anti-monarchism just isn't really a thing here because the monarchy is just... kinda bland? The most solid argument here is that it's a money sink, which is a fair point but not enough for most to protest it.
- mtsr 4y ago
  There's also a sentiment among even people in the Netherlands who might otherwise be republicans, that the current situation might actually be the lesser evil, compared to an elected head of state. Especially with populism on the rise, etc.
  - vasco 4y ago
    It's a strange world when you can be convinced that voting is worse than "God's appointments". Edit: to the comment below, now you're advocating for ilegitimacy as a benefit to a position that "holds no power". It's a very weird position to hold, but if you believe that, then do an opt-in lottery system among all your citizens, not something predetermined by birth with a bunch of lies and religion around it. I'd like to read your arguments about dictatorships too, they're probably great.
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      The rationale goes like this: If you don't like the monarch, who has this job purely as an accident of birth, well, too bad, they're a person, that's all you were guaranteed. They might have a grating voice, or love hot pink way too much, or insist on calling people "Mate" for no god damn reason, but nobody picked them. And if you do like them, the same, maybe they've got a brilliant smile, they like the long floral outfits you prefer, they think kittens are better than puppies like you do, but nobody picked them. They don't have any democratic legitimacy, which is crucial because this means it's clear that democratically the elected legislature is in charge. The monarch can't be making rules, they're not a government they're just a living symbol. Whereas if you vote for somebody to be President or whatever, that person now has democratic legitimacy. Their preference for kittens is granted the legitimacy of the masses, even though probably most people didn't vote for them because they believe kittens are better, too bad, that's all endorsed. If the Elected President disagrees with the Elected Legislature, somehow their meddling is legitimate, even they can argue, rightfully endorsed by The People. Unless you're confident that everything you believe can be summarised as a single living individual, and that the majority of other people agree with you, an Elected President is clearly worse than a Monarch.
Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago
There is indoctrination and manipulation going on at all levels. Can't speak about the Netherlands or Denmark, but in Spain the press never published anything remotely negative about the previous king, we typically had to find out from foreign press or minority separatist press. At one point, there was so much stench of degeneracy and corruption from that king (plus the ascent of a left-wing party with anti-monarchy tendencies in polls) that the powers that be apparently decided that it wasn't possible to keep the people content about him anymore, so they made him abdicate. Now the press does talk somewhat about his exploits (probably disproportionally little, but it does) while the current king is reported as basically a saint and nothing remotely bad is ever said about him (to his credit he doesn't seem as much of a thief as his father, but if you read the mainstream Spanish press, you would think he pisses gold).
- mtsr 4y ago
  That's at least definitely not the case in NL. There's been quite vocal criticisms about the kings choice to go on holiday during the pandemic, about subsidies for royal estates that are closed to the public, etc.
andyferris 4y ago
In Australia, I think fear of getting something like the US political system is why the monarchy is somewhat tolerated. (Though it wouldn’t survive a simple popular vote, the question is what is the “better” thing to replace it with, which monarchists successfully use as a wedge to divide the republican supporters)
- born2discover 4y ago
  And yet Australia voted not to become a republic in 1999. Seems like it did survive a simple popular vote at that time.
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    Can something like a Royal Commission exist without that connection? Probably I would guess, in some other form. They seem to have real teeth.
johnnymorgan 4y ago
That lack of self awareness in this post is amazing. Fyi your modern views are not that modern, anymore than a monarchist views are modern.

by vasco 4y ago

bl0rg 4y ago

History and tradition plays a major role in those opinions. No one is saying it is fair, but most are willing to overlook it. Why do you, so confidently, state that the reason is the school system/indoctrination? I've gone to school in these countries, and I've never heard a pro-monarchy argument in class.

antonvs 4y ago
Have you heard an anti-monarchy argument in class? One way to maintain a status quo is just to avoid talking about it too much. That was part of the original point of the New Atheism movement: that politely keeping quiet about religious beliefs encouraged believers to think that their beliefs were universally held or at least respected, among other things. Changing that, pushing back against the status quo, made a big difference.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  In Australia I don't really hearing much of an anti-monarchy argument in school, but also not a pro-monarchy argument either. There was just a statement of fact about the monarchy that we live in.
- bl0rg 4y ago
  No, not that I recall. I've only heard about it being discussed in an objective manner. Who is maintaining this "status quo" according to you? The media? The monarchs?
  - antonvs 4y ago
    Society as a whole maintains it. As long as not enough people object strenuously enough, it simply doesn’t get discussed and continues on the way it is - that’s pretty much the definition of status quo, “the existing state of affairs”. > I've only heard about it being discussed in an objective manner. I doubt that. What’s an example? Objectively, the existence of a monarchy is opposed to the ideals of an egalitarian society. Any discussion of a monarchy’s mere existence without covering such topics serves to reinforce the status quo - it normalizes its existence and lies by omission about its negative impacts.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Have you hear pro-caulk arguments in class? Caulk at least might have some relevance to those kids lives, the vestigial monarchy has none.

jltsiren 4y ago

For most people, the monarchy just means a bunch of state-sponsored celebrities who participate in weird rituals. They don't bother opposing it for ideological reasons, because it's pretty inconsequential. The monarchy is a symbol, like the flag or the national anthem. It costs some money, but people don't see any particular reason to get rid of it, because there is no obvious harm in it.

noirscape 4y ago

The main reason why the Netherlands at least doesn't care so much about their monarch is because the role is completely neutered by the Dutch constitution. The King or Queen functionally has zero power over much of anything - their role is pretty much entirely ceremonial in purpose (they can theoretically choose to not sign laws, but this would just result in them getting sidestepped). This is in very stark contrast to the UK monarchy, which does hold very considerable power and control over the government still. Its less "people approve of the system" and more "people don't have any issues with the system". Anti-monarchism just isn't really a thing here because the monarchy is just... kinda bland? The most solid argument here is that it's a money sink, which is a fair point but not enough for most to protest it.

mtsr 4y ago
There's also a sentiment among even people in the Netherlands who might otherwise be republicans, that the current situation might actually be the lesser evil, compared to an elected head of state. Especially with populism on the rise, etc.
- vasco 4y ago
  It's a strange world when you can be convinced that voting is worse than "God's appointments". Edit: to the comment below, now you're advocating for ilegitimacy as a benefit to a position that "holds no power". It's a very weird position to hold, but if you believe that, then do an opt-in lottery system among all your citizens, not something predetermined by birth with a bunch of lies and religion around it. I'd like to read your arguments about dictatorships too, they're probably great.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    The rationale goes like this: If you don't like the monarch, who has this job purely as an accident of birth, well, too bad, they're a person, that's all you were guaranteed. They might have a grating voice, or love hot pink way too much, or insist on calling people "Mate" for no god damn reason, but nobody picked them. And if you do like them, the same, maybe they've got a brilliant smile, they like the long floral outfits you prefer, they think kittens are better than puppies like you do, but nobody picked them. They don't have any democratic legitimacy, which is crucial because this means it's clear that democratically the elected legislature is in charge. The monarch can't be making rules, they're not a government they're just a living symbol. Whereas if you vote for somebody to be President or whatever, that person now has democratic legitimacy. Their preference for kittens is granted the legitimacy of the masses, even though probably most people didn't vote for them because they believe kittens are better, too bad, that's all endorsed. If the Elected President disagrees with the Elected Legislature, somehow their meddling is legitimate, even they can argue, rightfully endorsed by The People. Unless you're confident that everything you believe can be summarised as a single living individual, and that the majority of other people agree with you, an Elected President is clearly worse than a Monarch.

Al-Khwarizmi 4y ago

There is indoctrination and manipulation going on at all levels. Can't speak about the Netherlands or Denmark, but in Spain the press never published anything remotely negative about the previous king, we typically had to find out from foreign press or minority separatist press. At one point, there was so much stench of degeneracy and corruption from that king (plus the ascent of a left-wing party with anti-monarchy tendencies in polls) that the powers that be apparently decided that it wasn't possible to keep the people content about him anymore, so they made him abdicate. Now the press does talk somewhat about his exploits (probably disproportionally little, but it does) while the current king is reported as basically a saint and nothing remotely bad is ever said about him (to his credit he doesn't seem as much of a thief as his father, but if you read the mainstream Spanish press, you would think he pisses gold).

mtsr 4y ago
That's at least definitely not the case in NL. There's been quite vocal criticisms about the kings choice to go on holiday during the pandemic, about subsidies for royal estates that are closed to the public, etc.

andyferris 4y ago

In Australia, I think fear of getting something like the US political system is why the monarchy is somewhat tolerated. (Though it wouldn’t survive a simple popular vote, the question is what is the “better” thing to replace it with, which monarchists successfully use as a wedge to divide the republican supporters)

born2discover 4y ago
And yet Australia voted not to become a republic in 1999. Seems like it did survive a simple popular vote at that time.
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Can something like a Royal Commission exist without that connection? Probably I would guess, in some other form. They seem to have real teeth.

johnnymorgan 4y ago

That lack of self awareness in this post is amazing. Fyi your modern views are not that modern, anymore than a monarchist views are modern.