5 ms·

Doing one thing that fascist government's sometimes do does not make you a fascist government. The UK might be tending toward fascism, but not allowing disrupti

Doing one thing that fascist government's sometimes do does not make you a fascist government. The UK might be tending toward fascism, but not allowing disruptive protests of the coronation is not really an indicator one way or the other. The king is certainly not a dictator, having little power at all.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
So like: sure the attacker stabbed someone, beat them with a baseball bat, punched and kicked them, but the attacker didn't use a gun so it wasn't violent. The king has no power, that's why he's able to easily bend the national broadcaster and the police force to his will with ease ... that's why we have to get his consent to pass any laws ... that's why the armed services pledge allegiance to him (as monarch) and not to the UK ... that's why we pay him 100s of £millions from taxes ... that's why we organise a hugely costly parade for him in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis ... these are all signs he has no power /s
- rayiner 3y ago
  This is basic vocabulary. “Violence” is a word that encompasses a range of actions. “Fascism” is a word that refers to a specific political ideology combining various elements.
trasz4 3y ago
In UK the king has absolute power, its just that they don't exercise it because in a civilised country they would need to be guillotined afterwards.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  Then it means he doesn't have that power. What kind of power is that which you can't exercise? If you can't exercise it, it means you don't have it.
  - trasz4 3y ago
    He can, he just doesn't want to. And if he did we'd probably have no insight into what even happened. The society doesn't even know kings' finances.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > He can, he just doesn't want to. And if he did we'd probably have no insight into what even happened Of course we do, the order would be ignored. (To whom would he even give the order?) English history is written in constitutional crises.
      - trasz4 3y ago
        [citation needed]
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > [citation needed] Well, the death penalty was abolished in the U.K. in the 1990s, so there's that. More significant: habeus corpus, which goes back to somewhere between the Magna Carta and Interregnum. Even at its height, the Crown's power to unilaterally command executions was intentionally curtailed for centuries.
- onetimeusename 3y ago
  by this reasoning, I also have absolute power. I just choose not to exercise it because I would be ignored/arrested/guillotined afterwards.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago

So like: sure the attacker stabbed someone, beat them with a baseball bat, punched and kicked them, but the attacker didn't use a gun so it wasn't violent. The king has no power, that's why he's able to easily bend the national broadcaster and the police force to his will with ease ... that's why we have to get his consent to pass any laws ... that's why the armed services pledge allegiance to him (as monarch) and not to the UK ... that's why we pay him 100s of £millions from taxes ... that's why we organise a hugely costly parade for him in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis ... these are all signs he has no power /s

rayiner 3y ago
This is basic vocabulary. “Violence” is a word that encompasses a range of actions. “Fascism” is a word that refers to a specific political ideology combining various elements.

trasz4 3y ago

In UK the king has absolute power, its just that they don't exercise it because in a civilised country they would need to be guillotined afterwards.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
Then it means he doesn't have that power. What kind of power is that which you can't exercise? If you can't exercise it, it means you don't have it.
- trasz4 3y ago
  He can, he just doesn't want to. And if he did we'd probably have no insight into what even happened. The society doesn't even know kings' finances.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > He can, he just doesn't want to. And if he did we'd probably have no insight into what even happened Of course we do, the order would be ignored. (To whom would he even give the order?) English history is written in constitutional crises.
    - trasz4 3y ago
      [citation needed]
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > [citation needed] Well, the death penalty was abolished in the U.K. in the 1990s, so there's that. More significant: habeus corpus, which goes back to somewhere between the Magna Carta and Interregnum. Even at its height, the Crown's power to unilaterally command executions was intentionally curtailed for centuries.
onetimeusename 3y ago
by this reasoning, I also have absolute power. I just choose not to exercise it because I would be ignored/arrested/guillotined afterwards.