Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 [80] 81 82 ... 126

Author Topic: Brexit! Conversation Continued  (Read 193145 times)

hector13

  • Bay Watcher
  • It’s shite being Scottish
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1185 on: February 06, 2017, 09:31:03 pm »

They're all shite and pointless. Talk about benefits thieves..!
Logged
Look, we need to raise a psychopath who will murder God, we have no time to be spending on cooking.

If you struggle with your mental health, please seek help.

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1186 on: February 06, 2017, 09:37:07 pm »

Personally I wouldn't particularly mind if the crown jewels turned out to be a Mimic from D&D and ate the entire royal family. My response would be a resounding meh.

I would want access to a video of it's dissection and the findings of whatever research was conducted on it before that mind you. I'd be genuinely curious about such a creature's biology.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1187 on: February 06, 2017, 10:21:44 pm »

Oh, you've got it all wrong. The Queen is the Mimic, not the crown jewels. That's why she's immortal, and also the source of the nickname Lizzie the Rock (she had kind of a wild adolescence).
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1188 on: February 07, 2017, 05:13:09 am »

Quote
Can you post a single thing, anything?

What the heck sort of source would be acceptable for this? Prince Harry approval ratings?
Logged

muldrake

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1189 on: February 07, 2017, 05:36:38 am »

Quote
Can you post a single thing, anything?

What the heck sort of source would be acceptable for this? Prince Harry approval ratings?

Not to defend worthless parasite royals, but didn't you say literally nobody liked Prince Harry?

How about a poll where literally nobody liked that guy?
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1190 on: February 07, 2017, 06:01:00 am »

I also said "I may be wrong"
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1191 on: February 07, 2017, 06:07:23 am »

I also said "I may be wrong"

I think you're a pedophile, but I may be wrong.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1192 on: February 07, 2017, 06:10:23 am »

I also said "I may be wrong"

I think you're a pedophile, but I may be wrong.

It wasn't QUITE that. Though yes you are wrong :P

It is that the names are so similar to eachother in "Princelyness" that I can't keep them straight. I know the least popular one, who miiight be dead, was secretly a Nazi sympathizer.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 06:12:21 am by Neonivek »
Logged

ChairmanPoo

  • Bay Watcher
  • Send in the clowns
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1193 on: February 07, 2017, 07:07:08 am »

I also said "I may be wrong"

I think you're a pedophile, but I may be wrong.

It wasn't QUITE that. Though yes you are wrong :P

It is that the names are so similar to eachother in "Princelyness" that I can't keep them straight. I know the least popular one, who miiight be dead, was secretly a Nazi sympathizer.
"Secretly" :p
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Logged
Everyone sucks at everything. Until they don't. Not sucking is a product of time invested.

MorleyDev

  • Bay Watcher
  • "It is not enough for it to just work."
    • View Profile
    • MorleyDev
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1194 on: February 07, 2017, 07:51:49 am »

Personally, I'm a 'republican' (as in I think we should get rid of the monarchy) mostly on the unassaultable position that having a royal family in 2017 is just kinda daft.

No other reason, really. Practically they don't do much that can't be done by a non-monarch, the tourism argument is shaky, I don't give two shits about it being a "proud British tradition" or whatever nonsense reason people use to justify not changing something that's not actually that useful (traditional is just a synonym for pointless). But above all, it's just daft.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 07:54:37 am by MorleyDev »
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1195 on: February 07, 2017, 08:08:55 am »

Personally, I'm a 'republican' (as in I think we should get rid of the monarchy) mostly on the unassaultable position that having a royal family in 2017 is just kinda daft.

No other reason, really. Practically they don't do much that can't be done by a non-monarch, the tourism argument is shaky, I don't give two shits about it being a "proud British tradition" or whatever nonsense reason people use to justify not changing something that's not actually that useful (traditional is just a synonym for pointless). But above all, it's just daft.

Given the number of people that visits Versaille, what you should really do to drive the tourist trade is some public beheadings.
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1196 on: February 07, 2017, 10:45:27 am »

As far as popularity goes, I'd say Harry's possibly the most popular one. That sentiment often quickly gets followed with a 'Because he's not Charles's', though I don't know if that particular theory has made it past the isle.
Probably helps he's the least royal royal lol

Though LW, I may need surgery to get my eyebrow to unraise after I read you implying that Charles was one of the two most popular royals. Let's be honest, he's shit-tier at best.
Harry is popular =/= Charles is popular
Charles is acceptable
Tbh we should just pass to George, keep the whole momentum going with minimum succession

Personally, I'm a 'republican' (as in I think we should get rid of the monarchy) mostly on the unassaultable position that having a royal family in 2017 is just kinda daft.
Counterpoint, mostly on the unassaultable position that republicans in a constitutional monarchy in 2017 is just kinda dandy

No other reason, really. Practically they don't do much that can't be done by a non-monarch, the tourism argument is shaky, I don't give two shits about it being a "proud British tradition" or whatever nonsense reason people use to justify not changing something that's not actually that useful (traditional is just a synonym for pointless). But above all, it's just daft.
Their existence itself can't be done by a non-monarch, you are either born into it, marry into it or kill your way into it to be the one true monarchTM. They're the only form of gov that has near complete tenure with any sense of legitimacy since they're the embodied continuity of British tradition in a very direct lineage sort of way, foreigners, fools and the disinterested all understand their general symbolism in ways that excite them where civil bureaucrats bore them to tears. It's a status that no American celebrity can ever reach; attack, emulate, but never have. That's useful in the same way a medal is just a ribbon with metal, but the distance between the medal and what it takes to get it makes it so much more than just ribbon and metal.
Helps remind our leaders that at the end of the day their authority derives from an old lady in a chair and not their own talent, lest they get any ideas thinking they're rulers themselves, and not public servants. To that end they serve as very useful long term memory for our governments, which tend to be much too much focused to short term popularity - no Minister has ever given a shit about architecture or birds :P

The crown revenue stuff is always brought up, but I don't think money should always be the focus of all such matters, especially in such case as this. This is much more about deciding what possible utility one has for maintaining a royal dynasty, if there really is little case except crown revenues, tourism from royalaboos and media bonanza, it's a very commercial world we live in. I tend to shy away from sticking monarchs on selfie poles for social shekels and look at how valuable it is to have all officers civil and military loyal to one person who exercises no policy. The monarch is the supreme authority from which all levels of governance devolve, but they lack any power to use their authority, thus abuse is impossible to occur. This is highly useful and avoids us having to do such things as have people swear allegiance to flags or constitutions, which naturally do not breed nearly the same level of cohesion given how words and flags carry such different meanings to all.

Likewise I'm intrigued why tradition holds to be pointless to you? My experience is rather the opposite, in that the passing down of customs, beliefs and ideas from one generation to the next is the fundamental basis of human advancement, the fundamental basis for British culture itself existing. I for example do not find it at all surprising that peoples who have replaced tradition with material consumerism are in turn, peoples being replaced by those who have retained their traditions. Plants that have broken their roots cannot grow higher :D
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
There are those that live from the past to the future, and those that live in the present for the present. They have been ok for so long because they've been in a row of pretty flowers all at the same height, now they have real competition
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
They're going to die
Then their culture is going to die
rip in babylon, rip in berlin, rip in britain?

MorleyDev

  • Bay Watcher
  • "It is not enough for it to just work."
    • View Profile
    • MorleyDev
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1197 on: February 07, 2017, 11:34:16 am »

I'd argue that the value is in how ideas change, mutate and adapt. The Dawkin's notion of a "meme". These ideas exist to help the society that holds them, and need to change and adapt as such. By the time you're having to fall back on "it's traditional" to defend the persistence of a meme, the foundation that sustains that meme is already long gone, and as such the meme is already effectively dead, or at least on life support.

The monarchy was held to have divine right to rule. Power in Parliament comes from Power in Monarchy comes from God. That notion, in 2017, in a decreasingly Christian, increasingly Atheistic/Agnostic society, is being robbed of all meaning: The supports that sustain the idea are gone or are going. The idea can't last much longer without them without becoming something ugly.

For me, I think we're at the point where the monarchy meme has lost it's foundations. Or at least, for me the foundations aren't there. Eventually, enough people come to regard the meme as irrelevant and it drifts out of the "social consciousness". That's how human ideas advance, have always advanced. On the monarchy, I'm not going to be out campaigning anytime soon. I don't care that much. But, I am content to sit back and watch and see if it will die a quiet, natural death.

Some other ideas adapt and survive, Christmas hasn't been about Christ in a long time and that fighting to sustain that notion as the heart of the tradition is ridiculous in an increasingly atheistic society is pointless. But the tradition of Christmas, families gathering once a year and exchanging gifts and having a big meal, manages to persist.

Basically, Gott ist tot.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 11:47:48 am by MorleyDev »
Logged

Starver

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1198 on: February 07, 2017, 11:48:11 am »

Successions and impressions, as badly summarised by me:

  • Elizabeth II - incumbant, popular through proven reliability
    (Misunderstanding about flags after Diana's death, excepted. Borderline republicans tend to support her staying.)
  • Prince Charles - heir apparent; Marmite, but established
    (Outspoken, in leiu of any current practical and official 'power', which polarises people, but there's not much else he could really do and staying quiet would probably have not helped; Diana/Camilla business might sway some (either way); possible he'll not survive his mother,  'solving' that problem)
  • Prince William - From bereaved son of Diana has developed into a Statesmanlike figure
    ('Practical Prince', trained helicopter pilot, performed as Search & Rescue and Helicopter Ambulance, but just announced cutting back (in advanced preparation of moving up a place?), generally positive opinions from those that are open to positive opinions)
  • Prince George - 3 year-old "heir to the heir to the heir"
    (Not much can be said about him, yet. Time will tell whether it even becomes relevent.)
  • Princess Charlotte - <2yo
    (Ditto)
  • Prince 'Harry' (Henry) - the spare-to-the-heir(-to-the-heir), had his wild times and bad publicity, but not done badly overall
    (Party Prince, fancy dress as Nazi, leaked nude photos, questions about parentage; but that might be a natural counterpart to his Squaddie nature, having apparently done rather well in the military and active service in ground and air roles. He'd probably get support from significant parts of the military if there was ever civil war.)
  • Prince Andrew - brother of Charles
    (Dignified, for an original heir-spare; Also militarily-trained (Falklands War helicopter pilot for the navy, acted as missile-bait!); most controversy regarding his failed marriage with Lady Sarah Ferguson, who turned out to be a bit too much Party Girl, so probably came out of the split "more sinned-against than sinning". Unlikely to succeed, but not so often talked about as a waste of space - perhaps because forgotten?)
  • Princess Beatrice - Andy/Fergie's first daughter (28?)
  • Princess Eugenie - Andy/Fergie's second daughter (26?)
    (Both considered Party Princesses, much lampooned, but only when even considered; stereotyped as much more Fergie-like than Royal, but that probably comes more from public charactures than their actual private actions as 'minor royals')
  • Prince Edward - spare-spare-heir (4th and last child, but 3rd son, of the Queen)
    (Known mostly for his attempts to go into the field of Entertainment, having quit from the Military track (Royal Marines, I think) ; You don't hear much about him, but I he seems to do his Patronage duties as a 'major minor royal')
  • Viscount James - 9?yo younger son of Edward
  • Lady Louise - 13?yo elder daughter of Edward
    (No real impressions available)
  • Princess Anne - second child of the Queen; but 4th effective, before other heir-heirs, due to the primagenita only recently revoked
    (Dignified but possibly unconsidered mature member of the Windsor; alongside general royal duties, is accomplished in the world of Equestrianism (and characatured thus, for her pains))
After Anne, 13-17 are her descendents (via Captain Mark Phillips, divorced '92, none from her new husband, which may have been icing on the cake alongside the Diana/Fergie episodes of others in line) and are more likely to be considerd "celebrities"  than "Royals" by the public, especially the Tindall branch (marriage to a famed sportsman).

Then it's the Queen's late sister's descendents (18 to 23), with titular nobility arising somewhat from their original nearness to succession, as per tradition, but beyond the Snowden and Linley names, the Armstrong-Jones branch doesn't really get talked about.

After that the branch arising from the two (now deceased) uncles of the Queen.  At 24th place is actually Prince Richard, Duke Of Gloucester (for those who know their Shakespeare!), who I've met (in passing; his passing by me, that is) at a charity thing. His descendents reach to 33rd place (by some counts; but no Counts, that I see), the other uncle's son (Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) starts the 34-56th placed successions (but might depend upon various conditions, if it ever becomes necessary to resolve such fragile links to the line of succession, for example through Roman Catholicism exclusions) most of whom you likely will never hear of, and are well off the Civil List and earning their way through 'normal' upper-crust privileges as directors or owners of businesses.


I think everyone up to and including Andrew definitely have enough support to (assuming it suddenly came to that) take upon the mantle of Monarch, but there'd be heartache about those voluntarily/involuntarily removing themself from earlier in the lists.  And George/Charlotte, at their current age, would be an emotional thing and the big problem would be what to do about the Regent (but Uncle Harry, if still around, could step up to that, I think).  Beatrice and Eugenie don't have good press (because of being easy targets for lampooning) and once it gets to the Armstrong-Joneses there's going to be a lot of national ambivalance, and it would depend a lot about whatever it is that caused this eventuality.

(If Richard, Duke Of Gloucester succeeds...  The parallels would be scrutinised. I doubt he'd be chosen as Regent for any infant Monarch further up the line just to sidestep the gossip... ;)
Logged

Loud Whispers

  • Bay Watcher
  • They said we have to aim higher, so we dug deeper.
    • View Profile
    • I APPLAUD YOU SIRRAH
Re: Brexit! Conversation Continued
« Reply #1199 on: February 07, 2017, 06:54:08 pm »

Successions and impressions, as badly summarised by me:
-snip-
Pretty good summary

I like the heir to the heir to the heir, especially since for a while everyone went crazy with the Princely baby. Saw some ludicrous stuff where people went on and on about how majestic and regal the baby was, even though it just seemed they were doing regular baby stuff

I'd argue that the value is in how ideas change, mutate and adapt. The Dawkin's notion of a "meme". These ideas exist to help the society that holds them, and need to change and adapt as such. By the time you're having to fall back on "it's traditional" to defend the persistence of a meme, the foundation that sustains that meme is already long gone, and as such the meme is already effectively dead, or at least on life support.
Ah, I get it. Thanks for the explanation, the defence of tradition on the basis that tradition is tradition is cheap. I agree there, I'm just arguing against attacking tradition on the basis that tradition is tradition. We're faces on the same coin xD
I honestly don't think you need to attack tradition to force necessary or desirable change amongst a populace or culture, even a race that upholds its culture fiercely will find the culture mutates and evolves with time as generations come and go in new world conditions. That is why I see no fear in upholding tradition transforming into upholding static dogma that has long outlived its usefulness - even in the most fundamentalist doctrines, interpretations change to effect change whilst maintaining the appearance of the unchanging, and change indeed occurs regardless of their consent owing to the simple cycle of life and death. Dogmas do not live forever, cultures do not remain static, that is why I don't like the name "conservative" for the conservative party, because the image it conjures is not one of cultivating culture, but merely preserving it. This is not only insufficient, but doomed to failure, whereas cultivating it maintains its appeal and relevancy - Westerners abandoned their roots and cultures for many reasons, one chief reason I reckon is that they see little appealing to them in their own roots.
On the flip-side I argue that actively going the route of denouncing tradition as pointless does not effect mutation or evolution, merely deletion, the death of the culture. Migrant cultures would not be taking over if Western cultures had not already done their best to attain self-destruction

The monarchy was held to have divine right to rule. Power in Parliament comes from Power in Monarchy comes from God. That notion, in 2017, in a decreasingly Christian, increasingly Atheistic/Agnostic society, is being robbed of all meaning: The supports that sustain the idea are gone or are going. The idea can't last much longer without them without becoming something ugly.
The monarchy was held to have divine right to rule, that notion did not even make it close to surviving anywhere up to the current year in the United Kingdom; ending in the early 17th century with the execution of the King. Thus it is unwise to destroy one's own foundations based on conceptions regarding French monarchs two centuries ago in another world, as even before the time the French were executing absolute monarchs, the UK was already a constitutional monarchy. We can only discuss the merits of abolishing British traditions when looking at the British tradition, elsewise we're talking past ourselves

For me, I think we're at the point where the monarchy meme has lost it's foundations. Or at least, for me the foundations aren't there. Eventually, enough people come to regard the meme as irrelevant and it drifts out of the "social consciousness". That's how human ideas advance, have always advanced. On the monarchy, I'm not going to be out campaigning anytime soon. I don't care that much. But, I am content to sit back and watch and see if it will die a quiet, natural death.
I think an argument could have been made if the UK had remained within the EU for the Westminster tradition and its assembled bodies of state and governance decreasing in relevance, most especially the monarchy, which would have forfeited even its nominal role as head of state and sovereign. Will it die slowly and shrivel into nothingness? Nah, if it dies, it'll be because some monarch did something absolutely-fucking-atrocious or got in the way of an exceptionally powerful Prime Minister-turned-Lord Protector, both leading towards a significant rise in ardent Republicanism cross-country. An interesting question in regards to the maintenance of the whole crown is indeed why it hasn't died already.
We killed the King, but once more filled the throne with another. We have no issue with forcing Monarchs to abdicate, but will never allow them to dissolve the Monarchy. When the King is dead, long live the King, long may they reign over us - but we will give them no power to reign. For these reasons (though not limited to them) which I'll spare you the boredom of repeating we keep them as continuity to the British tradition of governance.

Some other ideas adapt and survive, Christmas hasn't been about Christ in a long time and that fighting to sustain that notion as the heart of the tradition is ridiculous in an increasingly atheistic society is pointless. But the tradition of Christmas, families gathering once a year and exchanging gifts and having a big meal, manages to persist.
Basically, Gott ist tot.
Ideas only survive in implementation for as long as their adherents well... Adhere to them. Ideas don't survive because they adapt, ideas adapt because they are survived by future generations. Even the things you would expect to remain constant such as meanings told through religious canon, literary canon, philosophical canon, empirical observation and such change via changing interpretations, amendments, compromises, new information or models and even the very fact that language and meaning does not remain constant.
Take Christmas for example. 60% of the country is Christian, the vast majority practice Christian custom, beliefs or traditions, yet because the trendy bourgeoisie think it's about spending money on Bond Street sales, they are assumed to be more important than the sum total of all British tradition or the majority of the nation. Marx was right when he said they decide ideology, they are where the capital lies, thus advertising and mass media caters to them. I see the attempt to make Christmas pointless by not only stripping it of everything but commercial value, but going one step further and divorcing it entirely from its religious roots, part of a rather disturbing trend in which city-dwelling Westerners not only reject their roots, but find the very concept of allowing others to learn them as offensive. I had a rather amusing anecdote - just an anecdote, in which I was talking to this irascible vegan and a suave film student. Vegan was pure Anglo, Film student hailed from Japan, we talked of many things and one such thing was how different the West and East held the virtue of self-knowledge in different lights. To my surprise, the Anglo found this virtue as offensive, whilst I and the student held onto Taoist tradition. To my greater surprise, upon learning more of Western philosophy I found that the Western civilization itself had many philosophers who discovered these virtues, and they were learned and lived by Westerners until the 21st century, where students started rejecting them because they were white people. How can one generation that speaks so vehemently against ignorance, prize ignorance of the self? It confuses me to this day

I wasn't surprised to say the least lol. I've seen funny things, Anglo children given gifts on Christmas, complaining that they didn't get enough money - whilst in Malaysia, living in a Muslim country where there never was snow, they celebrated Christmas better than London. The only thing they didn't do better was mulled wine, which is forgivable haha. Yet in the UK, there is a severe hatred for British tradition amongst many prog circles and indifference amongst many tory circles, and this makes me sad
To avoid running off on a tangent, my point is that I don't think attacking tradition gives meaning to anything we do, I think it actually just makes it more pointless. Moreover, it actively kills your culture, ensuring you become a declining people, ripe for replacement by those on the ascension who cultivate their own culture where your people do not. I don't like that because it's unnecessary deletion, setting the British people backwards. I fear the British are dealing with their own red guard who in one cultural revolution do more damage than centuries of humiliation and invasion to the nation's people

Covenant brings up a good point too in that once you strip people of all the depth of their roots and you give them the freedom to do whatever, paradoxically they seek to bind themselves in fanatic movements that eagerly seek to dictate their lives in accordance with their own agenda. It's no surprise that fundamentalists were born in the enlightenment, or that in such times of cultural decline the far left and far right gain such large following, or even Swedes are becoming Al-Swedis

Thanks for this really well-done reply btw it was a great joy to read
Pages: 1 ... 78 79 [80] 81 82 ... 126