by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .372373374375376377378. . .598599»

Baathist quebecshire wrote:There's a pretty strong argument to be made that,

(a) being one of the heads of one of the most backwards and aristocratic institutions in the world
(b) continuing to benefit off of the genocides your family oversaw
(c) avoiding prosecution after hitting civilians with your car in 2019 because you're a royal (lol)
(d) mocking the Cantonese, Chinese, Nigerians, Aboriginals, Filipinos, and so on

isn't really indicative of an "innocent" person by any moral standards.

But yeah defend the monarchy and get outraged over people mocking Prince Philip to own the libs I guess
Sure, and anyone who goes out of their way to defend him is probably playing into culture war BS
"was" anyone who unironically thinks the royal family isn't racist is comedic

a) I think royal is not backward and aristocratic, it is one of the most respected institutions in the world.
b) Nobody denies the legacy of their elders, after all, he did not commit genocide. If we consider those periods among themselves, each country had to do such "dirty work" because the conditions of that period required it.
c) nobody dreams of hitting civilians with a car. Yes, it doesn't make sense to drive in the 90s and it was wrong, but we don't know what thought he was thinking at the time.
d) I am not fully informed about this issue, but if you are talking about nurse joke, it was not a racist expression, I think it can be considered within the scope of freedom of expression.

North Azarath, Npc west florida, and The Dodo Republic

Denher wrote:a) I think royal is not backward and aristocratic, it is one of the most respected institutions in the world.
b) Nobody denies the legacy of their elders, after all, he did not commit genocide. If we consider those periods among themselves, each country had to do such "dirty work" because the conditions of that period required it.
c) nobody dreams of hitting civilians with a car. Yes, it doesn't make sense to drive in the 90s and it was wrong, but we don't know what thought he was thinking at the time.
d) I am not fully informed about this issue, but if you are talking about nurse joke, it was not a racist expression, I think it can be considered within the scope of freedom of expression.

This. The monarchy is much respected and much loved by many of the worlds nations so idk wtf your talking about Quebec

North Azarath and Npc west florida

The Dodo Republic wrote:This. The monarchy is much respected and much loved by many of the worlds nations so idk wtf your talking about Quebec

The monarchy is also hated by many across the world and pretty much exclusively exists because of imperialism and supremacy. Watching American conservatives defend it solely because the left is criticizing it really shows where their true colors and priorities lie.

Denher wrote:a) I think royal is not backward and aristocratic, it is one of the most respected institutions in the world.
b) Nobody denies the legacy of their elders, after all, he did not commit genocide. If we consider those periods among themselves, each country had to do such "dirty work" because the conditions of that period required it.
c) nobody dreams of hitting civilians with a car. Yes, it doesn't make sense to drive in the 90s and it was wrong, but we don't know what thought he was thinking at the time.
d) I am not fully informed about this issue, but if you are talking about nurse joke, it was not a racist expression, I think it can be considered within the scope of freedom of expression.

a) lmao it's literally objectively aristocratic, if you want to agur that it's not backwards and play apologia for them sure, but it's objectively aristocratic
b) he was an adult man when the UK was committing genocides in India and married the queen within a decade of that, and much of the royal family's wealth is based on crimes they've committed in other parts of the world, their jewels are literal stolen from India
c) okay but he still did it
d) he has a pattern of many racist comments and since when does something being freedom of expression morally justify it

Npc west florida

Baathist quebecshire If you think that people are disgusted by the mockery of Prince Philip's death simply to "own the libs", you're polarised. It is abhorrent that people would make fun of people and slander them on the day of their death. If you're going to be complacent and are going to defend their actions, I have lost what little respect I had left for you.

Furthermore, he literally gave up his driving license. You make it seem like he tried to avoid prosecution, which is BS.

I don't endorse the arguments made by Denher and Dodo but I do think there's something to be said for freedom of speech and expression. Currently I'm reading through some tabloid article about the "ghastliest" things Prince Philip has said. Some include:

"Deaf? If you're near there, no wonder you are deaf," he told a group of deaf school children, who were nearby a Caribbean steel drum band in 2000. Oh, how terrible. He was clearly attempting to insult them. Woe is he!

"You look like you're ready for bed!" he told the President of Nigeria in 2003, who was dressed in traditional robes. Mm, the pinnacle of racism.

"Is it a strip club?" he asked when meeting a female Sea Cadet who told the Prince she worked in a nightclub, in 2009. Misogynist, sexist, fascist! What a horrific man. How could anyone "joke" about this sort of thing? He was obviously aiming to infer a feeling of inferiority in her.

"If you stay here much longer you will all be slitty-eyed," the Prince told British exchange students who lived in Xian in 1986. When asked on his opinion of Beijing, he replied: "Ghastly." Serious Attancia here: I'll say the first part is pretty offensive, but unless you're entirely socially inept, you can tell he wasn't attempting to be racist. The last comment is literally just based on the horrible conditions in the city.

"If it has four legs and it is not a chair, if it has two wings and flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." Again with the Chinese insults, when he addressed a World Wildlife Fund meeting in 1986. Once again, he's obviously attempting to infer that these people are inferior bastards. Serious Attancia here: Yeah no. That's the sort of joke that anyone with a mildly witty sense of humour could make.

"Do you still throw spears at each other?" he asked a group of Indigenous Australians in 2002, while on a visit to Australia with the Queen. Damn duuude he was CLEARLY attempting to be racist.

I assume these were the sorts of racist/sexist remarks Cubic was referring to. If this is the sort of thing that is going to be crossing the line between tolerance and racism, then what sort of society is Quebec trying to create? What sort of world does Quebec wish to have in which statements like this are intolerable and should be used as an excuse for mocking you on the day of your death? Is Quebec really so intolerant, so foolish, and so disappointingly unable to take a joke that this is his ideal world? That is exactly the message he has conveyed to us, and unless his communications skills are particularly awful, the message he intended to send.

Now, I get that I'm allegedly playing into "culture war BS" (which is how Cubic labelled people like me), but I'm willing to defend an innocent man on the day of his death. An innocent man who is being slandered. An innocent man who is being accused of being the head of one of the falsely labelled "most backwards institutions in the world". And now that I am attempting to defend it, I am playing into culture war BS? What? Lying and then shutting down the debate is the worst possible way of trying to make a point, let alone attempting to come to a conclusion. What can you possibly hope to achieve by telling people that their morally obliged and heartfelt defence of an innocent man is irrefutable proof that they are playing into a culture war? Will they suddenly abandon their views? Of course not.

New waldensia, West Phoenicia, Dunferm, North Azarath, and 7 othersNpc west florida, Antarctic Circle States, Blacktree, Denher, Federated Provinces of China, The Dodo Republic, and Fort pee pee

Attancia wrote:

You're free to think the contrary, but if you're in official and diplomatic status, especially one with a level of privilege and disgusting history as the monarchy, maybe you shouldn't be making racist comments/jokes to schoolchildren, foreign presidents, and especially maybe not mock the same people your family murdered and repressed as being primitive (aboriginals). Methinks the jokes would also be less awful if his family didn't have a history of genocide that he very outwardly benefitted from until his unfortunate passing.

Attancia wrote:What can you possibly hope to achieve by telling people that their morally obliged and heartfelt defence of an innocent man is irrefutable proof that they are playing into a culture war? Will they suddenly abandon their views? Of course not.

I'm personally gonna be really hesitant to view anyone who actively participates in one of the vilest institutions in world history as "innocent", but go off. I'm not saying people should celebrate his death, but I'm not going to go out of my way to defend him, nor will I not argue against inaccurately positive portrayals of him.

Npc west florida

But nice to know that being "complacent" in making fun of an aristocrat by not defending him is more of a priority than being complacent if not directly involved in decades of colonialism, aristocratic elitism, and cultural tyranny.

Npc west florida

Baathist quebecshire wrote:You're free to think the contrary, but if you're in official and diplomatic status, especially one with a level of privilege and disgusting history as the monarchy, maybe you shouldn't be making racist comments/jokes to schoolchildren, foreign presidents, and especially maybe not mock the same people your family murdered and repressed as being primitive (aboriginals). Methinks the jokes would also be less awful if his family didn't have a history of genocide that he very outwardly benefitted from until his unfortunate passing.

So is he, all of a sudden, responsible for the actions of a family he married into? And we already clarified he wasn't being racist. He was joking. There's zero doubt. So because he married into a family that has a previous history of repressing aboriginals, he is forbidden to joke about aboriginals with aboriginals? Ouch. One of our resident monarchists, West Phoenicia, is descended directly from aboriginals. Despite him being the only person to have a reason to be angry, he isn't. He supports the late Prince. Rather telling, is it not? Telling of the disappointingly low tolerance presented by Quebec.

Baathist quebecshire wrote:I'm personally gonna be really hesitant to view anyone who actively participates in one of the vilest institutions in world history as "innocent", but go off. I'm not saying people should celebrate his death, but I'm not going to go out of my way to defend him, nor will I not argue against inaccurately positive portrayals of him.

Is the current Royal family, his late Highness included, responsible for the disastrous actions of their ancestors from hundreds of years ago? Is Queen Elizabeth, is Prince William, is Prince Harry, is Kate Middleton, is Meghan Markle responsible for the actions of the Victorians and their immediate successors? No. They make up the Royal Family. One cannot consider an institution vile if one only looks at the far-away history.

New waldensia, Dunferm, North Azarath, Npc west florida, and 5 othersAntarctic Circle States, Blacktree, Federated Provinces of China, The Dodo Republic, and Fort pee pee

Here come the blazing essays. GO ATTY!

New waldensia, North Azarath, Attancia, and Npc west florida

Attancia wrote:So is he, all of a sudden, responsible for the actions of a family he married into? And we already clarified he wasn't being racist. He was joking. There's zero doubt. So because he married into a family that has a previous history of repressing aboriginals, he is forbidden to joke about aboriginals with aboriginals? Ouch. One of our resident monarchists, West Phoenicia, is descended directly from aboriginals. Despite him being the only person to have a reason to be angry, he isn't. He supports the late Prince. Rather telling, is it not? Telling of the disappointingly low tolerance presented by Quebec.

I'm pretty sure the aboriginals in Australia still have disparities today as a result of British colonialism.

Attancia wrote:Telling of the disappointingly low tolerance presented by Quebec.

You got me, I have a low tolerance for elitist hacks and aristocrat apologia.

Attancia wrote:Is the current Royal family, his late Highness included, responsible for the disastrous actions of their ancestors from hundreds of years ago? Is Queen Elizabeth, is Prince William, is Prince Harry, is Kate Middleton, is Meghan Markle responsible for the actions of the Victorians and their immediate successors? No. They make up the Royal Family. One cannot consider an institution vile if one only looks at the far-away history.

They continue to actively benefit socially, financially, and otherwise from the atrocities committed by the UK and their family within the past few generations and prior. So yeah, they're pretty damn complacent.

Npc west florida

The Dodo Republic wrote:Here come the blazing essays. GO ATTY!

Atty can write all the essays he wants about how mean it is to not like his precious royal overlords, but it's all tiresome emotional rhetoric.

Npc west florida

Baathist quebecshire wrote:I'm pretty sure the aboriginals in Australia still have disparities today as a result of British colonialism.

That argument has no correlation with the discussion we're having. If I were defending British colonialism, yeah, it'd be fine. But I'm defending the late Prince's right to make a joke.

Baathist quebecshire wrote:You got me, I have a low tolerance for elitist hacks and aristocrat apologia.

No, you have a low tolerance for jokes that can be considered offensive. You're the type of person who would support Scotland's newly introduced hate crime and public order bill. After reading it through I realised I can now be brought to court for calling someone "small-dicked" (see clause on genital variation) and I have concluded that Prince Philip must have been at the top of Scotland Yard's most wanted.

Baathist quebecshire wrote:They continue to actively benefit socially, financially, and otherwise from the atrocities committed by the UK and their family within the past few generations and prior. So yeah, they're pretty damn complacent.

How so? By inheriting old money? That's not complacency. Unless, of course, you're referring to their main source of income -- tax. However, despite my political position, and to the surprise of my like-minded friend Fluvannia, I don't believe tax is an atrocity.

New waldensia, North Azarath, Npc west florida, and The Dodo Republic

Attancia wrote:No, you have a low tolerance for jokes that can be considered offensive. You're the type of person who would support Scotland's newly introduced hate crime and public order bill. After reading it through I realised I can now be brought to court for calling someone "small-dicked" (see clause on genital variation) and I have concluded that Prince Philip must have been at the top of Scotland Yard's most wanted.

"[various strawmen and unrelated things in a frantic and offended effort to be mad at Quebecshire for not liking the royals]"

Attancia wrote:How so? By inheriting old money? That's not complacency. Unless, of course, you're referring to their main source of income -- tax. However, despite my political position, and to the surprise of my like-minded friend Fluvannia, I don't believe tax is an atrocity.

You- you do realize a lot of their wealth has directly come from enforcing suffering on others, places which are still disproportionately screwed over, places they still hold royal titles over? The point of privilege from which you're defending the royals is comedic.

Baathist quebecshire wrote:"[various strawmen and unrelated things in a frantic and offended effort to be mad at Quebecshire for not liking the royals]"

If I'm apparently using strawman, then what the heck is this? And no, I don't need you to like the royals. I need you to be a decent person and stop defending mockery of a dead man on the day of his death.

Baathist quebecshire wrote:You- you do realize a lot of their wealth has directly come from enforcing suffering on others, places which are still disproportionately screwed over, places they still hold royal titles over? The point of privilege from which you're defending the royals is comedic.

Is the current royal family continuing the atrocities committed by the Victorians? No.

North Azarath, Npc west florida, Blacktree, and The Dodo Republic

Attancia wrote:If I'm apparently using strawman, then what the heck is this? And no, I don't need you to like the royals. I need you to be a decent person and stop defending mockery of a dead man on the day of his death.
Is the current royal family continuing the atrocities committed by the Victorians? No.

How dare the royals have the support of their country. HOW DARE THEY 🙄

New waldensia, North Azarath, Attancia, Npc west florida, and 1 otherBlacktree

Attancia wrote:That argument has no correlation with the discussion we're having. If I were defending British colonialism, yeah, it'd be fine. But I'm defending the late Prince's right to make a joke.

No, you have a low tolerance for jokes that can be considered offensive. You're the type of person who would support Scotland's newly introduced hate crime and public order bill. After reading it through I realised I can now be brought to court for calling someone "small-dicked" (see clause on genital variation) and I have concluded that Prince Philip must have been at the top of Scotland Yard's most wanted.
How so? By inheriting old money? That's not complacency. Unless, of course, you're referring to their main source of income -- tax. However, despite my political position, and to the surprise of my like-minded friend Fluvannia, I don't believe theft is an atrocity.

FTFY

(For reference this is a joke, intended to crack an otherwise curt atmosphere)

New waldensia, Attancia, Npc west florida, Antarctic Circle States, and 2 othersBlacktree, and The Dodo Republic

Attancia wrote:

"If you stay here much longer you will all be slitty-eyed," the Prince told British exchange students who lived in Xian in 1986. When asked on his opinion of Beijing, he replied: "Ghastly." Serious Attancia here: I'll say the first part is pretty offensive, but unless you're entirely socially inept, you can tell he wasn't attempting to be racist. I do see how the first part is offensive, but at the same time it is a bit out of context. Chinese elders told the Chinese students [as a joke] not to stay too long in the West or they will go “round-eyed” (basically losing their Chinese nature). I have heard some variation of this saying without the round eye part. Personally I'm not offended by it. It seems like it caused a huge mess in UK but not in China. The last comment is literally just based on the horrible conditions in the city. This is also true. Things have gotten a lot better over the decades, but I can still write an essay on why Beijing is a pretty bad place to live.

"If it has four legs and it is not a chair, if it has two wings and flies but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it." Again with the Chinese insults, when he addressed a World Wildlife Fund meeting in 1986. Once again, he's obviously attempting to infer that these people are inferior bastards. Serious Attancia here: Yeah no. That's the sort of joke that anyone with a mildly witty sense of humour could make. I do not find this offensive at all. This is clearly a joke, and Chinese people use it too. Some even take it as a small compliment.

You made some good points kid.

New waldensia, North Azarath, Attancia, Npc west florida, and 4 othersAntarctic Circle States, Blacktree, The Dodo Republic, and Fort pee pee

Attancia wrote:If I'm apparently using strawman, then what the heck is this? And no, I don't need you to like the royals. I need you to be a decent person and stop defending mockery of a dead man on the day of his death.
Is the current royal family continuing the atrocities committed by the Victorians? No.

1) I'm not defending the mockery of him, I'm just also condemning defending him.

2) They're still actively benefitting off of it, and plenty of things from that time period remain.

The Dodo Republic wrote:How dare the royals have the support of their country. HOW DARE THEY 🙄

This but unironically.

Furbish islands

Imagine a world where Quebec was not arrogant

New waldensia, North Azarath, Npc west florida, and Blacktree

The Dodo Republic wrote:Imagine a world where Quebec was not arrogant

Imagine a world where people did not play apologia and defense for a vile and aristocratic institution?

Baathist quebecshire wrote:Imagine a world where people did not play apologia and defense for a vile and aristocratic institution?

What planet are you on? “Vile and disgusting”. Did you even LISTEN to our argument?

Blacktree

The Dodo Republic wrote:What planet are you on? “Vile and disgusting”. Did you even LISTEN to our argument?

Yes, did you listen to mine? I'm fairly confident that had the Nazis not plagued this earth, the British Empire would be widely seen as one of, if not the most the most brutal, horrible, and evil state to exist, led by that family to their benefit, to ever give planet earth the misfortune of its presence.

Furbish islands

Baathist quebecshire wrote:Yes, did you listen to mine? I'm fairly confident that had the Nazis not plagued this earth, the British Empire would be widely seen as one of, if not the most the most brutal, horrible, and evil state to exist, led by that family to their benefit, to ever give planet earth the misfortune of its presence.

Mmmm let’s see. Spanish Empire. Portugal... USSR.... Chinese Communist Party... There were a lot more horrible nations on earth then the British Empire.

New waldensia, North Azarath, and Blacktree

Post by Furbish islands suppressed by a moderator.

God Bless Queen Elizabeth II during this time. Not only is she Queen. She is a wife who has lost her husband And mother to children who have lost their dad.

I really don't care if you support the British monarchy or not. Neither has anyone said you had to like his actions or those of the royal family.

But be respectful, by understanding a loss of someone, that millions of people are grieving over.

New waldensia, North Azarath, Attancia, Npc west florida, and 3 othersAntarctic Circle States, Logar, and The Dodo Republic

Npc west florida

West Phoenicia wrote:God Bless Queen Elizabeth II during this time. Not only is she Queen. She is a wife who has lost her husband And mother to children who have lost their dad.

I really don't care if you support the British monarchy or not. Neither has anyone said you had to like his actions or those of the royal family.

But be respectful, by understanding a loss of someone, that millions of people are grieving over.

^

New waldensia and The Dodo Republic

«12. . .372373374375376377378. . .598599»

Advertisement