Venting thread

[Vijay]

I don't get why people think criticizing him makes them look like they're pretending to be morally superior. Have those of you who think this way never heard of criticizing other people and yourself?

If you're looking for dead people to mourn, I don't think it's the British royal family of all people that most needs your sympathy right now. Who would even give a shit about this guy if not for his family?

[Travis B.]

I don't get why people think criticizing him makes them look like they're pretending to be morally superior. Have those of you who think this way never heard of criticizing other people and yourself?

If you're looking for dead people to mourn, I don't think it's the British royal family of all people that most needs your sympathy right now. Who would even give a shit about this guy if not for his family?

I would not say that the British royal family is deserving of any special sympathy myself; as, of course, the man indeed was a racist elitist, and there are plenty of other dead people's families who are more deserving of sympathy who of course get little to none. My point, though, is going off on diatribes about how the man was especially horrible based on a selective assessment of his life, with little concern for context, does little but make one feel good about oneself, because of course one is better than he was, one obviously is not a racist elitist, right?

[Vijay]

I disagree. I think pointing out the undeserved and disproportionate attention that bigots get in Western society is valuable in and of itself without saying anything about the person pointing it out.

[Travis B.]

I disagree. I think pointing out the undeserved and disproportionate attention that bigots get in Western society is valuable in and of itself without saying anything about the person pointing it out.

I don't see a problem with pointing out that the man was a bigot - the man indeed was a bigot, after all, and a reasonable assessment of the man's life would include this - to not include it would be to whitewash the man, after all.

[Rounin Ryuuji]

Monarchs are pretty trinkets, I suppose, but there really is too much to-do about them; people ought to let them alone till they're wanted for some function or other. I might suggest it were better to be done with them, but constitutional monarchy seems to tend to stability, and of all the bad things going on in the world right now, one perhaps unpleasant old man's death strikes me as not worth thinking about too much.

[Vijay]

I hate monarchy, but I find Puyi's life fascinating. I hated The Last Emperor, and now that I've read the Wikipedia article on Puyi, I hate it even more.

[Travis B.]

Monarchs are pretty trinkets, I suppose, but there really is too much to-do about them; people ought to let them alone till they're wanted for some function or other. I might suggest it were better to be done with them, but constitutional monarchy seems to tend to stability, and of all the bad things going on in the world right now, one perhaps unpleasant old man's death strikes me as not worth thinking about too much.

A reasonable compromise between republicanism and constitutional monarchy is the sort of government Germany has - where there is a separate head of state and head of government, with the head of state being elected but taking the general role of a constitutional monarch albeit with discrete terms.

[Ares Land]

How about concentrating on what people do instead of picking over everything they say?
I mean, Philip was a very innocuous figure. Would anyone care to point out how exactly he contributed to the evils of the world?

Besides, the man was born in 1921. Honestly, it's the bigots born in 1991 we should be worrying about.

[rotting bones]

Here's the definitive story a characteristically sensitive and nuanced reaction from the hard Left.

No matter who you succeed in convincing with your arguments and/or impassioned pleas, both blunt dismissals of the deceased (whose name I can't be bothered to remember right now) and taking offense at them will continue indefinitely in the foreseeable future. You see, resolving controversies is bad for business. Regardless of which side is virtuous, if virtue wins, it will take bread out of the mouths of babies.

Monarchs are pretty trinkets, I suppose, but there really is too much to-do about them; people ought to let them alone till they're wanted for some function or other. I might suggest it were better to be done with them, but constitutional monarchy seems to tend to stability, and of all the bad things going on in the world right now, one perhaps unpleasant old man's death strikes me as not worth thinking about too much.

I could do without "stability" under Fuhrer Johnson, thank you very much. I used to entertain similar ideas about constitutional monarchies that I found on Scott Alexander's blog, but I no longer trust the guy. He's a very close-minded person who had a policy of deleting any and all comments that raised doubts about his agenda regardless of sincerity and respectfulness.

As for much ado about royals, the way I see it, their royal family is a sitcom exported around the world by Britain.

A reasonable compromise between republicanism and constitutional monarchy is the sort of government Germany has - where there is a separate head of state and head of government, with the head of state being elected but taking the general role of a constitutional monarch albeit with discrete terms.

My problem with monarchs and other "representatives" is that they are all usurpers. The true kings are the meek.

[Travis B.]

A reasonable compromise between republicanism and constitutional monarchy is the sort of government Germany has - where there is a separate head of state and head of government, with the head of state being elected but taking the general role of a constitutional monarch albeit with discrete terms.

My problem with monarchs and other "representatives" is that they are all usurpers. The true kings are the meek.

Well monarchs of course arbitrarily hold at least nominal power by virtue of their birth. Elected politicians at least have power that nominally comes from the people - but nominally is the key word (note how FPTP works). Some parliamentary systems are more democratic than others (contrast the Westminster system with true proportional representation).

Of course there are systems where power does come directly from the people, e.g. workers' councils, but even these have their faults (once one has workers' councils of workers' councils, the actual control the people has quickly diminishes, whereas with a parliamentary gov't the people at least have veto power over the gov't at the highest level). And this is assuming "workers' councils" actually stem from the power of the people as a whole, and not from workplaces alone as originally envisioned, where then they would not be democratic in the first place.

[rotting bones]

Well monarchs of course arbitrarily hold at least nominal power by virtue of their birth. Elected politicians at least have power that nominally comes from the people - but nominally is the key word (note how FPTP works). Some parliamentary systems are more democratic than others (contrast the Westminster system with true proportional representation).

Of course there are systems where power does come directly from the people, e.g. workers' councils, but even these have their faults (once one has workers' councils of workers' councils, the actual control the people has quickly diminishes, whereas with a parliamentary gov't the people at least have veto power over the gov't at the highest level). And this is assuming "workers' councils" actually stem from the power of the people as a whole, and not from workplaces alone as originally envisioned, where then they would not be democratic in the first place.

I don't support worker's councils for controlling anything beyond their respective businesses. I think we should go back to direct democracy for controlling some things (but not all things).

[Travis B.]

I don't support worker's councils for controlling anything beyond their respective businesses. I think we should go back to direct democracy for controlling some things (but not all things).

The problem with governance by plebiscite is that sometimes it results in things like Brexit - when people are given an all-or-nothing one-time vote on some big question, one is liable to get unreasonable results. And then you get things due to it like women getting the vote in Switzerland only in the 1970's, and in one area only in the 1990's (!), and that was only because a court forced them to.

[rotting bones]

The problem with governance by plebiscite is that sometimes it results in things like Brexit - when people are given an all-or-nothing one-time vote on some big question, one is liable to get unreasonable results. And then you get things due to it like women getting the vote in Switzerland only in the 1970's, and in one area only in the 1990's (!), and that was only because a court forced them to.

Most things shouldn't be an all-or-nothing one-time vote. People should review their decisions from time to time. They should make mistakes, learn from them and avoid them in the future.

As for the right to vote, that should be constitutional. We can't count on any community volunteering to expand the franchise. The universality of the franchise should be part of the definition of the kind of government being proposed.

[Travis B.]

It should be remembered that one of the favorite tricks of the authoritarian to grab more power is to hold a plebiscite on the latter...

[rotting bones]

It should be remembered that one of the favorite tricks of the authoritarian to grab more power is to hold a plebiscite on the latter...

Any community can be induced to disenfranchise minorities for the same reasons elites turn corrupt, namely the ones that were explained by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. It is not controversial to say that some questions should not be decided by popular vote. For example, just because we have a direct democracy, should we vote on, "Should we kill Bob?" out of the blue?

[Vijay]

How about concentrating on what people do instead of picking over everything they say?

What did he do?

How about we stop giving the royal family of England so much attention in the first place? Someone from the family died. Big fucking deal.

Besides, the man was born in 1921. Honestly, it's the bigots born in 1991 we should be worrying about.

It's bigots of any kind we should be worrying about. Age isn't an excuse for bigotry.

[Linguoboy]

How about concentrating on what people do instead of picking over everything they say?

What did he do?

This is what I was getting at earlier. Seems the most anyone can muster is, "Well he didn't do anything really bad." Um, okay, congratulations on almost meeting some basic standards of human decency?

And anyway, I'd contest that assessment. He was reportedly instrumental in convincing Charles to marry Diana despite the fact that he knew his son was having an affair with Camilla Parker Bowles at the time, thus ensuring Diana would be miserable and arguably contributing to her early death. I consider that a pretty unforgivably evil thing to do to someone.

Besides, the man was born in 1921. Honestly, it's the bigots born in 1991 we should be worrying about.

It's bigots of any kind we should be worrying about. Age isn't an excuse for bigotry.

Moreover, do we think young bigots don't take their cue and their inspiration from older bigots? Prince Philip said racist shit all his life and it was laughed off as "harmless". Then we're surprised when people who grew up seeing that kind of behaviour normalised and defended adopt racist attitudes themselves?

[Ares Land]

How about we stop giving the royal family of England so much attention in the first place? Someone from the family died. Big fucking deal.

*shrugs* The British media is understandably in full frenzy right now which is something for the Brits to work out amongst themselves. Over here it's made the news and that's about it.

How about concentrating on what people do instead of picking over everything they say?

What did he do?

This is what I was getting at earlier. Seems the most anyone can muster is, "Well he didn't do anything really bad." Um, okay, congratulations on almost meeting some basic standards of human decency?

What I'm saying is, how about focussing on what people do instead of the stupid jokes they may make? By that standards, I can think of a pretty long list of people more deserving of blame than prince Philip.

That said, reading through the obits (I don't really follow British royal gossip very closely): he served in WWII, saved lives as a naval officer, and worked pretty hard at charity work. For that matter one of his jobs as a royal was international diplomacy, and I've got an inkling Britain would be a lot worse off had the job left to Margaret Thatcher alone.

People are complicated and the world is a complex place. I don't think cracking a few racist jokes is enough to condemn the man in a posthumous trial.

It's bigots of any kind we should be worrying about. Age isn't an excuse for bigotry.

Oh, come on. The man was raised and lived a good chunk of his adult life in a time and age when racial superiority was scientific truth, women were held to be naturally more emotional and subservient, and homosexuality was a mental disease.
Are you seriously proposing that this offers not even an inkling of explanation as to why he said the thing he said?

Yeah, you'll find people born in the 20's with less bigoted views than Philip. Even then, almost everyone born in that generation has at one point thought or said something we'd find awfully cringeworthy.

Our entire values system has underwent a complete upheaval during his lifetime and yeah, many (if not all) people had trouble adjusting to it.

Moreover, do we think young bigots don't take their cue and their inspiration from older bigots? Prince Philip said racist shit all his life and it was laughed off as "harmless". Then we're surprised when people who grew up seeing that kind of behaviour normalised and defended adopt racist attitudes themselves?

Young bigots are drawing their inspiration from the media going on about illegals, the tabloids, pundits openly theorizing racism, conspiracy theorists, other young bigots emulating themselves into racist frenzy, their parents, elected officials that are not above winking at the racist crowd from time to time. I'm sorry, but Prince Philip isn't even a factor there.

[Linguoboy]

What I'm saying is, how about focussing on what people do instead of the stupid jokes they may make? By that standards, I can think of a pretty long list of people more deserving of blame than prince Philip.

By the same token, there's an even longer list of people more deserving of praise than Philip.

(I'd rather not to talk about him at all, but that doesn't seem to be an option in this celebrity-obsessed world.)

People are complicated and the world is a complex place. I don't think cracking a few racist jokes is enough to condemn the man in a posthumous trial.

Condemn him to what exactly? I'm beyond exhausted with this "unfair trial" metaphor that always gets trotted out whenever some celebrity gets criticised. It's beyond meaningless. None of us has the power to pass any kind of sentence on this man or any other so it really doesn't matter what we do or don't say about him. I'm totally within my rights to say that "cracking a few racist jokes" (as if that's all he did) makes you a shitty person (and I don't have to wait a set number of hours or days after their demise to say that either).

What do I owe the members of the British royal family? Fuck-all. If someone wants to expend the effort to be scrupulously "fair" to one of them in a piece for Le Monde, that's their business. Seems like there are better things they could be doing with those column inches, but I'm not a subscriber so I don't have a stake. By the same token, if another writer wants to write a hatchet piece, I'm not going to fault them either.

It's bigots of any kind we should be worrying about. Age isn't an excuse for bigotry.

Oh, come on. The man was raised and lived a good chunk of his adult life in a time and age when racial superiority was scientific truth, women were held to be naturally more emotional and subservient, and homosexuality was a mental disease.
Are you seriously proposing that this offers not even an inkling of explanation as to why he said the thing he said?

Are you serious confusing explaining a behaviour with excusing it?

Yeah, you'll find people born in the 20's with less bigoted views than Philip. Even then, almost everyone born in that generation has at one point thought or said something we'd find awfully cringeworthy.

I'm sure they have--mostly behind closed doors where only their family or caregivers has to put up with it because we have the good sense not to give them positions of responsibility. Either he was doing a valuable diplomatic job, in which case he should be held to the same standards as others doing the same work, or he was just a doddering old dilettante, in which case why keep him in public view? It says something about what your society will tolerate and whose needs are considered important. If I had a relative who talked the way he did (consistently, up till the end of his life) and I chose to keep associating with them, I would have kept them away from my friends because I respect them too much to make them put up with that.

Our entire values system has underwent a complete upheaval during his lifetime and yeah, many (if not all) people had trouble adjusting to it.

And some, by virtue of their privilege and position, never really had to. I think that's what's most irritating in this case. In a lot of workplaces, saying and doing the things he did would have gotten him fired. But he had complete discretion to keep "working" up until the point he decide he wanted to stop, no matter how that affected anyone else.

Moreover, do we think young bigots don't take their cue and their inspiration from older bigots? Prince Philip said racist shit all his life and it was laughed off as "harmless". Then we're surprised when people who grew up seeing that kind of behaviour normalised and defended adopt racist attitudes themselves?

Young bigots are drawing their inspiration from the media going on about illegals, the tabloids, pundits openly theorizing racism, conspiracy theorists, other young bigots emulating themselves into racist frenzy, their parents, elected officials that are not above winking at the racist crowd from time to time. I'm sorry, but Prince Philip isn't even a factor there.

I don't see how it makes sense to say that. Those winking elected officials, the tabloids, the pundits--they all carried water for Prince Philip and people like him. They still do. You can't neatly separate out that behaviour and claim that it has nothing to do with anything else.

[Vijay]

*shrugs* The British media is understandably in full frenzy right now which is something for the Brits to work out amongst themselves. Over here it's made the news and that's about it.

I thought you said Le Monde has a whole series about it.

What I'm saying is, how about focussing on what people do instead of the stupid jokes they may make?

That is a pretty big chunk of what he did, though.

By that standards, I can think of a pretty long list of people more deserving of blame than prince Philip.

Great, let's talk about them then!

I don't think cracking a few racist jokes is enough to condemn the man in a posthumous trial.

I think it's enough to condemn anyone anytime.

Yeah, you'll find people born in the 20's with less bigoted views than Philip.

You will find people born hundreds of years before that with less bigoted views than Philip.