not sure about that.

some people feel that making people feel warm and fuzzy is not good use of public money and wish they didn't have to contribute to that.

Stop it, bitches.

Take that shit to the "Britain's Got Talent" board.

you don't pay taxes? I need to move there.

but I mean, don't people pay tax there?

what no?
i think they get two to 4 weeks? and I've never known a British person able to take 4 weeks in a row.
which is shit compared to our 5 weeks (convert that to 0 weeks in my case)

I don't get days off because I'm self-employed and I'm a mean boss.
But according to the Law, workers here get 30 days or 15/15 off per year, double pay not to mention an extra payment in December. I'm starting to miss that perhaps?
And I don't know, 12 national holidays? Which I don't get either.

I just want to make this clear as both Ned and Nick seem to have mis-understood my point:

I am saying that leftist criticisms of the wedding in economic terms is misled. I do not care one way or another whether it did or didn't turn a profit. What I'm saying is that it's very easy to continue some sort of tussle over whether it was or wasn't profitable and ignore some of the ideologically iffy aspects of it, which have mostly been covered so far. The hard left will always lose on economic arguments, and we've had the 'discrete revenue streams' caveat [/bullshit] since at least Keynes to thank for attacking 'them' in 'their' own terms.

Yes.
I mean, British people need to stop thinking that offending someone/confrontation is the worst of all sins.
When did that start again or has it always been that way?

You can't have a relevant debate by being too 'polite' and insecure. They're never going to convince them with the money argument, every royalist knows it costs money and they're not bothered by it.

This whole thing of finding excuses to arrest people as 'prevention' is something that used to happen here during the worst phase of dictatorship. Anyone who doesn't agree with it is automatically called an 'anarchist'.

By the way, it makes me feel warm and fuzzy/ they're harmless/ the tourists are not valid arguments either.

yes. but. what. about. those. hats???

surely, they cost a fortune in impoverished worker's wages.

Brit X: "oh look at that hat!!!"
glice: "astonishing!"
Brit X: "and another!"
glice: "a marvel of British science!!"
Brit X: "look glicey!!! that one is shaped like a whaling vessels AND it plays sea shanties from out of that giant loudspeaker on top!!"
glice: *claps excitedly*
Brit X: "ohhh here comes the priiiiince!!! look at his shoes! look at his fucking shoooooooes!!!!"
glice: *urinates self*

It sounds lovely, but we need to cut costs.
NO MORE FUNNY HATS OR DECENT HEALTH CARE.

It started the moment all dog-fucking foreigners decided that their capacity for make broad and misleading statements about fuck all was incisive commentary.


Fuck off.


Too binary.


They are valid arguments; they are not good ones. It is statistically provable, for instance, that 'they're harmless' has a degree of merit - "the x amount of pounds royal y puts into charity z". It's pointless pursuing both that line of thought and a criticism of that line of thought. I personally feel that the 'they're parasites/ existentialist deniers' doesn't hold much water, but ultimately thinking about the arguments from any side for any length of time just fills me with despair.

Also: Everyone, kindly fuck off/ die. Except Nefeli.

I would like to go on record stating that I have never had more than a semi-erection at the thought of fucking a dog.

uff, what's up with the posts deleting kinnik???

'nderstood

I'm not taking this "you're not British so fuck off" argument. So if I decide to be British then can I say something please, please, please? I'm actually trying to understand how someone is going to justify "they're harmless" as being good enough reason. Even tho they are not harmless, useless perhaps, but not harmless.

Some people have better pro-monarchy arguments, that's all I'm saying.

The point I was making is that you were using a stereotypical and negative view of the British to decry a minority opinion, in my view. By which I mean, we're not all 'too polite' etc, regardless of those stereotypes. I don't think 'British decency' is actually true - most people are cunts, some of those people are British; the British do not have an anti-confrontational nature, at all.

My post wasn't, apparently, that successful in getting that across, but ho hum.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion. It's probably the same as most British people. My take is probably that I don't know of any seriously defensible pro-monarchy arguments, but my question is how to negotiate the territory between that ideological position and the pragmatic one? By which I mean, is the monarchy another representation of sinecural, aristocratic vulgar capitalism, or does that denigrative structure disappear when they're gone? Yes, of course we should get rid of them, but that's not the panacea for global trauma. Would it help? Certainly, but it's just one step along the way. Is it going to happen, in the democracy as it stands, in my lifetime? Almost certainly not, and that's a defeatist attitude on my part.

y u so mad lol???

Well, that depends where you're coming from. To many of us, that could seem like an anti-confrontational nature. It's actually charming in many ways, you know. The British will make this or that sarcastic remark instead of getting into a proper fight with someone they work with. They will strategically make a comment to initiate a session of subtle gossip rather than saying "I think your friend is a cunt". Fair enough, nothing wrong with that. In many ways that's admirable.

I guess what you didn't understand is that I was actually agreeing with you by saying people should try and speak openly about ideology rather than trying to pretend it's a discussion about costs only.

For someone who's constantly throwing "dog-fucker" and other nice terms around you seem a bit too sensitive to a little bit of cricitism.

he's mad.

lol