• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    'Scept the monarchy thing is purely cringe nationalism; the british royalty have no power to actually govern - influence perhaps, but a shockingly small amount, and no authority to back it up. The other image is of the same kind of monarchy-esque celebration but for the leader of the government. That’s why it’s bad, it’s a monarchy-esque display but for someone who actually has a huge amount of power.

    Nobody talks about the monarchy being a celebration of “dear leader” because it fundementally isn’t, the royal family aren’t leaders.

    • dogbert@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Your distinction of power is irrelevant and somewhat incorrect (the royals hold a great deal of power still). Both are forms of propaganda to manipulate the population. Acting like this distinction of power is some kind of show-stopping distinction between the two is purely a coping mechanism. Look how they got you…

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Lmfao what? “It’s not different because I say it isn’t” just take the L here bud, the details of your compairson don’t hold up. It’s also highly relevant since it directly contradicts the incorrect assertions of the meme. The UK royals have no authority to govern or make policy. That’s going to be a really hard fact to get past, no matter how devastating to your argument it might be.

        • dogbert@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Sounds like you aren’t able to come up with a response to any of my points, so I’ll just assume you’re out of your depths here. Horrible.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Dude I addressed the blatantly false premise your points were based on instead of the points themselves, because addressing them individually would imply a tacit acceptance of the faulty assertions they’re founded upon.

            • dogbert@lemmy.zipOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I have no idea what you’re talking about. Let me know when you’re ready for an adult conversation.

              • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Yeah, I know you don’t. I’ll freely admit it was kinda self-indulgent to try and explain such a basic aspect of debate, and I was just happily dunking on you under the assumption it’d go over your head and you’d play off the superiority complex to try to save some face.

                I notice you haven’t replied to the other commenter which laid out in much clearer terms what I’m saying here, and goes into more details about why you’re full o’ crap - if you’re so interested in an “adult conversation” why haven’t you just gone to engage with them instead?