Squirrels supporting a Wolf vs Hamsters with a leashed Chihuahua
Consider the Greater State Arms with
supporters of Two Talossan Squirrels Proper
Both have great vitality, and are clever beings of their own devices, wild and free, yet come together to support the Kingdom, and can be envisioned as the Cosa and Senäts.
Now consider the Royal Arms which include Quarterly 2 and 3 per fess azure and vert, a wolf salient argent armed and langued gules
This element is wise, as there are two wolves fighting in each person's heart. One is love, the other is hate. Which one wins? The one that is fed the most.
There are those who hate the idea of a King or Queen unbound and free to direct the course of our history with greatly appreciated support. They hate that the vagaries of time and events include only unscheduled and occasional change to the leader of the pack. They desire to domesticate the wolf, to change it into a chihuahua that they can stuff in a bag or kennel when desired, or simply drop off at a shelter (or worse) when they want a different one. They in fact want to change themselves from squirrels to hamsters in a cage of their own design, running on wheels of circular logic, declaring a chihuahua to be a wolf, asserting their own independence whilst residing behind bars.
On 26 December 1979 King Ben lovingly created the Kingdom of Talossa. He wrestled with the wolves, and from time to time fed the hate. However, the creation endures over 4 decades later, bourne out of the love of the citizens for the Kingdom. The Kingdom even attracted back those who had left for a time with loving arms. Yet, some of those same citizens still nurture hate of the crown and seek to obfuscate their desired change to a Republic -- with false flags, logistical legerdemain, and other schemes to tame what is wild and free, and which shall endure on natural fate rather than mechanism.
With respect, Sir Briga, evocative imagery alone does not a coherent argument make.
LCC plug: Support the Monarchy without the Balance Party's very strange leaps of logic.
The accusation that Talossans who prefer an elected head of state, or a reformed monarchy, are motivated by "hate" is one which keeps coming up. King Robert I accused me of being motivated by "hate". It's the kind of rhetorical move you use to demonise and delegitimate political opponents without dealing with their arguments. It is the language of witch-hunting, and I use that term advisedly.
People call me call kind of horrible names, but people like XPB get away with using this rhetoric because they use it for conservative purposes.
Also, I've just been reading Kipling, and I'm pretty sure that when the leader of a wolf pack ceases to be able to lead, the other wolves kill him, or take him somewhere and let him starve to death. You don't see wolves propping up an aged, toothless, decrepit, frog-eating pack leader and weeping tears about the "hatred" of those who want a change.
Vote for Eager Beavers, who work hard, build things that benefit the wildlife around them, who maintain the structures that are already in place dutifully and are pretty Dam cool ... *jazz hands*
Vote LCC
Sir Pol you used the word hate five times. Do you imagine that people here in Talossa are actually that filled with hate? If so, that is a sad outlook.
In my experience, "hate" is conservatese for "disagreement."
Hence why the LCC has gone through a metamorphosis to become a party that already has began working to stop this inte-party hate through communication not assumption
Good point; though putting the most divisive person on Talossa on your party list at #3 has some of us worried
50 years before the formation of Talossa, Gandhi said:
"Hate the sin and not the sinner is a precept which, though easy enough to understand, is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world."
I do not hate citizens who participate in spirited debate. I hate the proposed change from a Kingdom which is unique, to a Republic, which is ordinary.
For the record, I do not believe that monarchies as a form of government are unique for micronations. If you check MicroWiki or a similar source, youll see that monarchies are everywhere, its like the default setting. Republics arent unique either of course, same reasoning.
Elective monarchies like what the Historic Compromise is about are significantly rarer though. Of the top of my head I can only think of Seborga that does something similar. So, if uniqueness was the deciding factor, wouldnt that be an argument for the Historic Compromise instead of against?
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 03, 2021, 06:25:57 PM
For the record, I do not believe that monarchies as a form of government are unique for micronations. If you check MicroWiki or a similar source, youll see that monarchies are everywhere, its like the default setting. Republics arent unique either of course, same reasoning.
Elective monarchies like what the Historic Compromise is about are significantly rarer though. Of the top of my head I can only think of Seborga that does something similar. So, if uniqueness was the deciding factor, wouldnt that be an argument for the Historic Compromise instead of against?
I keep hearing about this "elective monarchy" Kind of sounds like
Alone together.
Amazingly awful.
Bittersweet.
Clearly confused.
Deafening silence.
Definitely maybe.
And other oxymorons
Why not call it what it is -- a President.
... not a King
Why not state the true goal - a Republic
... not a Kingdom
Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
I keep hearing about this "elective monarchy" Kind of sounds like
Alone together.
Amazingly awful.
Bittersweet.
Clearly confused.
Deafening silence.
Definitely maybe.
And other oxymorons
Why not call it what it is -- a President.
... not a King
Why not state the true goal - a Republic
... not a Kingdom
Your lack of familiarity with concepts such as bittersweetness, deafening silence and elective monarchies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy) does not make them any less real.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 03, 2021, 07:00:15 PM
Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
I keep hearing about this "elective monarchy" Kind of sounds like
Alone together.
Amazingly awful.
Bittersweet.
Clearly confused.
Deafening silence.
Definitely maybe.
And other oxymorons
Why not call it what it is -- a President.
... not a King
Why not state the true goal - a Republic
... not a Kingdom
Your lack of familiarity with concepts such as bittersweetness, deafening silence and elective monarchies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy) does not make them any less real.
We can agree to disagree on this
Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 06:19:28 PM
I do not hate citizens who participate in spirited debate. I hate the proposed change from a Kingdom
Wait. I thought it was
you accusing
us of being hateful, motivated by hatred, etc? Was that just projection?
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 03, 2021, 07:00:15 PM
Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
I keep hearing about this "elective monarchy" Kind of sounds like
Alone together.
Amazingly awful.
Bittersweet.
Clearly confused.
Deafening silence.
Definitely maybe.
And other oxymorons
Why not call it what it is -- a President.
... not a King
Why not state the true goal - a Republic
... not a Kingdom
Your lack of familiarity with concepts such as bittersweetness, deafening silence and elective monarchies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy) does not make them any less real.
To be fair, this is semantic. Very few people think of an elected monarchy with a term of seven years as a "real" monarchy, even if there are historical examples of similar. I mean, yes, technically this is true -- you can have a king of basically any type, since there have been such a wide variety of kings across history. In those historical examples are many which have much more in common with the American presidency than the British throne, even though they were "kings." You could just start calling the Seneschal the "king" and point to ample historical precedent for that sort of role.
The word "king" is being used as representative of a level of independence and power in this context. It's pretty clear what XPB means.
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/yoquierorey.jpg)
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/hamsterspeak-1600x1264.jpg)
A fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Balançéu tendency of monarchists
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/057/822/0ea.jpg)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 09:52:28 PM
A fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Balançéu tendency of monarchists
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/057/822/0ea.jpg)
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/creeping-1600x915.jpg)
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 03, 2021, 08:28:43 PM
To be fair, this is semantic.
The "call it what it is" rhetoric is an attempt to make it semantic. In truth, the title never actually mattered. I suggested the idea in passing back in November/December because I figured it would be 1) easy to set up since it wouldnt require renaming everything — and God knows we are horrible at keeping Wiki articles up to date, and 2) something that most non-extemists could at least live with. I was more interested in a compromise that people overall would be at least okay with rather than in the highly specific and contradictory prefences of individuals. The HC is nobodys first choice.
But turning this into a matter of semantics is a waste of time for everyone involved. If you want an unaccountable despot appointed for life with a personality cult as King, I will be against that, but not because such a position should be called "Supreme Leader" instead!
I also noticed that the "uniqueness" argument has been silently dropped entirely. Why would that be?
Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 09:38:14 PM
<image>
Characterising your political adversaries as docile simpletons because youre too lazy to do 5 seconds of Google research tells more about you than the Republicans you seem to despise so much.
Elective monarchies are real. No amount of Boomer memes will change that.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 03:38:49 AMBut turning this into a matter of semantics is a waste of time for everyone involved. If you want an unaccountable despot appointed for life with a personality cult as King, I will be against that, but not because such a position should be called "Supreme Leader" instead!
Agreed! And I will also agree with the fact that you're here implicitly recognizing that you can call anything a "king," but that some labels more accurately reflect the meaning that people intend to convey. An "unaccountable despot" who operates based on a "cult of personality" would definitely be better called the Supreme Leader or dictator, even if that's not a very important aspect of the change.
Now, you could certainly give the Supreme Leader a title like "king." As the link you provided above shows, there have been kings with this same sort of role. But as you suggest, that's not the important thing. The actual meaning is the important thing.
So when I say, for example, that the FDT proposal would really be establishing a presidency... that doesn't mean that it's because of semantics! I'm not saying that
technically it's not proper to call it a monarchy. I'm saying it's functionally not what I (or most people) mean by "monarchy."
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 03:38:49 AMI also noticed that the "uniqueness" argument has been silently dropped entirely. Why would that be?
Which argument? Not sure what you mean.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 06:15:24 AM
Agreed! And I will also agree with the fact that you're here implicitly recognizing that you can call anything a "king," but that some labels more accurately reflect the meaning that people intend to convey. An "unaccountable despot" who operates based on a "cult of personality" would definitely be better called the Supreme Leader or dictator, even if that's not a very important aspect of the change.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that semantic arguments waste time, first and foremost. If you dont like the head of state to be elected, thats fine. I dont care either way but please then say that, instead of complaining about the title, because titles are malleable.
QuoteNow, you could certainly give the Supreme Leader a title like "king." As the link you provided above shows, there have been kings with this same sort of role.
In very recent history, as well. (http://wiki.talossa.com/Robert_I)
QuoteBut as you suggest, that's not the important thing. The actual meaning is the important thing.
So when I say, for example, that the FDT proposal would really be establishing a presidency... that doesn't mean that it's because of semantics! I'm not saying that technically it's not proper to call it a monarchy. I'm saying it's functionally not what I (or most people) mean by "monarchy."
Then lets ask ourselves what we mean by "monarchy". For me, a monarchy is a state with a monarch at the top, the opposite of a republic. What is a monarch? Well, someone who is at the top of a monarchy... Hm.
Okay, maybe we can figure this out the other way.
What is a president? The head of state of a republic. What is a republic? A state that isnt a monarchy.
...Welp.
Im not trying to be facetious here, this is how republics and monarchies are defined in PolSci. Its all circular and ultimately a waste of time. Lets discuss something else please.
Quote
Which argument? Not sure what you mean.
Specifically this (emphasis mine):
Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 06:19:28 PM
I do not hate citizens who participate in spirited debate. I hate the proposed change from a Kingdom which is unique, to a Republic, which is ordinary.
Hereditary monarchies are extremely common in the micronational sphere. Republics are also extremely common the micronational sphere. Elective monarchies are not.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 06:57:24 AM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 06:15:24 AM
Agreed! And I will also agree with the fact that you're here implicitly recognizing that you can call anything a "king," but that some labels more accurately reflect the meaning that people intend to convey. An "unaccountable despot" who operates based on a "cult of personality" would definitely be better called the Supreme Leader or dictator, even if that's not a very important aspect of the change.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that semantic arguments waste time, first and foremost. If you dont like the head of state to be elected, thats fine. I dont care either way but please then say that, instead of complaining about the title, because titles are malleable.
QuoteNow, you could certainly give the Supreme Leader a title like "king." As the link you provided above shows, there have been kings with this same sort of role.
In very recent history, as well. (http://wiki.talossa.com/Robert_I)
QuoteBut as you suggest, that's not the important thing. The actual meaning is the important thing.
So when I say, for example, that the FDT proposal would really be establishing a presidency... that doesn't mean that it's because of semantics! I'm not saying that technically it's not proper to call it a monarchy. I'm saying it's functionally not what I (or most people) mean by "monarchy."
Then lets ask ourselves what we mean by "monarchy". For me, a monarchy is a state with a monarch at the top, the opposite of a republic. What is a monarch? Well, someone who is at the top of a monarchy... Hm.
Okay, maybe we can figure this out the other way.
What is a president? The head of state of a republic. What is a republic? A state that isnt a monarchy.
...Welp.
Im not trying to be facetious here, this is how republics and monarchies are defined in PolSci. Its all circular and ultimately a waste of time. Lets discuss something else please.
I agree completely, it is a semantic argument and a waste of time. When XPB says that this would be a president and not a monarch, his meaning is clear -- even if technically it could still be a "king" because such labels are arbitratry.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 07:20:38 AM
When XPB says that this would be a president and not a monarch, his meaning is clear -- even if technically it could still be a "king" because such labels are arbitratry.
You're continuing to misunderstand. If XPB says it would be a president and not a monarch, his meaning is not clear, for the reasons I listed earlier. "President" and "monarch" are meaningless terms. He is saying nothing of value and wasting everyones time in the process.
Just say "I want the head of state to be unaccountable and in office until they die", if that is indeed what you want.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 07:56:39 AM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 07:20:38 AM
When XPB says that this would be a president and not a monarch, his meaning is clear -- even if technically it could still be a "king" because such labels are arbitratry.
You're continuing to misunderstand. If XPB says it would be a president and not a monarch, his meaning is not clear, for the reasons I listed earlier. "President" and "monarch" are meaningless terms. He is saying nothing of value and wasting everyones time in the process.
I understand you perfectly. They're meaningless terms in a technical, poly-sci sense. In that sense, "king" could mean anything. But in terms of actually communicating, it's not empty of meaning to say that they prefer a monarch to a president, or that the proposed changes would create a president who's merely called a "king." I do agree this particular discussion is a waste of time, though, so maybe stop banging on about it and let him say what he wants? It is amply clear to everyone at this point that you consider the labels to be arbitrary and meaningless, and XPB does not.
Since there are analogies being presented here, I want a King that is like a Supreme Court Justice in the United States, who serves until the resign, die, or are impeached (that acountability part that is asked for). The difference is that that power in a kingdom is invested in one person instead of nine.
If the previous referendum had asked simply "Do you want a King or not" rather than obfuscating with the calcuations of ranked choice voting to stack the deck against a simple yes or no, then the question of whether this is a Kingdom would have been answered. That is not what was asked (and I provided the math earlier in a different thread as to how the manipulation happens). With literal 2020 hindsight everyone should ask themselves do they want a Kingdom or a Republic?
A Kingdom needs a powerful King or Queen who is not replaced on a fixed schedule
A Republic desires a less powerful leader (whatever you call it) who is replaced on a fixed schedule (and might even have term limits)
Quote from: xpb on May 04, 2021, 08:45:10 AM
If the previous referendum had asked simply "Do you want a King or not" rather than obfuscating with the calcuations of ranked choice voting to stack the deck against a simple yes or no, then the question of whether this is a Kingdom would have been answered. That is not what was asked (and I provided the math earlier in a different thread as to how the manipulation happens). With literal 2020 hindsight everyone should ask themselves do they want a Kingdom or a Republic?
The article did not say what you are claiming it said. In an IRV election, the winner would have won against each of the other options in a series of one-on-one elections (if everyone voted with the same preferences in both scenarios).
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 08:39:40 AM
They're meaningless terms in a technical, poly-sci sense. In that sense, "king" could mean anything. But in terms of actually communicating, it's not empty of meaning to say that they prefer a monarch to a president, or that the proposed changes would create a president who's merely called a "king."
Look, if youre not using the PolSci definitions of these words during a discussion about systems of government, itself a PolSci subject, which ones are you using? The chess definition maybe? The playing cards definition?
QuoteI do agree this particular discussion is a waste of time, though, so maybe stop banging on about it
"Maybe stop banging on about it"? Uncharacteristically forward of you.
Quoteand let him say what he wants? It is amply clear to everyone at this point that you consider the labels to be arbitrary and meaningless, and XPB does not.
Yes, it is clear that people who are knowledgeable about PolSci know what these labels mean (or dont mean in this case), and people who are either unwilling or incapable to perform a 5 second Google search and are instead more interested in calling their adversaries hamsters for distrusting a single person to keep up appearances for literal decades with little chance of recompense do not, you figured it out.
Speaking of which:
Quote from: xpb on May 04, 2021, 08:45:10 AM
If the previous referendum had asked simply "Do you want a King or not" rather than obfuscating with the calcuations of ranked choice voting to stack the deck against a simple yes or no, then the question of whether this is a Kingdom would have been answered. That is not what was asked (and I provided the math earlier in a different thread as to how the manipulation happens). With literal 2020 hindsight everyone should ask themselves do they want a Kingdom or a Republic?
Leaving aside that this strongly resembles GOP-style election fraud conspiracy theories by now (now that I think about it, the whole thing about Cézembrean secession (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=771.0) is also GOP-like (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/05/texas-republicans-endorse-legislation-vote-secession), hm...) and the math you provided earlier doesnt state what you think it does as S:reu Plätschisch pointed out, your alternative simple yes-or-no referendum wouldve been at least just as obfuscating as you accuse the IRV referendum of being.
It is established by now that you want a hereditary monarchy with a King who gets to do pretty much whatever they want and is universally supported by the population at large. Your prefered style of monarchy (Option 3) has been rejected 23-49. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=662.msg5482#msg5482) Without defining what "King" means in your prefered referendum question, the result would have been meaningless, since people like you, people who wanted a completely ceremonial and powerless King and people who wanted a King-President duarchy wouldve all voted "yes" --
even though all three of these preferences are mutually exclusive! It would have been a cheap way of status quo monarchists to claim victory despite being in the minority, nothing more.
QuoteA Kingdom needs a powerful King or Queen who is not replaced on a fixed schedule
A Republic desires a less powerful leader (whatever you call it) who is replaced on a fixed schedule (and might even have term limits)
This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 09:33:57 AM
This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.
My thoughts on the subject are a lie?
Amazing demonstration of doublespeak.
Pardon me that I believed my thoughts should be mine to control.
Quote from: xpb on May 04, 2021, 09:54:16 AM
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 09:33:57 AM
This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.
My thoughts on the subject are a lie?
Your thoughts on the subject are misinformed and incorrect. A statement such as "A Kingdom needs a powerful King or Queen who is not replaced on a fixed schedule" is a deliberate falsehood, a lie.
QuoteAmazing demonstration of doublespeak.
No, thats not what doublespeak means either... If anything,calling your incorrect statements earlier lies is dysphemistic rather than euphemistic.
Before this goes too overboard though, how about you adress the rest of the post you quoted from?
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 09:33:57 AM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 08:39:40 AM
They're meaningless terms in a technical, poly-sci sense. In that sense, "king" could mean anything. But in terms of actually communicating, it's not empty of meaning to say that they prefer a monarch to a president, or that the proposed changes would create a president who's merely called a "king."
Look, if youre not using the PolSci definitions of these words during a discussion about systems of government, itself a PolSci subject, which ones are you using? The chess definition maybe? The playing cards definition?
A colloquial "definition," not a formal one. That should be obvious at this point.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 09:33:57 AMQuoteand let him say what he wants? It is amply clear to everyone at this point that you consider the labels to be arbitrary and meaningless, and XPB does not.
Yes, it is clear that people who are knowledgeable about PolSci know what these labels mean (or dont mean in this case), and people who are either unwilling or incapable to perform a 5 second Google search and are instead more interested in calling their adversaries hamsters for distrusting a single person to keep up appearances for literal decades with little chance of recompense do not, you figured it out.
"Messaging" might be another political science term to draw upon, here, since we're not discussing this in terms of an abstract classroom debate. Most people don't actually consider the terms "king" and "president" to be empty labels devoid of meaning.
Like, I understand your point: in poli sci those are just arbitrary titles that don't signify any particular mechanisms of government or expectations of authority/role. But clearly they
do to most people, and I think you're just going to have to make your peace with that.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 09:33:57 AM
QuoteA Kingdom needs a powerful King or Queen who is not replaced on a fixed schedule
A Republic desires a less powerful leader (whatever you call it) who is replaced on a fixed schedule (and might even have term limits)
This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.
No, it's his opinion. While I appreciate your fierce passion for parsing language, he is certainly entitled to present his opinion of what a kingdom needs. He's not "lying" about what he thinks a king must be or what a kingdom must be.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 10:49:13 AM
A colloquial "definition," not a formal one. That should be obvious at this point.
[...]
Like, I understand your point: in poli sci those are just arbitrary titles that don't signify any particular mechanisms of government or expectations of authority/role. But clearly they do to most people, and I think you're just going to have to make your peace with that.
Until you or anyone else can explain to me what this obvious colloquial meaning of "king" is that most people apparently share, statements like these mean nothing to me. I am evidently not part of that majority, you got to help me out here. If you want to of course.
Besides, I'm not even overly attached to the HC, and neither am I a Republican. The HC was my idea, yes, and I explained my reasons for that in this thread. Should it be rejected in another referendum, I won't mind.
What I do mind is when people misuse terms for potentially insincere reasons. Objections to the HC are perfectly reasonable (my ideas arent usually that great), but please spare me the theatrics and the label stuff. This thread started off as a colourful creative way of insulting and attacking supporters of the HC, instead of arguing about the HC itself. A simple "I don't like the Historic Compromise and here's why:" list wouldve been infinitely better.
QuoteNo, it's his opinion. While I appreciate your fierce passion for parsing language, he is certainly entitled to present his opinion of what a kingdom needs. He's not "lying" about what he thinks a king must be or what a kingdom must be.
Of course he is entitled to his opinion, and I didnt say he is lying about what he thinks. But in that case he shouldnt phrase his opinions as if they were facts, that could lead to misunderstandings should pedants (such as myself) get involved. Not a demand (Im not in the position to demand anything from anyone, anyway), just a suggestion.
While youre at it, if you could also explain what you mean by "fierce passion for parsing language" means as well, that would be great. Otherwise I have to assume; phrasing like these give me the shivvies.
Yes, I think lowering the temperature of this conversation would be good. I apologize if I've been curt or circuitous.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 11:17:06 AM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 10:49:13 AM
A colloquial "definition," not a formal one. That should be obvious at this point.
[...]
Like, I understand your point: in poli sci those are just arbitrary titles that don't signify any particular mechanisms of government or expectations of authority/role. But clearly they do to most people, and I think you're just going to have to make your peace with that.
Until you or anyone else can explain to me what this obvious colloquial meaning of "king" is that most people apparently share, statements like these mean nothing to me. I am evidently not part of that majority, you got to help me out here. If you want to of course.
100% fair. I believe XPB mentioned this a little bit, but it's worth unpacking since it relies a little bit on an Americentric sort of view, I think? Not sure. For me (and I think for XPB) a king signifies someone who wields some significant power but is not subject to partisan politics or elections for the most part, even if their powers are significantly constrained by checks or balances placed elsewhere in the system. Obviously, we're a democracy, so even the king is ultimately going to be subject to the people in a larger way -- it only takes a single referendum to boot them and replace them. You're completely right when you point out that this isn't the poli-sci understanding of king, since that label doesn't mean any of those things in any strict way. But this is what I think and how I think a lot of people take it.
Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 11:17:06 AM
Of course he is entitled to his opinion, and I didnt say he is lying about what he thinks. But in that case he shouldnt phrase his opinions as if they were facts, that could lead to misunderstandings should pedants (such as myself) get involved. Not a demand (Im not in the position to demand anything from anyone, anyway), just a suggestion.
While youre at it, if you could also explain what you mean by "fierce passion for parsing language" means as well, that would be great. Otherwise I have to assume; phrasing like these give me the shivvies.
Making an emphatic statement about expectations and norms seems very reasonable, although I'm sorry that it might cause confusion. In fairness, though, I'm not sure most people approach this from the standpoint of the technical definitions.
When I say I admire your passion for parsing language, I'm saying I admire your dedication to being exact about phrasing and words. I've noticed it before when it comes to our discussions about the referendum, when you made your points cogently and with excellent precision.
I apologize for confusions or problems caused by metaphor or localisms; we have an international community and this stuff happens, but I admit to my privileged position in our country as an American-Talossan. I should try to imitate some of your exactness, but I don't have a scientific bent to my thoughts, usually.
Yes, in case it was not clear, Balançeu / Balance supports a dynastic monarchy with only occasional, exceptional, unscheduled changes.
You can also reach the party at balanceubalance@gmail.com or +1 (414) 253-3643 for voicemail or text. (edited to add +1)