Squirrels supporting a Wolf vs Hamsters with a leashed Chihuahua

[xpb]

[xpb]

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

A fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Balançéu tendency of monarchists

[xpb]

A fascinating glimpse into the mind of the Balançéu tendency of monarchists

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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?

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

<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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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!

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."

I also noticed that the "uniqueness" argument has been silently dropped entirely. Why would that be?

Which argument?  Not sure what you mean.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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.

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.

In very recent history, as well.

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."

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.

Which argument?  Not sure what you mean.

Specifically this (emphasis mine):

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

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.

In very recent history, as well.

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."

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.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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.

[xpb]

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)

[Ian Plätschisch]

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).

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

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?

I 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.

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.

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:

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 is also GOP-like, 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. 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.

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)

This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.

[xpb]

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.