443
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
443 points (100.0% liked)
World News
39082 readers
2641 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She's right, but outbursts like this are the equivalent of activists throwing paint at the Mona Lisa. It makes that side look petulant and doesn't effect change. If she really wants land and reparations, did she really think this grandstanding was the way to accomplish that goal?
If it made Charles momentarily uncomfortable then that’s enough justification for me.
Royalty should be uncomfortable, either temporarily or permanently
He’s used to it.
I have rarely seen him not acting like he's feeling awkward and uncomfortable.
It's the British way
The time is gone, the song is over
I think she's as fully aware as black and indigenous Americans are that she'll never actually get what she's owed, so she might as well tell the king that's been forced on her people to fuck off.
The news coverage on this was the point. Bringing awareness to her people's situation.
Although its still too damn high, only 50% of British people believe the monarchy thats been forced on us is important.
They are losing the popularity contest here too.
Noone's forcing Charles on Australia. Aussies are generally in favour of becoming a republic, thing is they can't agree on what kind of head of state they want so for the time being it's gonna continue to be the British Monarch.
There's lots to be said about the failure of Australia to properly address indigenous concerns, literally nothing Charles can do about that but be a symbol to throw ire at to get some press coverage. He can't even tell "his government" to deal with the issue, the thing he tells "his government" to do is whatever the government tells him to. They're writing their own marching orders.
The aboriginals who ran the continent for tens of thousands of years before white people took over might disagree with you on that.
Last I checked Australia is independent, and last I checked I also said that Australia has to account for a lot of failures when it comes to addressing indigenous concerns.
Nothing of which has anything to do with Charles who has literally zero power over the situation. I'm pretty much as republican as people can possibly be but let's not blame on powerless monarchs what's actually the fault of elected representatives. Gets into the way of holding them accountable.
No one said he had any power.
That doesn't mean he's deserving of the title of king over the people who's land was taken from them. I'm not sure why you are insisting he is.
I'm not saying he deserves anything I'm saying he has no choice but to be the king, best he could do is abdicate but that only would put his son in the same position. It's up to Australia to abolish the monarchy, not House Windsor.
He could simply not go play king in Australia. If you don't want to be king of a country your ancestors forcibly colonized, you can just not. None of this is an obligation.
No blame on Westminster, at all? Like, we're ignoring that the UK was a (flawed, but still) democracy for most of Australia's colonial period?
And how would him abdicating help the situation in Australia?
He's taken up a duty, and he's fulfilling it. That includes being a symbol, and as such getting attacked for the past and present wrongs of Britain, Australia, etc. Still doesn't make him responsible, though, in precisely the same way that Bugs Bunny is not responsible for the acts of the board of Warner Brothers.
That other villains exist in the story of the British empire doesn't matter to whether he has to play king in Australia. It's not a duty and he's not a put upon civil servant. If he actually agreed that his position was illegitimate he could simply say so and stop performing it, with no meaningful loss to the world. But he's a rich douche who's happy to ride on his inherited privilege and claim to bestow his special personage to people across the world. People calling him illegitimate is the right and proper response to him pretending he has some special place in Australian society.
If Aussies want to get rid of the monarchy then they can. Noone but themselves is stopping them. Until they do, you can't blame the monarchy for not telling its subjects what they're supposed to do with the monarchy. For one simple reason: If the monarchy were to abolish itself it would be committing an undemocratic act.
Best I know according to their legal tradition the monarchy cannot possibly do that, only Parliament can, because only it has the power. Charles himself could abdicate but that would not abolish the monarchy, the title would instead move to the next one in line.
Quiz question: are indigenous people the majority in Australia?
No. There's still a majority for it, though. Why isn't she shouting at the prime minister "you're not my government" is what I'm saying.
You know she can't vote for a king, right?
And the king has no political influence. The gripe of the Aborigines is with the people actually running the country, with (portions of) the prevailing sentiment in the rest of the population, not the king. The king is just a symbol, a mascot, a piece of ceremony, this is like blaming Bugs Bunny that your movie script got refused.
The king didn't make the Voice referendum fail. That was, best I can tell, a mixture of Chinese bot farms and "yep we should do something but this is not it". There's of course also racists around but they would've been drowned out by the rest of the electorate where it not for those factors.
I don't think reconciliation failed, I don't think even the Voice idea failed, but it needs more workshopping, say, having a wider set of established advisory bodies (just spitballing). Over here there's a minority party which is exempt from the electoral threshold, that's another idea. Whether Australia is a monarchy or republic has quite literally nothing to do with that, it's an orthogonal issue.
...and how come I'm the fucking only one in this thread actually talking about aboriginal rights? Why's everyone so fucking focussed on the monarchy thing, at the expense of those issues?
I don't know. How come you're one of the fucking only ones who doesn't understand colonial symbolism?
You can always blame the monarchy for perpetuating the monarchy. "They didn't, as a whole, proactively reject our bullshit" doesn't mean they have to keep doing the bullshit. Everyone has agency, stop pretending one of the richest and most privileged people in the world just doesn't have any other choice.
He doesn't have to abdicate, he can just stop pretending he's special. Tell them "no thank you, I don't think my role as king of a colony is appropriate". Let's see that democracy you think loves monarchy pass a measure to depose an absent king and choose a successor. The monarchy exists because people are lazy and just let it keep existing, not because they're deeply devoted to maintaining this dumb farce. But he's not going to do that, not because he cares about democracy, but because he believes he's special and is happy to tour "his" colonies.
The crown is not a person, it cannot choose anything. As said: If Charles abdicates, Parliament will just recognise the next in line (William) as King. And push come to shove there's no end to that line.
First off, Australia is not a colony, it is an independent Kingdom. Secondly, it'd still be up to Australia to then abolish the monarchy, or force-retire him for behaviour unbefitting for a king and go with William, or whatever.
Then blame the people. Blame them for being lazy. Blame them for not agreeing. But why blame a monarch for not needlessly causing a constitutional crisis? He's a mascot, he's doing his job just as in other countries a President is doing their job, and when you compare what he says and does before and after coronation it also becomes obvious that he's playing a role. He literally shut up about absolutely everything ever since he got that crown.
And yet he's still not their king.
They are not independent. They are under the rule of the crown. 4-5 years ago the governor of Australia, who reports to the crown, dissolved parliament.
The G-G dissolves parliament every time the Prime Minister (PM) advises them to do so. I think you don't grok the situation here, constitutionally speaking.
He dissolved parliament based on what rules written by whom, on whose orders?
Hint hint: Based on the Australian constitution, written by Australians, on the order (well, "advice", same thing in this case) of the Australian Prime Minister.
Curious about how many of those are indigenous Australians...
It's a majority either way.
He is an extraordinarily wealthy man who has a platform that many will listen to. He can do a lot on his own to change things. Yeah, he doesn't control the government, but do you think anyone has ever accomplished anything who doesn't? Obviously havi g the government do what you wish on a whim is not the only method to get things done. Many have accomplished more good than him with less.
And he did quite some of that indeed before his coronation. Couldn't shut up, some would say. Among other things, he's never been opposed to Australian republicanism. Now he's bound to protocol, and the protocol says that the King is not to voice any even remotely political opinion whatsoever. He can comment on how nice the food was, that's about it.
Regarding wealth he's something like the 2000th wealthiest person on earth. Theoretically, can't find him on the billionaire list though he reportedly just about makes it. Lots of people have inherited more money and done way worse with it. I don't think it should be possible to inherit that kind of fortune but that applies in general, not just to monarchs.
Your comment about wealth seems to be dismissive. Sure, many people have more and do worse. That's not an argument saying he can't do more. That's only an argument that he could do less also. He can obviously do more. Saying one thing is worse than another thing doesn't excuse either. Both can and should improve.
I don't know about the laws surrounding him as monarch. Maybe you're right that he can't say anything. I don't believe this is totally true because the monarchs platform people frequently. Maybe they aren't supposed to, but they obviously can do more than just keep quite. He could invite this woman to a state dinner, for example, and give her more of a platform. There are many options available. He is not powerless to do anything.
No, not the plastic sheeting in front of the Mona Lisa! It'll take minutes for a janitor the come wipe that off.
I think the whole point of acts like you describe show how you (people) care more about a painting than the continual ravaging of life on this planet by those who seek wealth and power.
What does the Mona Lisa matter when more and more of the worlds population is scrapping to survive under constant threat of environmental and economic collapse and war brought on by the people who host and visit such works of art.
The problem is that it doesn't help their cause in the least. If anything, it damages it. To onlookers, it makes supporters of the cause look crazy and makes them easier to dismiss by opposition.
Climate change is a very serious problem that requires billions of people working together to solve. Culturally significant objects being vandalised is a much less serious problem but it also only requires a few individuals to not do what they have done to become a non-issue.
By all means, protest polluters, badger policymakers, and argue in forums. But if you start being annoying to people equally as powerless to effect meaningful change you're only going to make people less likely to listen to you.
Whew thank you. You're the only person in this thread that has actually made good points about your opinion, instead of trying to be snarky or clever with one-liners. I'm in almost total agreement with you, although I still won't condemn those types of protests. I think they are probably more harmful than useful, but I understand the place it comes from is one of frustration with the absolute ridiculousness of our world and the powers that run it. I sympathize with those types of protesters, and what I assume is their frustration with the ineffectiveness of bottom-up solutions (to me, preferred) in the face of mass contributors to the problem -- heads of government, corporations, etc.
Once again thanks for the actual good-faith and thoughtful response.
You're right, that's why thanks to those brave protesters, climate change is now a thing of the past! Oh, wait...
TIL activists have to achieve their goals in a single act.
Gee, thanks. We need people to actually do something tangible and useful, not teenage histrionics directed at completely irrelevant things. For example, I volunteer with a group that recently obtained protection for a large wetland in my area. That's something that directly impacts climate change and biodiversity. I also volunteer with my local green party which has successfully passed several pieces of environmental protection legislation. What have you personally done to help other than whine online and throw paint at inanimate objects?
Edit: phew a lot of folks here get really mad when told that crying online won't fix things.
Wow you're so great! thanks to you, climate change is now a thing of the past! Oh, wait…
(obviously, in jest. that's great you do that. You probably should've said something like that to begin with)
Cool strawman, that isn't why they did it, or relevant.
Muh civility