• 0 Posts
  • 91 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2025

help-circle








  • SaltSong@startrek.websitetoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world[Deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.

    And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.

    your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say

    So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?


  • SaltSong@startrek.websitetoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world[Deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.

    But I’m with you. No kings.

    As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.

    They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.

    We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.



  • SaltSong@startrek.websitetoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world[Deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 days ago

    A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn’t automatically mean “powerless figurehead.”

    Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.

    Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word “training” to make it fit that sentence above.



  • I’m not a huge fan of intrinsically connecting medication for sexual function with medication for gender-affirming care.

    If that were the case, then bottom-surgery wouldn’t be gender affirming care either.

    Or maybe I’m just misunderstanding the entire concept. To date, I’ve never seen a single concrete statement on the topic that doesn’t upset someone (discounting bloody right-wingers for whom the entire concept is upsetting, bless their hearts) because it somehow invalidates someone else.

    However, we seem to be in agreement that these people are raging assholes, and that’s the important takeaway.