Anyone who deviates from the template is reviled. The smallest physical flaw and they're banished from society, and anyone who displays behaviour deemed out of character or un-Rimmerlike is punished by death.
LISTER:
Is that why no-one on the planet is brave, sexy, noble or charming?
RIMMER:
All crimes here.
CAT:
Man. I must be Public Enemy numbers one, two and three.
KRYTEN:
But sir, don't they realise the only way any society can evolve is through mutations in the gene pool. When there is no richness or variety, congenital disorders and inherited lunacy are commonplace. Who can forget the famously insane European monarchies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Well see, they came up with this thing called "democracy" which has its own problems, sure, but that's the general trend for nations today and I don't see why the U.K. insists on being all 13th-century by having a useless monarchy. I think they just exist for the tabloids to write about.
Here in the states we don't have a royal family, so the tabloids write about people like, uh, the Kardashians and stuff.
i think a lot of people feel that way, even in Britain. i kind of wish this wasn't the case, honestly. They're a big part of our history and our traditions, and the idea of us becoming a republic is distasteful to me. We'd have to change our name and everything, and a lot of aspects of our culture would have to change radically or fall apart.
The Queen seems like a mostly OK person, and i still think George VI was pretty great. Queen Vicky was pretty bastardly, but i don't think her having been an important leader is in much dispute.
Well see, they came up with this thing called "democracy" which has its own problems, sure, but that's the general trend for nations today and I don't see why the U.K. insists on being all 13th-century by having a useless monarchy. I think they just exist for the tabloids to write about.
Well see, they came up with this thing called "democracy" which has its own problems, sure, but that's the general trend for nations today and I don't see why the U.K. insists on being all 13th-century by having a useless monarchy. I think they just exist for the tabloids to write about.
All 13th century??
What do you mean by that?
I mean hopelessly behind the times.
I suppose that it is a big part of the British culture, which wouldn't matter much to me, being American and all...
i think a lot of people feel that way, even in Britain. i kind of wish this wasn't the case, honestly. They're a big part of our history and our traditions, and the idea of us becoming a republic is distasteful to me. We'd have to change our name and everything, and a lot of aspects of our culture would have to change radically or fall apart.
The Queen seems like a mostly OK person, and i still think George VI was pretty great. Queen Vicky was pretty bastardly, but i don't think her having been an important leader is in much dispute.
I kind of get where you're coming from.
We have a territory called Puerto Rico. It's part of the US, it's subject to our laws, but it doesn't want to become a state. Becoming a state would mean changing the official language to English, and a lot of other things that they don't want to change.
Well, OK for a sinister grinning zombie with an iPod, i mean.
Being a 13th century monarchy would presumably involve absolute rule, theocracy and possibly also the occasional act of genocide (which afaik didn't happen then, but happened before and arguably since). Additionally, the Queen's English would be French, which would just be weird.
Pomegranates are officially my favorite fruit ever.
I could eat those tiny seeds forever.
I am happy.
About monarchy: I think that having the current British monarchy 1) distracts the Tabloids from Parliament, thus making politics less inane 2) provides a good reason to keep the crown jewels and the swords of Mercy, Spiritual Justice, Temporal Justice, and State 3) creates a sense of continuity and consistency that is sometimes missing in democracy.
Well see, they came up with this thing called "democracy" which has its own problems, sure, but that's the general trend for nations today and I don't see why the U.K. insists on being all 13th-century by having a useless monarchy. I think they just exist for the tabloids to write about.
All 13th century??
What do you mean by that?
I mean hopelessly behind the times.
But but the constitutional monarchy thing only started after George the Fifth threatened to stuff the Lords with Liberals
We have a territory called Puerto Rico. It's part of the US, it's subject to our laws, but it doesn't want to become a state. Becoming a state would mean changing the official language to English, and a lot of other things that they don't want to change.
Yeah, kind of like that, i guess.
i thought a significant number of Puerto Ricans recently voted in favour of statehood, though? Although i understand that it's a controversial suggestion.
i think a lot of people feel that way, even in Britain. i kind of wish this wasn't the case, honestly. They're a big part of our history and our traditions, and the idea of us becoming a republic is distasteful to me. We'd have to change our name and everything, and a lot of aspects of our culture would have to change radically or fall apart.
The Queen seems like a mostly OK person, and i still think George VI was pretty great. Queen Vicky was pretty bastardly, but i don't think her having been an important leader is in much dispute.
I kind of get where you're coming from.
We have a territory called Puerto Rico. It's part of the US, it's subject to our laws, but it doesn't want to become a state. Becoming a state would mean changing the official language to English, and a lot of other things that they don't want to change.
Puerto Rico's assorted opinions on the subject seem to have very little to do with whether or not it will ever become a state.
They're waiting for Congress' approval, aren't they? Which doesn't appear close to being a priority.
But unlike the Puerto Rico statehood thing, i'm not even sure what practical gains we would make from becoming a republic, whereas the disadvantages (in terms of tourism and heritage in particular) are obvious.
BTW, if you're browsing at work, don't click off of this article to look at the whole blog. There's a nude picture in there.
Isn't the identification of Harman's Heideggerian influence with fascism dubious, if not outright fallacious, though? His ontology is not intrinsically linked to his political views.
And i mean, Heidegger is unfortunately unavoidable, isn't he? Like, as a lit student, i don't see how i can really ignore Heidegger when so much of the thinking on language and culture that came since was either influenced by or in reaction to his views.
I feel bad for posting this, DO NOT READ but years ago, two parents went out for dinner. A few hours later, the babysitter was calling to ask if she could cover up the clown statue in the kids' room, the father said,"Take the kids and get out of the house. We'll call the police, we don't have a clown statue." The "clown statue" is really a killer that escaped from jail. If you don't post this letter on to 10 videos tonight, the clown will be in your bed at 3:00 am with a chainsaw in his hand
I feel bad for posting this, DO NOT READ but years ago, two parents went out for dinner. A few hours later, the babysitter was calling to ask if she could cover up the clown statue in the kids' room, the father said,"Take the kids and get out of the house. We'll call the police, we don't have a clown statue." The "clown statue" is really a killer that escaped from jail. If you don't post this letter on to 10 videos tonight, the clown will be in your bed at 3:00 am with a chainsaw in his hand
Comments
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
It would be totes awesome if she did btw.
There, I said it
But whatevs
Here in the states we don't have a royal family, so the tabloids write about people like, uh, the Kardashians and stuff.
The Queen seems like a mostly OK person, and i still think George VI was pretty great. Queen Vicky was pretty bastardly, but i don't think her having been an important leader is in much dispute.
What do you mean by that? The tabloids here write about the Kardashians too /sadfaec
I suppose that it is a big part of the British culture, which wouldn't matter much to me, being American and all...
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
We have a territory called Puerto Rico. It's part of the US, it's subject to our laws, but it doesn't want to become a state. Becoming a state would mean changing the official language to English, and a lot of other things that they don't want to change.
Being a 13th century monarchy would presumably involve absolute rule, theocracy and possibly also the occasional act of genocide (which afaik didn't happen then, but happened before and arguably since). Additionally, the Queen's English would be French, which would just be weird.
I could eat those tiny seeds forever.
I am happy.
About monarchy: I think that having the current British monarchy 1) distracts the Tabloids from Parliament, thus making politics less inane 2) provides a good reason to keep the crown jewels and the swords of Mercy, Spiritual Justice, Temporal Justice, and State 3) creates a sense of continuity and consistency that is sometimes missing in democracy.
Yeah, kind of like that, i guess.
i thought a significant number of Puerto Ricans recently voted in favour of statehood, though? Although i understand that it's a controversial suggestion.
But unlike the Puerto Rico statehood thing, i'm not even sure what practical gains we would make from becoming a republic, whereas the disadvantages (in terms of tourism and heritage in particular) are obvious.
BTW, if you're browsing at work, don't click off of this article to look at the whole blog. There's a nude picture in there.
And i mean, Heidegger is unfortunately unavoidable, isn't he? Like, as a lit student, i don't see how i can really ignore Heidegger when so much of the thinking on language and culture that came since was either influenced by or in reaction to his views.