• A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    Also Charles is a King in title only. Hes a tourist attraction. He has no real power.

    Unlike what Trump is trying to do/become.

  • Jax@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    They literally clapped while King Charles fucking dunked on them, the conservatives I mean.

    These people just believe whatever the fuck they want. I could convince them that Jesus was actually a mass murderer and they’d be all for it as long as the victims were brown.

  • Sassington@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    Y’all are letting the other side control the narrative, don’t talk about King Charles - focus on Donald trying to be a Monarch/Dictator.

    They want you to have their bad faith argument so you don’t talk about the actions of Trump.

    • orioler25@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      It is actually very relevant to talk about the performative actions liberals take to “challenge” authoritarianism while legitimizing their own claim to power. Liberals have mostly criticized Trump for the disgraceful or embarrassing presentation of his administration, not with critiques on the fundamental immorality of hierarchal and inequal systems of power.

      To present someone respectful (classy, polite, civil, etc.) as legitimate is in fact an effective way to redirect systemic criticism into individual criticism. Democrats will not discard whatever authoritarian policies Trump’s admin succeeds in implementing, as they didn’t from Bush or even Trump’s previous admin.

  • orioler25@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Is this meant to argue that it isn’t a sign of disingenuous values for “anti-authoritarians” to recognize and legitimise a literal monarchy (no matter how “ceremonial” it is)? Democrats are very much not against dictatorial rule, they’ve been complicit in its enforcement all over the world and have participated in its construction in the US (even if you want to think this is something new).

  • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    there where protests before his coronation, one dude was arrested for holding a sign as well. No one in a dck suit though from memory, apart from him of course ;)

    anyway, fuck that guy as well.

  • ghaydn@lemmy.4d2.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Initially they said “US is not UK, it has no kings”. It implies “UK is not US, it has kings”.

    • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      Multiple times. They’re either being purposely obtuse, or genuinely don’t get it.

      I’m guessing the latter.

      • someguy3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        There is a large segment of the population that wants a King to rule them. It’s what makes sense to their brain, so they project.

      • x00z@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        They just need to keep the propaganda machine running. It doesn’t have to make sense for critical thinkers, as those are not the audience they want.

      • notwhoyouthink@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Not only this but their dear leader keeps commenting on it like it’s literal. He’s actually said something to the effect of ‘They call me a king, idk, I don’t think I’m a king’.

        I believe it’s all the reasons you listed, it’s combination idiocy and mixed with ‘pwn the liburuls’.

        Can’t apply reason where there isn’t any to start with, I always say.

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    8 days ago

    I kinda think this is a valid point.

    Firstly, “No Kings” was always a bit of a piss-weak euphemism. It clearly means No Dictators, but that’s too strong language for dems and casts uncomfortably truthful light on the system they want to be in charge of.

    Secondly, don’t give a standing ovation to an unelected monarch. Just don’t. He uttered the words “checks and balances”. So what? We have literal concentration camps and no rule of law. A child rapist and a pack of drunk nazis openly loot the public purse. We’re way past checks and balances.

    This is yet another example of the dems failing to understand the political moment.

      • Hegar@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        I have heard local organizers expressing frustration at the firm grip of democratic party insiders on messaging, goals and other decision making.

    • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      The general populace doesn’t understand the political moment so idk why youre complaining about the minority party they didn’t bother giving any power to.

      • Hegar@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        He has very little formal power, just wealth, status, connections, titles, fame, ceremonial power, large property holdings and public funding.

        His brother is one of the world’s most famous child rapists, a key player in the trump-epstein trafficking ring and his dad was an outspoken racist.

        The optics of dems giving a standing ovation to an unelected monarch while we suffer under authoritarian rule are not good.

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    lol. Imagine the democratic house just losing their shit, booing and hissing whenever a monarchy figure from another nation visits.

    That would be, by definition, replublican af.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      Ok that would be unwise foreign policy but based as fuck. Just yell “send us one of your elected officials”. Hell, we could bar all nobility from entering our country without renouncing their title. Inconvenient as fuck, would piss off so many countries, but it would be incredibly cool

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        I wouldn’t just bar them from entry. I would flat-out make it a capital offense for any monarch or hereditary noble to set foot in US territory. This land should be unsullied by the stench of kings. Any that dare come here should forfeit their life. I consider being a king to be a worse crime than being a serial killer.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    I would oppose King-What’s-His-Name being ‘King of the US’ just as much as I oppose trump’s bullshit.

    just saying, we don’t have kings here, and frankly the visiting one can go back to where he came from.

    • auntieclokwise@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 days ago

      The other thing is that the king of England isn’t really a real king. These days, it’s basically a ceremonial position more than anything and doesn’t have a whole lot of real power.

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Make no mistake, these still aren’t good people. The modern ‘constitutional’ monarchs have not changed from the days of their ancestors. They’re quietly waiting on the sidelines, just waiting for the day that democracy stumbles. The minute there’s any crisis of confidence, or both parties are hopelessly unpopular, or there’s some massive outside threat? The monarch hopes to be there to swing in and reclaim full power.

        The French had the right idea on how to deal with kings. Being a monarch is a crime against humanity.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    8 days ago

    Also the actual literal King of the UK has less power in the UK than Trump does in the US and is very specifically not above the law like Trump is.

    • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Ah, well, y’see technically he’s got a fuckton of power, but the deal is he doesn’t use it or the monarchy is fucked. He is also quite specifically above the law.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 days ago

        No, he is very very VERY specifically not above the law. The trial and execution of Charles I is a pretty major point in British history. Establishing the king is not above the law and parliament is sovereign.

        • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          From the wiki page on sovereign immunity: Sovereign immunity

          As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in respect of acts carried on by or on behalf of the British government, the monarch remains personally immune from criminal and civil actions.[45]

          I’ve tried to find something that contradicts this but I can’t.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        he doesn’t use it or the monarchy is fucked

        That is the same as not having power.

  • deft@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    This is so stupid. Like people trying to call Dems the BLM party

    Voters =/= political parties. Voters created the no king protest, voters created black lives matter.

    Dems are parasites who act like they’re involved

  • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Most of them look like they honestly don’t give a shit. I see one guy who looks enthused.

    Also, “No Kings” means “The United States of America has no kings.” It bears no relevance to our diplomatic relations with monarchical states.