keltoi Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Oh, poor them. They are born into absolute wealth, something which they have not necessarily "earned". Their contributions are charitable to an extent, but I'm sure if ANYONE were given the wealth they had, EVERYONE would be doing charitable work without a doubt. So you acknowledge that their role in society is minimal, and a mere "cherry on top" - why do we need them then? To keep a nonsensical, expensive "play" going, as you call it? Does not make any sense, and if people rationalise this through emotions, and "loving" the Royal Family, then the argument being proposed is even more weak because emotions are subjective as we all know. These emotions are not shared by everyone. The paparazzi-point was not to generate sympathy for them. It says more about the huge interest there is into anything related to the royal family. It's a real world soap. And it's obviously hugely popular, apart from a couple of people who see it as some form of elitism. So yeah, make your point and feel morally superior about it. It's just another kind of elitism you're introducing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest couch Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't really care much for the wedding or the people involved in it. I don't even know their names off the top of my head. But it is nice to know that the mainstream media is focusing on something positive, instead of all the angsty fear mongering programing that is their SOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Oh, poor them. They are born into absolute wealth, something which they have not necessarily "earned". Their contributions are charitable to an extent, but I'm sure if ANYONE were given the wealth they had, EVERYONE would be doing charitable work without a doubt. So you acknowledge that their role in society is minimal, and a mere "cherry on top" - why do we need them then? To keep a nonsensical, expensive "play" going, as you call it? Does not make any sense, and if people rationalise this through emotions, and "loving" the Royal Family, then the argument being proposed is even more weak because emotions are subjective as we all know. These emotions are not shared by everyone. The paparazzi-point was not to generate sympathy for them. It says more about the huge interest there is into anything related to the royal family. It's a real world soap. And it's obviously hugely popular, apart from a couple of people who see it as some form of elitism. So yeah, make your point and feel morally superior about it. It's just another kind of elitism you're introducing. so whenever someone brings up a point, it is elitist? I'm not imposing myself on anyone here - you can read what I post and make what you will out of it... The Royal Family impose themselves onto the taxpayer however, with no choice from any member of the public over this. If you enjoy watching wealthy unelected people go about their business, good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Oh, poor them. They are born into absolute wealth, something which they have not necessarily "earned". Their contributions are charitable to an extent, but I'm sure if ANYONE were given the wealth they had, EVERYONE would be doing charitable work without a doubt. So you acknowledge that their role in society is minimal, and a mere "cherry on top" - why do we need them then? To keep a nonsensical, expensive "play" going, as you call it? Does not make any sense, and if people rationalise this through emotions, and "loving" the Royal Family, then the argument being proposed is even more weak because emotions are subjective as we all know. These emotions are not shared by everyone. The paparazzi-point was not to generate sympathy for them. It says more about the huge interest there is into anything related to the royal family. It's a real world soap. And it's obviously hugely popular, apart from a couple of people who see it as some form of elitism. So yeah, make your point and feel morally superior about it. It's just another kind of elitism you're introducing. so whenever someone brings up a point, it is elitist? I'm not imposing myself on anyone here - you can read what I post and make what you will out of it... The Royal Family impose themselves onto the taxpayer however, with no choice from any member of the public over this. If you enjoy watching wealthy unelected people go about their business, good for you. No. But if you write "If we want progression, outdated structures should be questioned. I don't know about you but I want to live in a society where elitism is a thing of the past, and equality throughout is promoted in all areas.", the subtext is all the people interested into the royal family support outdated elitist structures and are against progression. That doesn't sound like you can have a lot of respect for people who support the 'play'. To my eyes this is elitism. This is not about the validity of your reasoning, because the validity is obvious, imo. But what's also obvious is there's lots of people who still support the other side. Probably most of those taxpayers you're referring to. Inequality is here to stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Oh, poor them. They are born into absolute wealth, something which they have not necessarily "earned". Their contributions are charitable to an extent, but I'm sure if ANYONE were given the wealth they had, EVERYONE would be doing charitable work without a doubt. So you acknowledge that their role in society is minimal, and a mere "cherry on top" - why do we need them then? To keep a nonsensical, expensive "play" going, as you call it? Does not make any sense, and if people rationalise this through emotions, and "loving" the Royal Family, then the argument being proposed is even more weak because emotions are subjective as we all know. These emotions are not shared by everyone. The paparazzi-point was not to generate sympathy for them. It says more about the huge interest there is into anything related to the royal family. It's a real world soap. And it's obviously hugely popular, apart from a couple of people who see it as some form of elitism. So yeah, make your point and feel morally superior about it. It's just another kind of elitism you're introducing. Elitism based on merit is fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest futuregirlfriend Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 http://davelee.tumblr.com/post/5011310854/mad-melvin-the-angriest-bbc-local-radio-caller-ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marf Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 +1 for for a baldie gettin the girl. represent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Npoess Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Royal Wedding Hats Are IDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 couldn't resist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I am a working class, British young man. Imagine I fall in love with a princess of the Royal Family, and I propose to her. What is the likelihood of me getting together with this royal, bearing in my mind my background? Let's say I'm not white, and I am black, or asian for instance. What would happen? If the Royal Family represented equality, they would allow such a relatnionship to take place, but I highly doubt they would allow for this to proceed. This is the problem = divisionary notions which are completely imaginary, reinforcing an "I'm better than you" attitude... Even though that couple could genuinely love one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plum Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I am a working class, British young man. Imagine I fall in love with a princess of the Royal Family, and I propose to her. What is the likelihood of me getting together with this royal, bearing in my mind my background? Let's say I'm not white, and I am black, or asian for instance. What would happen? If the Royal Family represented equality, they would allow such a relatnionship to take place, but I highly doubt they would allow for this to proceed. This is the problem = divisionary notions which are completely imaginary, reinforcing an "I'm better than you" attitude... Even though that couple could genuinely love one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I am a working class, British young man. Imagine I fall in love with a princess of the Royal Family, and I propose to her. What is the likelihood of me getting together with this royal, bearing in my mind my background? Let's say I'm not white, and I am black, or asian for instance. What would happen? If the Royal Family represented equality, they would allow such a relatnionship to take place, but I highly doubt they would allow for this to proceed. This is the problem = divisionary notions which are completely imaginary, reinforcing an "I'm better than you" attitude... Even though that couple could genuinely love one another. Wasn't the whole point of this marriage that Kate was not royal, but working class? Sure there is inequality, but i don't think it's as big as you make it to be. Here's a nice article. article on why having a king and queen is not that bad as you make it out to be. Disclaimer: i'm not disagreeing with you, i just think there are far more grays than the black/white picture you portray. Kate Middleton's advance to becoming a princess itself shows that the barriers between the upper middle class – roughly speaking, the 7% of Brits educated at private schools – and the very top have all crumbled. The deep and worsening problem is not there, at the top, but rather in the miserable prospects of social mobility for the majority educated at state schools. This is the thing that most painfully sets Britain, and especially England, apart from other modern European monarchies, such as Sweden, that happily coexist with open, egalitarian societies. This is the true English disease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Disclaimer: i'm not disagreeing with you, i just think there are far more grays than the black/white picture you portray. you've mentioned greys....you'll summon ET now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 ET? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 great, now the thread will be closed :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 All that stood out for me were the funky hats, the rest was boring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 she kinda looks like kate, though. so arguably we're still very much on-topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spratters Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 They do have their good side tho. Think about all the money they put into the country through tourism etc. This wedding alone has foreigners from all over the world attending. Without the royal family we have nothing. It would be interesting to see the difference between the £20 odd million that it's costing us and what is bought into the country from abroad. Never mind the effect that this extra bank holiday has had on small businesses especially. I'm at work today doing absolutly fuck all and taking no money. Together with last weekends losses and the coming Monday as well. Doing this bloody wedding today instead of either tomorrow or Monday just seems like a short minded idea. But I guess the royal lot have no concept of working life and the need to earn money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roasty Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiXQHBeC2dI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I didn't watch it, but some teenage gonk was waving a flag at me on the tube. So tempted to shove it up his bottom but I resisted and posted hate on facebook instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halisray Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Okay first off.. EACH TAXPAYER APYS 69P A YEAR TOWARDS THE ROYAL FAMILY SO JUST RELAX THE FUCK DOWN Second off, me being an expatriate and all, I am very fond of the Monarchy and I found the wedding delightful. I think it is lovely to have a royal family, something that most countries do not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I'd rather spend that 69p on 69 penny sweets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soloman Tump Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Seriously, what the FUCK is this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan C Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 That face is shopped right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.