Yeah, I can see that. As a principle, I agree with it, but I’ll put it behind (or maybe on-par with) the principle of identify and embarass fascists at every opportunity.

I see your point, though I don’t think there are many people who would see this and think “oh wow, he did a nazi salute? Oh…he didn’t? Well now I don’t trust the people saying he’s a fascist.” If a person can’t see his actions and words from what they are I don’t think we’re winning them over anyway.

I agree with all that, I guess I just don’t see it as a problem!

He’s a dick but also a fascist so…I don’t know what’s disingenuous about it?

I’ve never really watched the guy, so I have no dog in this fight. That’s definitely a dumb-as-nails take. Not anything I wouldn’t expect from someone born to moderate wealth running a company, but not especially malicious.

Hey, can you say more about the Linux install party? I’d be interested in hosting something like that! Did you find or make any resources to help?

Also, a tremendous game. A work of art!

It really is just good! I haven’t started using it full-time but I keep thinking I should try it at least for a bit.

for sure for sure, would never hold my own jank against the software lol just how life circumstances go sometimes!

We’ll see if I can get it running, my only personal machine right now is an old laptop running linux so I’ll have to try WINE…if it works at least you’ll know the basics are real solid to work even emulating windows on old hardware :P

This is an extremely cool concept; I hope to be able to give it a shot soon!!!

If I’ve never played a megaman game, is megaman zero a good place to start?

I tried battle network and thought it was real neat. Would be happy to get abck into it but I understand it’s not really a “megaman” game

Lol, I just recognized the name from spending ages discussing the monarchy with this guy. Seeing this post I checked his other comments; jeeeeeeeesus.

Yeah i heard that after posting this! I’ve also heard that archinstall is pretty user-friendly, really! Do you have any thoughts about that?

I remember you saying it might be easier to stick with Mint, which may very well be what i do!

Thanks for the reply

Hey that’s me!

lol, this conversation has gone a long way

You’re arguing the king is a non-entity, but a king is inevitable? Most people in most places throughout history have lived without one. If you want to look at “civilizations,” the Roman Republic and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy come to mind immediately.

And come on, are you serious? The King endorses genocide and imperialist looting by wearing “his” regalia. All the royal symbols are stolen from the people slaughtered by the monarchy. He could return all the symbols and keep all the wealth…would cost him nothing…good PR even! (I’d still say all of the wealth is stolen and should be given away to help people in the places his ancestors colonized…but luckily he’s saved me the trouble by showing he doesn’t care enough to even give up the symbols)

Mark Carney isn’t the right comparison. The office of Prime Minister is the right comparison to the monarchy, and it’s (at least theoretically) representative.

It’s not the family I care about, it’s the institution. This is like arguing that the KKK hasn’t lynched anyone lately…so can we really hold the institution responsible for the crimes of the people in its past? Like…it’s an institution. OF COURSE we can hold it responsible for the things it does. Every Windsor has the right and ability (and obligation) to abdicate. Children of KKK members also have the right and ability and obligation to leave the organization. I don’t think that’s really an appropriate comparison, the scale of the monarchy’s atrocities is beyond compare. I assume we don’t need to get into ennumerating the crimes of the monarchy, but if you don’t know that we’re talking about a 9-figure scale, we can talk about that more.

If the king abdicated I would applaud him. If he gave away every penny of the royal family’s wealth and then abdicated I’d bow before him, kiss his feet, beg the honor to host him in my home, if he was deprived I’d do my best to feed and house and clothe him myself. I’d be so proud of him, proud that a fellow human being should have that moral fortitude and courage. It’s not him or his bloodline that counts (except to the institution), it’s the institution that’s the problem. FWIW I’d gladly have Harry over for dinner, even though he’s done some half-assed-in-between thing. Good enough for me, given that he’s not the monarch. I don’t hate him because of his Windsor blood. Anyway the king would never do that, so whatever.

I’m not totally clear…you’re acting as if the king does have power, and provides some kind of a-political stability…but earlier you were saying he has no power? If you want him to have no power…why leave him with power? Just take it away. Make the Prime Minister a truly elected position, and have the prime minister actually appoint the Governor General…it’ll work the same as always, but we escape relying on norms, leaving a constitutional crisis sitting there like a chekov’s gun. I still really don’t understand how you don’t see that latent crisis as a problem. You seem to be saying it couldn’t possibly happen (it happened in australia, and again I don’t think we’d ever know the crown was involved if not for the palace letters) and if it’s not impossible it’s easy to handle (it wasn’t easy in australia - they literally just let the monarch dissolve their democratically elected parliament and appoint someone she liked as prime minister. There were massive protests but in the end everyone moved on…you’d say they were weak-willed I guess? Are we weak willed for not immediately pulling the plug upon seeing that?). PLUS we get to separate ourselves from one of the most horrifically murderous institutions in human history? PLUS 64% of Canadians want to abolish the monarchy so it’s inherently desirable? What’s not to love?

It would not take any work to remove the King…at least a lot less work than declaring a GST holiday or whatever. That takes real work. I can write the law right now: “the Queen of Canada is deemed to be a natural person that is not any existing natural person, and is deemed to exercise authority granted to her under statutes of Canada in accordance with a written request of the Prime Minister, published in the Canada Gazette” Boom, done! This would let all other laws in Canada work precisely as they already do, without amendment. The only thing that would change is who the prime minister addresses his “suggestions” to. I wouldn’t mind doing the same thing to the governor general, but that might be a bit more complicated in the handoff between prime ministers, so maybe we just leave it as-is. There is an existing proposal before the HOC that’s a bit more complicated, but whatever.

And look, I’m obviously not saying America is any better, the U.S. is a fascist hellscape despite not having a king, and despite having a relatively robust constitution (things are better here but I don’t think it’s because we don’t have a robust constitution). I’m not sure if you think I’m saying America is any better…

All I’m saying is, Canada would be better than it is.

And won’t that make you feel like a MAN!? HELL yeah!

lol no way bro. There’s nothing more productive that an overengineered overpriced overpowered tool of destruction!

slaps roof of f-15 this baby here can fit so much omnicide in it.

As I said, I think the “jungle vs civilization” analogy is a little weird. I don’t think laws create civilization. But I do think laws matter for fascists. If they didn’t they wouldn’t need to pack the supreme court. Project 2025 wouldn’t be so focused on laws and the judiciary. They’re not meaningless…at the edge of the jungle? I guess? in this analogy?

So, when you talk about people being weak willed, you’re saying that a fascist coming to power is a kind of personal moral failing of the individuals in a society. I think that’s pretty absurd, and takes all responsibility away from the systems that shape people’s “willpower,” as well as their understanding of what is and is not overreach. If that’s true then there’s just nothing to be done? Just let the fascists have all the places with people who have weak wills? lol

Okay, so I don’t know why you will not engage with a hypothetical as a means of seeing the problem I’m talking about. Obviously the king isn’t going to upset the balance of power in the Commonwealth for his vacation home in quebec…if you can’t generalize that to something more important (such as, in Australia, the cold war), then there’s no point in talking about hypothetical situations…the point is to generalize from them. But that’s fine, it doesn’t really matter.

And for what it’s worth, his cushy life isn’t going anywhere whether the commonwealth crumbles or not. The king of england could cease to be the king of canada and it wouldn’t cost him anything (except, I guess, a vacation home in quebec he never uses). I’d be thrilled if the UK decides to guillotine them, but they won’t and I guess I have to make peace with that.

I’m not proposing replacing the king, I’m proposing kicking the king out. Just don’t have a king. If we must have a king, I would prefer to have a Canadian monarch and to stop legitimizing the genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles in the house of windsor…but I don’t see that we need a king. We could still just have a governor general appointed by the PM…make the system actually and definitely work the way you say it works (and I agree it works 99% of the time…but why the fuck are we leaving 1% on the table just to glorify those assholes? Like…we know it doesn’t work that way 100% of the time given the handful of examples I’ve shared).

Honestly though, why? Like…I haven’t seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?

But hey, on the plus side, that means US tax dollars will have to be spent replacing these planes and that will increase GDP!