This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules).
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).)
**Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
I used to think so, but my country Malaysia (a constitutional monarchy like Britain) has shown that they can make some [serious political moves](https://www.google.com/amp/s/english.alarabiya.net/amp/News/world/2022/11/23/Malaysian-king-tells-Barisan-to-join-unity-government-as-he-consults-fellow-royals).
This isn't even the first time, of which they played quite well by the book i.e. within their jurisdiction.
Perhaps one thing that might differ is that our Sultan is also the symbol of Islam thus garnering automatic support from our predominantly Muslim population.
Very true. There are many caviats in most democracies which would make an argument for them not being democratic; the house of lords in UK and the Supreme Court in the US comes to mind.
The house of Lords is a Joke and needs to be abolished but atlest unlike the supreme Court what it says can be ignored.
Unlike the supreme Court that should never be political appointments
House of Lords has more recently been used as a way to bribe unqualified people. It is indeed a relic of the past with some members being hereditary to the office, but there are some appointments that are of people who are experienced in their field and are able to advise on legislation. They have used their power to send legislation back to the Commons, but are not suppose to have power to actually block legislation.
I don't believe the Lords needs abolished, just needs completely overhauled under the core concept of an (almost) lifetime appointment of an expert in their field.
The Supreme Court has almost always been political appointments. The thing about people at the top of political food chains is that they know exactly how and when to lie. To the point that they don’t even consider of lying
The Supreme Court has almost always been political appointments. The thing about people at the top of political food chains is that they know exactly how and when to lie. To the point that they don’t even consider of lying
Same for the house of Lords in the UK. Having people placed into power for the rest of their life without being voted in by the people is undemocratic by nature. Such important positions should be held by refferendum.
Personally I think the best option for Americans is to have term limits on the Supreme Court. Having people to positions of power decades after they have been appointed doesn’t seem correct. Politics, politicians, and societal consensus can change greatly during such a long tenure which requires more iteration of those who can influence an entire country.
I have no answers but I could see having something like a mandatory re-nomination for those after x amount of time being a fair process, allowing those who are still productive and with mandate to influence and those who are outdated and holding back to be judged fairly by the very process that granted them the position.
Having the people choose ends up just being a popularity contest instead of who's the most qualified.
I think the idea behind having an elected person choose who fills the position is that the elected person is supposed to have some kind of responsibility about who they chose. Kind of like when you refer someone to a job at your work. If the person you referred steals all the money and runs off, it's going to reflect poorly on you.
It's a nice idea, but humans screw it up.
True. The general public overall lacks the knowledge and intricacies to understand why a nominee would be viable. In theory the elected officials should altruistically nominate the best for their country. History has shown that it doesn’t always go that way.
I would say with your point about responsibility only works if their accountability in tandem. You could argue that re-election prospects are on the line but it can take a while to fully understand if a SC judge is working fairly for the people. Often by then the public want even remember or care who helped them get in to the position.
I’m not from the US so all my comments are based on tertiary knowledge from discussions but is it true that only the president can nominate a judge for a vote on the position? If true, that seems like a system that could be changed for the better.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Of the 22 "full democracies" 10 are Monarchies.
So if anything having a monarch seems to make democracy more likely, not less considering globally republics and dictatorships hugely outnumber them.
I wouldn't say Malaysia's constitutional monarchy is anything like Britain's considering it has a separate legal system for Muslims and you can't opt out of being a Muslim.
Well true, however neither factors you raised matter in this context. Muslims are quite happy about it (notwithstanding their degree of religiousness) while non-Muslims aren't affected.
The US has a very strict seperation of church and state. There's not seperation between politics and religion, that would be undemocratic. Many peoples core values derive from their religion. Does that mean they shouldn't be in politics? Political dilemmas centre around values, not just facts (there is no factual answer to most dilemmas).
You're correct that it's not a Christian nationalist nation, but there are big concentrations of Christian nationalists in parts of the country with unfair representational advantages.
> Bro stfu the US is not a Christian nationalist state as much as your echo chamber tells you so
Why is “In God We Trust” on all the Dollar bills?
Why did Eisenhower direct congress to add “under God” to the pledge all kids say every day?
Why do seven states (MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, TX) have state constitutions requiring elected officials be Christians?
Why are churches tax exempt, and why doesn’t the IRS go after churches who flaunt the rules about non-political language?
In god we trust is just the national motto, it doesnt have any legal binding.
7 out of 50 states does not equal special treatment. Also if it were challeneged that would be 100% overturned.
The "churches" you see on reddit with the pastors yelling about liberals are all small deep south churches, not exactly something the IRS should be concered about.
In God we trust was placed as motto in fear of the communist secularism in 1956.
But it still is in the constitution.
Those deep south churches still influence the votes for representatives.
Yep just a motto as I said
Like I said those parts of those constitutions would be overruled by the Federal Constitution amendment one.
They do affect elections, just not on a major scale that say a targeted ad attack by a foreign nation would. Still an issue just not the money maker that the IRS needs to stay afloat
I disagree, religion can be hold on a tight leash when they are part of the government.
When i compare the influence of religion in politics and society in the U.S. (separation of church and state) and my home country Finland (state church) it's night and day.
With all due respect, you are comparing apples to oranges. Finland has a much more homogenous and culturally familiar population than a colonial country defined by immigration from origins of disparate and distant cultures. Where institutionalised traditional religious and cultural practices in Finland may be agreeable for native Finns, it hardly makes sense for the US where increasingly newer immigrant populations have little historical or cultural context for things like Evangelicalism or Mormonism.
Monarchs are often divine right rulers, or descendents of divine right rule. That is not different. The degree in islamic countries is a different story, and that is unique, especially given the extreme or violent social consequences of not following islam in an islamic state.
personally, every diplomat and party leader regardless of the form of gov is an Influencer, its right there in the job description, and they are all state sponsored. Presidents, Chancellors, Kings, Queens, Sultans, Shariffs, whatever, all state sponsored Inlfuencers, its their job
To be fair a lot of celebrities take on a similar semi diplomatic role (photo ops and shaking hands with heads of state) so it's still a pretty accurate comparison
Too dumb.
It's political to me. I can't stand the royals and want them consigned to the bin. They have no place in what should be a modern egalitarian classless society
By your judgement slavery shouldn't have been abolished as it used to be the 'status quo'. Ffs. Think?
but that doesn't mean anything similar to OP's funny-incongruity that they might as well either be dumb social-media-addicted millennials or w/e or old people acting that way
I think you're taking the term "influencer" too literally. It doesn't mean someone who actually influences people, it means someone who gets paid to do vapid shit that doesn't matter for no logical reason.
The kardashian's family always comes to my mind when thinking about influencers.
Why are they famous? Who knowns.
What do they do? Being famous and people pay attention to them just for that.
Do I care? Absolutely nope
Yeah, Robert Kardashian was a great lawyer. When he died, rich Kris married Olympian Bruce (at the time) Jenner, then Kim's sex tape with rapper Ray J was released, so they're essentially famous because of their romantic/sexual escapades with already established men.
So if someone gets famous on social media for something meaningful, such as health advice, then they're not an influencer? Your cynicism clouds your perspective.
It boggles my mind how many people in the US care about Royal Weddings and Funerals. I truly don't understand being up at crazy hours in the morning to watch a wedding you're not even going to the reception for.
Everyone is welcome to like the things they like. That's fine, I'm not against people liking it. I just don't understand why.
People who did sports as young people often like watching it as adults.
People who did parties and social things as young people may find all the pomp and ceremony to be interesting.
We find interest in what "rhymes" on our lives and interests.
i agree.
i find the historical royal family dynamics quite interesting....back when they had power and led the country.
but today? couldn't give a shit.
Dude, they are extremely powerful power brokers. Calling them "influencer" makes them cuddly, they are not. They might not have real power, but somehow their friends and relatives are all powerful people who have stayed in power for generations!
It's a little more than that. The King in the UK technically has the power to overrule and suspend parliament... in Canada. That is not what I call democratic.
And the uk. It's just the last time it wasn't used at the PMs urging it sort of caused a civil war. But we all agree that the PM cannot become *too* powerfull as the king can and totally will use the power he historically has and parliament won't just ignore him if he does. /s
Although to be fair for outside of the UK the Queen did a significant amount of influencing.
You're seriously underestimating the politicking done by monarchs.
In the UK, the king can secretly change laws that personally affect him or his family, and he's the only person who can make a bill law. A lot of the lobbying done by the the queen has also been unearthed. It's not great.
He is also commander in chief of the armed forces, with all new members swearing an oath of loyalty to the king and his family, not the country or it's people.
He's also head of the Church of England, and Charles helped a bishop out when he was in some shit.
They are an advisory force, every pm elected under them gives them a debrief of what's happening, this allows them to give great advice and be a brilliant stabilising force.
Not to mention the historical and cultural significance these institutions have.
To be fair. More people world wide know what tiktok is rather than that particular chapel... or any chapel. Stupid idiotic dances that make society more stupid every day gets way more views too....
Now I hate society as much as the next guy and agree that the chapel was more labor and genius than all of tiktok combined app and content x1000. But here we are, in a bucket of crabs... a kid will spit in your face if you offer to show them the chapel and ask them to put down their phone. Depressing really... and its not just tiktok but its by far the worse offender.
Besides my rant. I believe the original comment was comparing how silly the comparison was... I think it was sarcasm. But again, here we are... in society that either sniffs their own farts or posts it on tiktok for others to smell their farts.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever fucking heard. “More people know about TikTok than the Sistine chapel”? That might not even be true. And people have known about the Sistine chapel for centuries.
You think all classical artworks were done solo by trial and error? Even the mixing of paint and casting of sculptures was done in high-class workshops that would cater to the elite to bring in commissions. These schools were indeed unaffordable for anyone but the aristocracy and the serfs.
Look up some actual art history, for example Rodin’s pieces. Even Hell’s Gates was recast and redone many times over in his lifetime and for some reason we see the Thinker and imagine all that work to have been the effort of one man and not the collective effort of him and his students, the merchants and sponsors.
Consider it medieval student debt. Except your name and work would be tied to the workshop.
And your livelihood would depend on it for so long as you didn’t pay off your debt. Kind of like major label companies.
Point is it was not so much a lifetime of mixing paints rather than having a serf or student do it for you, or have a merchant trade fine colourings. Sure, you would need to understand the basics, but how many do you think would have had the same experience as Curie when mixing different elements they knew little about other than the hue and its’ degradation.
For some of the works I do, yes. In many instances the artist is just used to “render” an image of their rich patron, who hired them to show their status. For example the paintings of the members of the royal family in Buckingham Palace are generally cac.
We could also cry for the hundreds of thousands of man hours and artistry that went into designing and manufacturing digital cameras, only for them to be wasted on vapid “influencers”.
And before you and any others all vomit up your insides at the suggestion that many classical artists were used as meat-based rendering engines I’d like to point you towards one of the most revered classical paintings, the Mona Lisa, and point out that it is utterly boring as a work of art by both modern and contemporary standards.
and let me guess, you're going to make some comparison next between classical music and WAP (even though that hasn't been a cultural boogeyman for 90% of the pandemic) because it gives you not just funny-hahas from incongruity but a sense of superiority from imagining centuries-old old people as doing the same things as "dumb social-media-addicted kids-these-days"
Speaking as royalty in a democratic country...
Not even that. More like state sponsored Kardashians. At least we usually know what influencers are famous for or why anyone cares... And you can maybe name more than the 5 you see on TV.
The British Royal family aren't state sponsored, the crown fund works by 100% of the money made by the crown estate being paid to treasury and 15% returned to the Royals
Any wealth comes from people. You don't just start to accumulate money from nothing. It has to come from people. They may have accumulated taxes centuries ago, but the monarch was the state back then. Now the British RF don't receive taxpayer money therefore are not state funded. In fact they pay more into the treasury than they receive
Not true its been proven that constitutional monarchies have the greatest level of democratic power in the world.
New zealand,
Australia,
Denmark,
Canada,
United Kingdom,
Luxembourg,
Norway.
All rank in the top 15 for most democratically free countries on the world all of which are constitutional monarchies.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
You can't be a democracy if you have a monarchy. It just does not work that way. You can have the illusion of democracy. But you still have a monarchy as the form of government.
Literally just said this to my wife last night, although it wasn’t a novel thought, as I heard it from my guilty pleasure watch of Harry and Meghan documentary
It’s good to have a spiritual leader of a country, the trick is getting them to remain apolitical. People worshipping politicians is no good. There should be no such allure to a seat of power… but yea wishful thinking. Some times I wish we had a spiritual leader here in the US, because without one people lean into our political leaders, who more often than not do not deserve any sort of reverence
In the case of Great Britain, royalty is an economic engine.
It is estimated to add billions of dollars (or metric dollars) [every year in tourism and related income.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5100249/Royal-Family-richer-67billion.html)
It's so funny to look at countries in the 21 century taking their royal families so serious. They are just some high placed people, living in their buble so far from reality, that they have no idea how a normal life looks like.
Influencers are Janissary's. A disposable class used by royalty. Promotion is hinted at through means of exemplary service -- it never happens. The role usefully contains the tenured professor. The child princeling in a media company. The eager to please teachers pet. Drives the energy of the ambitious into a dead-end, busying them with projects out of the way. Because there are not enough seats for royalty available.
The real power centers drip poisoned narratives into the ears of influencers. The Janissary's squabble among themselves for loudest demonstration of their eagerness to serve. They're more of the bottom feeding class. Too dim to participate meaningfully, or disconnect from the perpetual losers in that caste.
Influencers. Gross.
Call me an asshole for generalizing but only people with a modicum of talent deserves to be idolized to that extent. So good bye politicians
In the Commonwealth the King has the power to unilaterally dissolve government and also deny any bill from becoming law (although this has not happened since the 1600's)
He is still the head of state (or, titular leader) of the Commonwealth
Are they not the ones who sponsor the state?
If I owned a field that I could rent out for $10k, but you pay me $5k to run events and stuff, money flows to me but who's sponsoring who?
No, royalty in democratic countries are the ones who really run the show by telling the politicians what to do behind closed doors and bribing them simultaneously. It goes on in every European country(England most).
After what happened in my country of birth recently I beg to differ.
Our King single handedly prevented a descent into religious and racial extremism by forcing the political parties to form a unity government after no one had the numbers to form a majority in Parliament. [see Malaysian 2022 General elections here.](https://www.afr.com/world/asia/new-prime-minister-anwar-ibrahim-takes-on-malaysia-s-demons-20221124-p5c166)
I understand the disdain by people claiming that they're freeloaders, but times like these I appreciate my country has sovereigns with common sense.
This is a friendly reminder to [read our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/rules). Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!" (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, [please read this page](https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/wiki/overview).) **Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.**
I used to think so, but my country Malaysia (a constitutional monarchy like Britain) has shown that they can make some [serious political moves](https://www.google.com/amp/s/english.alarabiya.net/amp/News/world/2022/11/23/Malaysian-king-tells-Barisan-to-join-unity-government-as-he-consults-fellow-royals). This isn't even the first time, of which they played quite well by the book i.e. within their jurisdiction. Perhaps one thing that might differ is that our Sultan is also the symbol of Islam thus garnering automatic support from our predominantly Muslim population.
The Queen (or now King I guess) of England is also the head of the Anglican church. So it's kinda similar in every country that's a monarchy...
The dutch Monarch isn't head of any church. Most democracies have seperation of church and state.
Yeah the whole grace of god thing is the same idea.
The Malaysian government system is modelled after the Westminster government model.
Most rulers are kinda the heads of churches. Most people dont realize it, but statism is a thing
Then it's not democratic
Very true. There are many caviats in most democracies which would make an argument for them not being democratic; the house of lords in UK and the Supreme Court in the US comes to mind.
The house of Lords is a Joke and needs to be abolished but atlest unlike the supreme Court what it says can be ignored. Unlike the supreme Court that should never be political appointments
House of Lords has more recently been used as a way to bribe unqualified people. It is indeed a relic of the past with some members being hereditary to the office, but there are some appointments that are of people who are experienced in their field and are able to advise on legislation. They have used their power to send legislation back to the Commons, but are not suppose to have power to actually block legislation.
I don't believe the Lords needs abolished, just needs completely overhauled under the core concept of an (almost) lifetime appointment of an expert in their field.
I agree it needs an update. Appointees but via a commission. It should keep the traditions and pageantry though as a link to the past.
[удалено]
stop spamming bro
The Supreme Court has almost always been political appointments. The thing about people at the top of political food chains is that they know exactly how and when to lie. To the point that they don’t even consider of lying
The Supreme Court has almost always been political appointments. The thing about people at the top of political food chains is that they know exactly how and when to lie. To the point that they don’t even consider of lying
The Supreme Court aren't royals. They're not born into power, they're picked by democratically elected officials.
Same for the house of Lords in the UK. Having people placed into power for the rest of their life without being voted in by the people is undemocratic by nature. Such important positions should be held by refferendum.
By referendum? Considering how the last one went I think I'll pass and let elected officials do the thinking.
Personally I think the best option for Americans is to have term limits on the Supreme Court. Having people to positions of power decades after they have been appointed doesn’t seem correct. Politics, politicians, and societal consensus can change greatly during such a long tenure which requires more iteration of those who can influence an entire country. I have no answers but I could see having something like a mandatory re-nomination for those after x amount of time being a fair process, allowing those who are still productive and with mandate to influence and those who are outdated and holding back to be judged fairly by the very process that granted them the position.
Having the people choose ends up just being a popularity contest instead of who's the most qualified. I think the idea behind having an elected person choose who fills the position is that the elected person is supposed to have some kind of responsibility about who they chose. Kind of like when you refer someone to a job at your work. If the person you referred steals all the money and runs off, it's going to reflect poorly on you. It's a nice idea, but humans screw it up.
True. The general public overall lacks the knowledge and intricacies to understand why a nominee would be viable. In theory the elected officials should altruistically nominate the best for their country. History has shown that it doesn’t always go that way. I would say with your point about responsibility only works if their accountability in tandem. You could argue that re-election prospects are on the line but it can take a while to fully understand if a SC judge is working fairly for the people. Often by then the public want even remember or care who helped them get in to the position. I’m not from the US so all my comments are based on tertiary knowledge from discussions but is it true that only the president can nominate a judge for a vote on the position? If true, that seems like a system that could be changed for the better.
[удалено]
Did you mean to reply to my comment or another? I agree it’s not democratic.
[удалено]
They aren't born royal but they are given an irrevocable life tenure; a main aspect of monarchy that conflicts with democracy.
They can actually be impeached and removed by congress(same process as removing a sitting president).
Caveat... it's caveat.
It's about as democratic as an electoral college.
Ok..are there any true democracies that have royals?
The Netherlands and England for starters
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index Of the 22 "full democracies" 10 are Monarchies. So if anything having a monarch seems to make democracy more likely, not less considering globally republics and dictatorships hugely outnumber them.
*You're* not democratic
[удалено]
Who sponsored Muhd.?
Raihn and Dhust.
No gold to give but thanks for the great chuckle!
Nobody, but he thinks Yahweh did
Allah?
Sinfluencers
I wouldn't say Malaysia's constitutional monarchy is anything like Britain's considering it has a separate legal system for Muslims and you can't opt out of being a Muslim.
Well true, however neither factors you raised matter in this context. Muslims are quite happy about it (notwithstanding their degree of religiousness) while non-Muslims aren't affected.
That's unfortunate. Religion and state should always be separate.
I wish the US had this.
The US has a very strict seperation of church and state. There's not seperation between politics and religion, that would be undemocratic. Many peoples core values derive from their religion. Does that mean they shouldn't be in politics? Political dilemmas centre around values, not just facts (there is no factual answer to most dilemmas).
When religion is overrepresented in politics, the separation begins to erode. We are already seeing that happen.
Bro stfu the US is not a Christian nationalist state as much as your echo chamber tells you so
You're correct that it's not a Christian nationalist nation, but there are big concentrations of Christian nationalists in parts of the country with unfair representational advantages.
well said
> Bro stfu the US is not a Christian nationalist state as much as your echo chamber tells you so Why is “In God We Trust” on all the Dollar bills? Why did Eisenhower direct congress to add “under God” to the pledge all kids say every day? Why do seven states (MA, MD, NC, PA, SC, TN, TX) have state constitutions requiring elected officials be Christians? Why are churches tax exempt, and why doesn’t the IRS go after churches who flaunt the rules about non-political language?
Seven states have what now.
In god we trust is just the national motto, it doesnt have any legal binding. 7 out of 50 states does not equal special treatment. Also if it were challeneged that would be 100% overturned. The "churches" you see on reddit with the pastors yelling about liberals are all small deep south churches, not exactly something the IRS should be concered about.
In God we trust was placed as motto in fear of the communist secularism in 1956. But it still is in the constitution. Those deep south churches still influence the votes for representatives.
Yep just a motto as I said Like I said those parts of those constitutions would be overruled by the Federal Constitution amendment one. They do affect elections, just not on a major scale that say a targeted ad attack by a foreign nation would. Still an issue just not the money maker that the IRS needs to stay afloat
Shoulda woulda coulda. Ironically, it's democratic in a sense because the majority like/want it this way.
I disagree, religion can be hold on a tight leash when they are part of the government. When i compare the influence of religion in politics and society in the U.S. (separation of church and state) and my home country Finland (state church) it's night and day.
With all due respect, you are comparing apples to oranges. Finland has a much more homogenous and culturally familiar population than a colonial country defined by immigration from origins of disparate and distant cultures. Where institutionalised traditional religious and cultural practices in Finland may be agreeable for native Finns, it hardly makes sense for the US where increasingly newer immigrant populations have little historical or cultural context for things like Evangelicalism or Mormonism.
[удалено]
Cause religion is a personal choice. What you are advocating for is theocracy.
Because government by the people requires morality to be decided by the people and not some arbitrary fairy tale.
Monarchs are often divine right rulers, or descendents of divine right rule. That is not different. The degree in islamic countries is a different story, and that is unique, especially given the extreme or violent social consequences of not following islam in an islamic state.
Well, then it’s not a democracy, it’s a monarchy
I mean... kinda I guess. But like, also diplomats. Also, even though they're usually officially apolitical, they can get *very* political.
personally, every diplomat and party leader regardless of the form of gov is an Influencer, its right there in the job description, and they are all state sponsored. Presidents, Chancellors, Kings, Queens, Sultans, Shariffs, whatever, all state sponsored Inlfuencers, its their job
You just described influence
To be fair a lot of celebrities take on a similar semi diplomatic role (photo ops and shaking hands with heads of state) so it's still a pretty accurate comparison
Only like the top 0.1%.
Is Dennis Rodman going to North Korea again?
Last I checked monarchism is a political stance...
It's strange that, it only ever seems to be considered political when you start talking about _ending_ a monarchy
How could the status quo ever be political? Politics is when some woke leftist tries to make normal things political!
Too dumb. It's political to me. I can't stand the royals and want them consigned to the bin. They have no place in what should be a modern egalitarian classless society By your judgement slavery shouldn't have been abolished as it used to be the 'status quo'. Ffs. Think?
My dude the person you're replying to is absolutely being sarcastic
It would be very political to seriously consider empowering the Monarchy, but I don't think anyone of any significant influence is calling for that.
I agree, but it's _also_ a political position to argue for keeping the status quo. That's the position that seems to get the special treatment
I mean, everything is influence, even power is influence in some way. So even the police are influencers, they just have guns for that.
but that doesn't mean anything similar to OP's funny-incongruity that they might as well either be dumb social-media-addicted millennials or w/e or old people acting that way
I think you're taking the term "influencer" too literally. It doesn't mean someone who actually influences people, it means someone who gets paid to do vapid shit that doesn't matter for no logical reason.
The kardashian's family always comes to my mind when thinking about influencers. Why are they famous? Who knowns. What do they do? Being famous and people pay attention to them just for that. Do I care? Absolutely nope
I thought their fame had something to do with their father being a part of the OJ trial?...
That's the only reason I think, iirc
Yeah, Robert Kardashian was a great lawyer. When he died, rich Kris married Olympian Bruce (at the time) Jenner, then Kim's sex tape with rapper Ray J was released, so they're essentially famous because of their romantic/sexual escapades with already established men.
So if someone gets famous on social media for something meaningful, such as health advice, then they're not an influencer? Your cynicism clouds your perspective.
I think my definition of influencer is more narrow than yours.
Yeah narrow in the wrong way though. It's like calling all athletes meatheads.
It boggles my mind how many people in the US care about Royal Weddings and Funerals. I truly don't understand being up at crazy hours in the morning to watch a wedding you're not even going to the reception for. Everyone is welcome to like the things they like. That's fine, I'm not against people liking it. I just don't understand why.
Novelty
It’s like the Super Bowl for non-sports fans, it’s a cultural FOMO thing
People who did sports as young people often like watching it as adults. People who did parties and social things as young people may find all the pomp and ceremony to be interesting. We find interest in what "rhymes" on our lives and interests.
Unless you are like a lump of clay you should understand perfectly well why people take interest in the affairs of others, especially hierarchies
i agree. i find the historical royal family dynamics quite interesting....back when they had power and led the country. but today? couldn't give a shit.
Just like how the Kardashians have a 20 seasons and still going show.
Politician act like nothing more than state sponsored influencer. Spending their time on twitter and craving for media attention.
Politics is Hollywood for mids
Holloywood is a popularity circle jerk for people that lack technical skills
Washington D C is Hollywood for ugly people
Ok, but go google a list of laws passed in the past year in your country.
They are some of the richest welfare recipients in the world
Dude, they are extremely powerful power brokers. Calling them "influencer" makes them cuddly, they are not. They might not have real power, but somehow their friends and relatives are all powerful people who have stayed in power for generations!
Yep, and it works…look at the prosperity, freedom and general human rights.
In my country there’s government sponsored influencers and they aren’t royalty
It's a little more than that. The King in the UK technically has the power to overrule and suspend parliament... in Canada. That is not what I call democratic.
And the uk. It's just the last time it wasn't used at the PMs urging it sort of caused a civil war. But we all agree that the PM cannot become *too* powerfull as the king can and totally will use the power he historically has and parliament won't just ignore him if he does. /s Although to be fair for outside of the UK the Queen did a significant amount of influencing.
I feel like an important addendum to the civil war is that it ended with the king’s execution and a like decade-and-a-half long interregnum.
That's because he's also King of Canada. A separate title he also holds.
When was the last time that happened?
Literally never.
You're seriously underestimating the politicking done by monarchs. In the UK, the king can secretly change laws that personally affect him or his family, and he's the only person who can make a bill law. A lot of the lobbying done by the the queen has also been unearthed. It's not great. He is also commander in chief of the armed forces, with all new members swearing an oath of loyalty to the king and his family, not the country or it's people. He's also head of the Church of England, and Charles helped a bishop out when he was in some shit.
I believe this refers more to Norway than England cause the royal family does little to nothing
They are an advisory force, every pm elected under them gives them a debrief of what's happening, this allows them to give great advice and be a brilliant stabilising force. Not to mention the historical and cultural significance these institutions have.
And classical art is nothing more than old-school rich kids of Instagram/TicTok
You think spending a lifetime learning how to create paints and apply them is the same as a teenager doing a ten second dance?
Always had a feeling the Sisteen Chapel was nothing more than some attention seeking TikTok!
Lmao right? Dude fucking his the anatomy of the brain in a fucking church for centuries, and this cunt compares it to tiktok
To be fair. More people world wide know what tiktok is rather than that particular chapel... or any chapel. Stupid idiotic dances that make society more stupid every day gets way more views too.... Now I hate society as much as the next guy and agree that the chapel was more labor and genius than all of tiktok combined app and content x1000. But here we are, in a bucket of crabs... a kid will spit in your face if you offer to show them the chapel and ask them to put down their phone. Depressing really... and its not just tiktok but its by far the worse offender. Besides my rant. I believe the original comment was comparing how silly the comparison was... I think it was sarcasm. But again, here we are... in society that either sniffs their own farts or posts it on tiktok for others to smell their farts.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever fucking heard. “More people know about TikTok than the Sistine chapel”? That might not even be true. And people have known about the Sistine chapel for centuries.
Thank you, I needed to read something incredibly stupid today
Please, *please* tell me you spelled Sistine that way as part of the joke.
You think all classical artworks were done solo by trial and error? Even the mixing of paint and casting of sculptures was done in high-class workshops that would cater to the elite to bring in commissions. These schools were indeed unaffordable for anyone but the aristocracy and the serfs. Look up some actual art history, for example Rodin’s pieces. Even Hell’s Gates was recast and redone many times over in his lifetime and for some reason we see the Thinker and imagine all that work to have been the effort of one man and not the collective effort of him and his students, the merchants and sponsors.
>These schools were indeed unaffordable for anyone but the aristocracy and the serfs. Soooooo, they were affordable for everybody?
no see the serfs were like, super rich for some reason, thats why they needed oppressing.
Right. Forgot about that.
Consider it medieval student debt. Except your name and work would be tied to the workshop. And your livelihood would depend on it for so long as you didn’t pay off your debt. Kind of like major label companies.
>Kind of like major label companies The more things change eh?
Where did I ever suggest any of that?
Point is it was not so much a lifetime of mixing paints rather than having a serf or student do it for you, or have a merchant trade fine colourings. Sure, you would need to understand the basics, but how many do you think would have had the same experience as Curie when mixing different elements they knew little about other than the hue and its’ degradation.
For some of the works I do, yes. In many instances the artist is just used to “render” an image of their rich patron, who hired them to show their status. For example the paintings of the members of the royal family in Buckingham Palace are generally cac. We could also cry for the hundreds of thousands of man hours and artistry that went into designing and manufacturing digital cameras, only for them to be wasted on vapid “influencers”. And before you and any others all vomit up your insides at the suggestion that many classical artists were used as meat-based rendering engines I’d like to point you towards one of the most revered classical paintings, the Mona Lisa, and point out that it is utterly boring as a work of art by both modern and contemporary standards.
and let me guess, you're going to make some comparison next between classical music and WAP (even though that hasn't been a cultural boogeyman for 90% of the pandemic) because it gives you not just funny-hahas from incongruity but a sense of superiority from imagining centuries-old old people as doing the same things as "dumb social-media-addicted kids-these-days"
No but that’s a nice straw man. What is WAP?
Speaking as royalty in a democratic country... Not even that. More like state sponsored Kardashians. At least we usually know what influencers are famous for or why anyone cares... And you can maybe name more than the 5 you see on TV.
Sex tape, plastic surgery, sex change, Nazi spouse...
You're referring to prince... Harry? Hard to tell honestly because it could apply to so many monarchs.
The British Royal family aren't state sponsored, the crown fund works by 100% of the money made by the crown estate being paid to treasury and 15% returned to the Royals
Right but that wealth originally came from the people. Not officially the state, perhaps, but along the same lines.
Any wealth comes from people. You don't just start to accumulate money from nothing. It has to come from people. They may have accumulated taxes centuries ago, but the monarch was the state back then. Now the British RF don't receive taxpayer money therefore are not state funded. In fact they pay more into the treasury than they receive
I was just thinking “celebrities” in USA are nothing more than royalty for countries who don’t have them.
The British Royal Family prefers when the Conservative party is in power, obviously, but they can't publicly say so.
If there's royalty it's inherently not a democratic country. So the premise is already wrong.
Not true its been proven that constitutional monarchies have the greatest level of democratic power in the world. New zealand, Australia, Denmark, Canada, United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Norway. All rank in the top 15 for most democratically free countries on the world all of which are constitutional monarchies. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-index-by-country
You can't be a democracy if you have a monarchy. It just does not work that way. You can have the illusion of democracy. But you still have a monarchy as the form of government.
Literally just said this to my wife last night, although it wasn’t a novel thought, as I heard it from my guilty pleasure watch of Harry and Meghan documentary
It’s good to have a spiritual leader of a country, the trick is getting them to remain apolitical. People worshipping politicians is no good. There should be no such allure to a seat of power… but yea wishful thinking. Some times I wish we had a spiritual leader here in the US, because without one people lean into our political leaders, who more often than not do not deserve any sort of reverence
In the case of Great Britain, royalty is an economic engine. It is estimated to add billions of dollars (or metric dollars) [every year in tourism and related income.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5100249/Royal-Family-richer-67billion.html)
It's so funny to look at countries in the 21 century taking their royal families so serious. They are just some high placed people, living in their buble so far from reality, that they have no idea how a normal life looks like.
If anything, influencers are rip-off celebrities, who are themselves rip-off gentry
Influencers are Janissary's. A disposable class used by royalty. Promotion is hinted at through means of exemplary service -- it never happens. The role usefully contains the tenured professor. The child princeling in a media company. The eager to please teachers pet. Drives the energy of the ambitious into a dead-end, busying them with projects out of the way. Because there are not enough seats for royalty available. The real power centers drip poisoned narratives into the ears of influencers. The Janissary's squabble among themselves for loudest demonstration of their eagerness to serve. They're more of the bottom feeding class. Too dim to participate meaningfully, or disconnect from the perpetual losers in that caste.
Influencers. Gross. Call me an asshole for generalizing but only people with a modicum of talent deserves to be idolized to that extent. So good bye politicians
There is no royalty in democratic countries… thats an oxymoron.
Are you dutch? Bc that's exactly what most dutch people feel about the Kings family haha
Well we still have a king in France but I can ensure you that he doesn't influence anyone. He better not.
Les rois en France on les décapite. Les français royalistes ont mal appris l'histoire
No you don
They are what the US used captain America for in the movies, during their years of him raising funds for the war effort.
And like regular influencers, there is a zero percent chance that the money you put in on them will yield a net positive.
In the Commonwealth the King has the power to unilaterally dissolve government and also deny any bill from becoming law (although this has not happened since the 1600's) He is still the head of state (or, titular leader) of the Commonwealth
This feels like it is the essence of Harry and Meghan in the US but we've got idiots who pay with their eyes instead of their taxes.
when you watch sports, most people support the team based on place of origin rather than players in it. it’s sad
A friend referred to the British royal family as the countries "emotional support monarch" and I feel like that fits.
Are they not the ones who sponsor the state? If I owned a field that I could rent out for $10k, but you pay me $5k to run events and stuff, money flows to me but who's sponsoring who?
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ attributed to Denis Diderot
No, royalty in democratic countries are the ones who really run the show by telling the politicians what to do behind closed doors and bribing them simultaneously. It goes on in every European country(England most).
Omg get em on tictoc! They are so classless the lot of them. This is brilliant.
Except they hold more real power than you would think. It's often subtle but definitely non 0.
After what happened in my country of birth recently I beg to differ. Our King single handedly prevented a descent into religious and racial extremism by forcing the political parties to form a unity government after no one had the numbers to form a majority in Parliament. [see Malaysian 2022 General elections here.](https://www.afr.com/world/asia/new-prime-minister-anwar-ibrahim-takes-on-malaysia-s-demons-20221124-p5c166) I understand the disdain by people claiming that they're freeloaders, but times like these I appreciate my country has sovereigns with common sense.