124
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
124 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15917 readers
10 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
It's insane how fragile most Westoid democracies are. For example, the elected Prime Minister of Australia Gough Witlam was dismissed by the Governor General (the British Monarch's "ceremonial" representative) using powers that almost everyone reacted to with "woah woah woah, he can do that?!"
If you live in the UK or the commonwealth Anglo settler colonies, there's a pretty good chance that your entire constitutional framework is just a bunch of "conventions" that people mostly agree to follow but aren't enforceable. Nobody really knows what happens if someone stops following them besides "lol constitutional crisis" or "idk civil war".
I was just about to use this example. Not only that, but many politicians (never mind the public) asked at the time didn't even know that the Governor General and said powers even existed at the time. He had, however, been on the CIA's payroll for some time.
Yeah it's nuts that in most Westminster systems the only stick propping up democracy is the convention of the British Monarch appointing prime ministers 'on the advice of Parliament'. Even the expert legal scholars in this field have no idea what would happen if the King just decided to ignore Parliament and do whatever.
I mean they had a civil war about it, so i think they probably have some idea
In theory, but would Kid Starver or Rishi Sunak execute Charles? I have my doubts.
kanada has a not withstanding clause which makes it so the government can just bypass this farce of a democracy
Shoutouts to the quebecois who used it out of spite for every law they passed even if it didn't need it. Worst person you know etc etc.
At the behest of the CIA, allegedly
The CIA denies it of course, it just so happens that they called the Governor General "our man" and very suddenly he dismissed the PM while the PM was seriously and actively considering closing the Pine Gap CIA blacksite, and it just so happens that the following PM was super friendly to the US
While it is a bit of a silly concept, the conventions have mostly worked for two hundred years, which is hardly fragile.
I've met one or two experts on British constitutional law, and their opinion was essentially that unless the action is overwhelmingly popular, the Monarch deciding to stop following convention would be the end of the monarchy.
i will say it at least prevents the angloids from handwringing about The Constitution™ all the damn time like yankees do. Though personally I'd prefer to live someone where they bothered to write down their foundational rules at some point, its not like having a written constitution is some universal good