top 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 74 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Would I date someone who wants to take away my rights and sees all women as property? Who is totally okay with pedophiles and rapists, and a load of other evil things?

Gee, what a difficult question. Let me think...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    TaKe yOuR time sweetie, you know what the right answer is. We can't let those hooligan communists take control of our lives

    /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

    One time at a party we were standing around chatting and bad dates and such, and someone goes, "Yeah, don't date republicans."

    One guy, a young white guy, goes, "Hey! What??"

    Everyone turned to look at him and we were all like, "Go on, do you have something to say?"

    So far as I know he's not a maga-hat now, but has a big "rugged individualist" streak.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    Fuckwit with privilege, or idiot who thinks that the idiocy won't come back to bite them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 weeks ago

    Since they described him as "young," there is a third possibility: sheltered and brainwashed and hasn't yet encountered enough of the real world to see through the lies that have been drilled into his head since before his earliest memories were formed.

    It's an important distinction, because if you treat people in that category the same way you treat people who are knowingly and willfully fascist, then you're just going to mash their "confirmation bias" button and send them harder to the right.

    I'd say if he's in his early twenties, there's a good chance it has more to do with "ignorance" rather than "malice." And ignorance, unlike malice, is redeemable. But he's not going to open his eyes if you're throwing sand in them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 21 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

    If by republican you mean someone who believes that Britain should abolish its monarchy, then yes.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

    The question of abolishing the monarchy is one I absolutely agree with in principle. However; getting Nigel Farage as president would be suboptimal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    In what way would it be more suboptimal than having Prime Minister Nigel Farage? (Assuming we don't have a largely ceremonial president like Ireland does.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    What happens to the royal perogative powers for example? We could accidentally 'good chaps theory of government' into a very overpowered executive like the Americans have in my view, the increasing presidentialisation of the PM role and centralisation of power in Number 10 is already a long term concern of mine.

    Also there's lots of weird technical factors around the issue , like what happens to the Crown Estate? Does it lapse to the Windsor family or to the president? Presumably we'd want to nationalise it directly by Act of Parliament but that's a can of worms in itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    Yeah I don't like the monarchy but I suspect I'd like a British presidency even less. If it were up to me I'd abolish the hereditary principle but to avoid the genuine constitutional shitshow I'd simply keep the throne empty rather than abolishing it, have Parliament elect a regent from among itself periodically. A regent unlike a president holds no power in their own right, they hold it on behalf of someone else. This would keep egos in check and help prevent an overly powerful executive I think. If anything it'd be Parliament putting a much-needed brake on Downing Street.

    Also historically it'd be the final culmination of the 800 year British project to subordinate monarchical authority to constitutional authority. It's keeping the current constitutional notion of the 'crown in parliament' while admitting the reality no living human can actually embody it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

    At this point I wouldn't even date a slightly different sort of Democrat than I am.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

    I'm so incredibly disgusted by how evil people have become. If I didnt have a family, I'd never speak to other human beings again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next β€Ί