Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Why are people so enthusiastic about their own subjugation? 

Okay this actually had me asking shit years back from wanting to understand how they find comfort in their leadership like that, especially when they have no choice in it. 

I've been led to think it's over the consistency, the idea that no matter what in their own life changes that they will remain a constant in their lives. They air their affairs on TV for everyone to see, and in turn they become absorbed by all the depth they've cultivated into their royal garden of intrigue, allowing the common man to ignore that much more over themselves. By having it feel untouchable, and a common subject the entire culture can share and discuss, it gives them that much more of a sense of community around these common lines, and the royal family has learned how to use this for power. 

Yeah, I imagine it's a lore in the same way that we in the US have the "founding fathers". The difference is that ours is just a lore that informs a national identity, not a current drain on taxpayers. That's the bit that I don't understand.

A living example is much more effective, founding fathers by comparison has been grounds for social civil wars over how they cannot represent themselves after death.

The fact that the founding fathers are dead isn't the reason we have so many cultural divides. The British royal family have never informed current culture. They've actively resisted becoming a part of it, in many ways.

I can't really think of anywhere else that is quite so "Lie back and think of England". The idea that it's 'bigger than them' grants a sense of hearth and home, of safety, by reminding them constantly that every small piece is a part of this larger whole. Even their own peers end up reinforcing it. 

Again, lore and tradition. Totally universal, but usually so distant as to be a shared myth. When there are current, tangible costs associated, I don't understand how they persist.  

Have you never been somewhere that has a king, and spoke to their people about it? 

 I was just in the UK. I spoke to many people about it. By and large they gave dumb answers about how it brings tourists and revenue to the country. 

Outro said: 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Why are people so enthusiastic about their own subjugation? 

Okay this actually had me asking shit years back from wanting to understand how they find comfort in their leadership like that, especially when they have no choice in it. 

I've been led to think it's over the consistency, the idea that no matter what in their own life changes that they will remain a constant in their lives. They air their affairs on TV for everyone to see, and in turn they become absorbed by all the depth they've cultivated into their royal garden of intrigue, allowing the common man to ignore that much more over themselves. By having it feel untouchable, and a common subject the entire culture can share and discuss, it gives them that much more of a sense of community around these common lines, and the royal family has learned how to use this for power. 

Yeah, I imagine it's a lore in the same way that we in the US have the "founding fathers". The difference is that ours is just a lore that informs a national identity, not a current drain on taxpayers. That's the bit that I don't understand.

A living example is much more effective, founding fathers by comparison has been grounds for social civil wars over how they cannot represent themselves after death.

The fact that the founding fathers are dead isn't the reason we have so many cultural divides. 

It would make a huge difference if they could say whether they do or don't like what people do with their words, like how MLK rolls in his grave when right wingers use his platform for a completely opposite agenda. 

I can't really think of anywhere else that is quite so "Lie back and think of England". The idea that it's 'bigger than them' grants a sense of hearth and home, of safety, by reminding them constantly that every small piece is a part of this larger whole. Even their own peers end up reinforcing it. 

Again, lore and tradition. Totally universal, but usually so distant as to be a shared myth. When there are current, tangible costs associated, I don't understand how they persist.  

Have you never been somewhere that has a king, and spoke to their people about it? 

I was just in the UK. I spoke to many people about it. By and large they gave dumb answers about how it brings tourists and revenue to the country. 

While their importance is diminishing, they are still a big part of their culture as a focal point moreso than direct power. 

Thailand's king by comparison is next tier. 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Why are people so enthusiastic about their own subjugation? 

Okay this actually had me asking shit years back from wanting to understand how they find comfort in their leadership like that, especially when they have no choice in it. 

I've been led to think it's over the consistency, the idea that no matter what in their own life changes that they will remain a constant in their lives. They air their affairs on TV for everyone to see, and in turn they become absorbed by all the depth they've cultivated into their royal garden of intrigue, allowing the common man to ignore that much more over themselves. By having it feel untouchable, and a common subject the entire culture can share and discuss, it gives them that much more of a sense of community around these common lines, and the royal family has learned how to use this for power. 

Yeah, I imagine it's a lore in the same way that we in the US have the "founding fathers". The difference is that ours is just a lore that informs a national identity, not a current drain on taxpayers. That's the bit that I don't understand.

A living example is much more effective, founding fathers by comparison has been grounds for social civil wars over how they cannot represent themselves after death.

The fact that the founding fathers are dead isn't the reason we have so many cultural divides. 

It would make a huge difference if they could say whether they do or don't like what people do with their words, like how MLK rolls in his grave when right wingers use his platform for a completely opposite agenda. 

Somehow I don't think that many people in 2022 would accept the positions of a bunch of dudes from the 1700's, even if they were alive to make them clear. In fact, I think it'd cause more tension. 

Would you accept the word of an immortal, unchanging institution?

I can't really think of anywhere else that is quite so "Lie back and think of England". The idea that it's 'bigger than them' grants a sense of hearth and home, of safety, by reminding them constantly that every small piece is a part of this larger whole. Even their own peers end up reinforcing it. 

Again, lore and tradition. Totally universal, but usually so distant as to be a shared myth. When there are current, tangible costs associated, I don't understand how they persist.  

Have you never been somewhere that has a king, and spoke to their people about it? 

I was just in the UK. I spoke to many people about it. By and large they gave dumb answers about how it brings tourists and revenue to the country. 

While their importance is diminishing, they are still a big part of their culture as a focal point moreso than direct power. 

Thailand's king by comparison is next tier. 

I accept the cultural history associated with the UK monarchy, that just doesn't answer how they justify the modern costs. Cultural history doesn't vanish just because you cut the financial cord. Most of Europe managed to retain their cultural history without supporting modern parasitic regimes.

I don't know much about Thailand's monarchy, except that they had massive protests fairly recently. 

Outro said: 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Turncoat said: 

Outro said: 

Why are people so enthusiastic about their own subjugation? 

Okay this actually had me asking shit years back from wanting to understand how they find comfort in their leadership like that, especially when they have no choice in it. 

I've been led to think it's over the consistency, the idea that no matter what in their own life changes that they will remain a constant in their lives. They air their affairs on TV for everyone to see, and in turn they become absorbed by all the depth they've cultivated into their royal garden of intrigue, allowing the common man to ignore that much more over themselves. By having it feel untouchable, and a common subject the entire culture can share and discuss, it gives them that much more of a sense of community around these common lines, and the royal family has learned how to use this for power. 

Yeah, I imagine it's a lore in the same way that we in the US have the "founding fathers". The difference is that ours is just a lore that informs a national identity, not a current drain on taxpayers. That's the bit that I don't understand.

A living example is much more effective, founding fathers by comparison has been grounds for social civil wars over how they cannot represent themselves after death.

The fact that the founding fathers are dead isn't the reason we have so many cultural divides. 

It would make a huge difference if they could say whether they do or don't like what people do with their words, like how MLK rolls in his grave when right wingers use his platform for a completely opposite agenda. 

Somehow I don't think that many people in 2022 would accept the positions of a bunch of dudes from the 1700's, even if they were alive to make them clear. In fact, I think it'd cause more tension. 

I think people would be impressed if the foundation of this country's people found a way to be immortal, but part of what makes the founding fathers so important is over how they are dead. If they could outright say "Wait but that's not what I believe at all", less people would use their message as a way to hoist up their own. 

Would you accept the word of an immortal, unchanging institution?

If it's all I ever knew yes, much like how I see my government as largely unchanging in spite of modern concepts being thrown on every so often while otherwise being too big to fail. 

I can't really think of anywhere else that is quite so "Lie back and think of England". The idea that it's 'bigger than them' grants a sense of hearth and home, of safety, by reminding them constantly that every small piece is a part of this larger whole. Even their own peers end up reinforcing it. 

Again, lore and tradition. Totally universal, but usually so distant as to be a shared myth. When there are current, tangible costs associated, I don't understand how they persist.  

Have you never been somewhere that has a king, and spoke to their people about it? 

I was just in the UK. I spoke to many people about it. By and large they gave dumb answers about how it brings tourists and revenue to the country. 

While their importance is diminishing, they are still a big part of their culture as a focal point moreso than direct power. 

Thailand's king by comparison is next tier. 

I accept the cultural history associated with the UK monarchy, that just doesn't answer how they justify the modern costs.

Royalty's not cheap, and people lose their shit to witnessing the decadence. 

Without it they'd have little more than the common man, which isn't very royal. 

I don't know much about Thailand's monarchy, except that they had massive protests fairly recently. 

You could be sent to jail for not saluting during their anthem, their king got his own 3D movie made about his dog, and any laws arbitrarily made tend to be accepted by their people pretty readily. 

Talking to people about it, they saw royalty like divinity, worthy of reverence and respect not out of fear, but reinforced by it. To them, if they didn't take things this seriously it'd show weakness. The idea of a king is that they are supposed to be the unquestioned authority, and they tend to project at countries with elected leaders as if they should be treated the same. Something as simple as admitting I was not a fan of the president of the time was met with confusion, as if I was supposed to like him over his position of power and reputation relative to myself as a member of that country.