A royal baby

[Terramax]

Actually the United Kingdom MAKES money off the royal family.
It is a situation where there are essentially nothing but winners and no losers.[/quote]

I do believe another video was uploaded, proving that the royals in-fact cost us more money than they are worth.

Furthermore, the other video also confirms it's quite simply immoral that we still have a royal family.

 

[Abomination]

Furthermore, the other video also confirms it's quite simply immoral that we still have a royal family.

Did you just say something was "immoral"? You do know that morality is entirely subjective, right?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

(Cis in essence being a straight white male)

Uh, not quite. Cis-gendered simply means your gender identity is the same as your biological sex. So a Cis-man would be a biological male who identifies as male, as opposed to a trans-man, who would be biologically female but identifies as male.

So...why do we need a prefix? Why can't we just be male?

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

 

[thewatergamer]

Whoopty do,

another royal baby was born, I may be canadian but I really don't get why this was all over the news for the past week...

I mean I just don't see what's the big deal aside from more pointless celebrity gossip

Because this one IS the future King... The media has been massivly into trying to instil national pride back in the UK, and this seems to have spread through the Commonwealth! But they have made a big deal, because at some point, possibly in our lifetimes, this new babies face will be on our currency and stamps!

OT: As a member of the UK military, and a massive supporter of the nation, I have to take on the Queens maternal cousin; Margret Rhodes' opinion:

'Well you know, everybody has babies. And it's lovely. But I don't get wildly excited about it.'

Personally I hate kids, and babies especially! They ure ugly little creatures, who take an embarrasingly long time to stop being dependant, compared to the rest of the animal world! :/
I am interested... I'm not excited.

Alright fair enough, but the monarchy is totally symbolic and the prince and duchess and queen are more celebreties, I just don't get why serious news channels that talk about whats going on in the world are talking about this, I mean the BBC it makes sense why they would be but alot of american and international news networks that usually report on politics/world events are not talking about much other than this, I mean cool its a prince and stuff but I really don't see why this is such a big deal for international viewers that it needs to be the subject of all news in the world

Nothing against the new prince, I mean it's wonderful national pride and whatnot but I just don't think its a big enough deal that everyone needs to be talking about it

 

[emeraldrafael]

I dont particularly care as a US citizen cause it just doesnt really affect me, and because to me it doesnt really matter because the way the queen keeps going the kid may never even see the throne.

 

[Abomination]

And yea, the beheading of the French royals/nobility did actually go well for them. It was the great terror, the rise of Napoleon, and the rise of bourgeoisie 'democratic' governments (The French Republics) that contributed to the country's later imperialism, industrialism,conflicts with other European powers and so forth.

Yet by Compraison it was the British Empire that was stable enough and able to become the dominant power by adjusting its government in a more moderate and restrained fashion.

What if France had adopted a Constitutional Monarchy instead of rushing headlong into a republic->dictatorship->monarchy->republic->dictatorship->republic madhouse?

to be fair we did do a bit of monarchy->republic->dictatorship->monarchy madhouse ourselves.

its quite eyebrow raising that most people completely blindside that particular bit of British history.

but then the bastard did cancel Christmas so maybe that's kind of deliberate...

And being fair again one must realize that the civil strife brought about by the transition from an Absolute Monarchy to eventually becoming a Constitutional Monarchy - while confusing - was a drop of blood compared to the bucket loads the French Revolutions managed to generate.

Then again they might have learned their lesson from the War of the Roses as how to NOT have a war of succession.

 

[Weaver]

Oh, I didn't even know until right now.
I don't really care, lots of babies are born.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

(Cis in essence being a straight white male)

Uh, not quite. Cis-gendered simply means your gender identity is the same as your biological sex. So a Cis-man would be a biological male who identifies as male, as opposed to a trans-man, who would be biologically female but identifies as male.

So...why do we need a prefix? Why can't we just be male?

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

I know what it means, but my point is that it's pointless notation. If if you're male then you're male, adding an extra prefix to it doesn't change anything so why do it?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

(Cis in essence being a straight white male)

Uh, not quite. Cis-gendered simply means your gender identity is the same as your biological sex. So a Cis-man would be a biological male who identifies as male, as opposed to a trans-man, who would be biologically female but identifies as male.

So...why do we need a prefix? Why can't we just be male?

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

I know what it means, but my point is that it's pointless notation. If if you're male then you're male, adding an extra prefix to it doesn't change anything so why do it?

Clarity? Under most situations people won't use a prefix, but when talking about the subjects of sex and gender you can use them to provide that little bit of extra detail with 3 or 5 letters rather than words.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

(Cis in essence being a straight white male)

Uh, not quite. Cis-gendered simply means your gender identity is the same as your biological sex. So a Cis-man would be a biological male who identifies as male, as opposed to a trans-man, who would be biologically female but identifies as male.

So...why do we need a prefix? Why can't we just be male?

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

I know what it means, but my point is that it's pointless notation. If if you're male then you're male, adding an extra prefix to it doesn't change anything so why do it?

Clarity? Under most situations people won't use a prefix, but when talking about the subjects of sex and gender you can use them to provide that little bit of extra detail with 3 or 5 letters rather than words.

I think it's already pretty clear that when someone doesn't use the prefix "trans" that you should just assume they're biologically male.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

(Cis in essence being a straight white male)

Uh, not quite. Cis-gendered simply means your gender identity is the same as your biological sex. So a Cis-man would be a biological male who identifies as male, as opposed to a trans-man, who would be biologically female but identifies as male.

So...why do we need a prefix? Why can't we just be male?

It's just notation. Taken from Wikipedia regarding Cis/Trans isomerism: "The terms cis and trans are from Latin, in which cis means "on the same side" and trans means "on the other side" or "across"."

I know what it means, but my point is that it's pointless notation. If if you're male then you're male, adding an extra prefix to it doesn't change anything so why do it?

Clarity? Under most situations people won't use a prefix, but when talking about the subjects of sex and gender you can use them to provide that little bit of extra detail with 3 or 5 letters rather than words.

I think it's already pretty clear that when someone doesn't use the prefix "trans" that you should just assume they're biologically male.

Okay, but if you want to be formal or professional about it, it makes sense to use the proper notation rather than leave things to assumption. I'm not really sure what your problem with the cis prefix is, you don't have to go around saying you're a cis man if you don't want to.

 

[Leemaster777]

Royal baby was born?

Perhaps it's just because I'm a dirty American peasant, but quite frankly, I don't really give a damn about the royal family.

Then again, I don't give a damn when celebrities have children either.

So, yeah, don't really care about the new prince at all. Unless they name him something cool. Like Bob. King Bob. That would actually be pretty rad.

 

[sextus the crazy]

"Joffrey" is trending in the UK on Twitter and I'm in tears of laughter at the onion's take on it. Names-wise, I'm hoping for Mammon.

I hope it's Mammon. That's Spanish for 'wanker' or 'huge wanker' (spelled 'mamón').

Haha, indeed. The Onion's take was actually where I heard about it.

OT: Being from the United States, I believe that we kicked the limeys out so that we didn't have to deal with this shit, so I'm just irritated that this is news outside of "people" magazine.

I'm even more disappointed that the baby didn't turn out to be a racial minority either.

 

[Bluestorm83]

While I don't much care for the Royal FAMILY, I do have an enormous amount of respect and admiration for the Queen. I've seen a lot of things on her life and what exactly she has to do, and let me tell you, it's not easy. People here in America joke that she gets an enormous salary to do nothing, but honestly, she never gets to do nothing. She's the Queen. That's not just a title, that's a job. Every second of every day she has to be "On."

Anyone ever work in Retail? Know that fake, smiley, care about the customer act that you have to do to keep your job? That's the queen, 100% of the time. She can never lose her temper, she can never just say "Fuck it, I'm tired and going home," she can never go for a walk in a park on her own. Anyone here ever lose a parent? Any of you who did ever have to address a nation while it happened, holding back all of the emotions that we all would have in that situation? Who here wants to give up the ability to bum around in sweatpants and a T-shirt drinking beer and watching TV to instead have constant fancy dinners and receptions? Wouldn't it be great to be constantly meeting foreign leaders, who get to make actual policy, and have all the pressure of never insulting them accidentally without any of the actual authority to do anything if they were to offend you?

But anyway, I don't care about this baby's PARENTS, but to me, The Queen just got herself a Grandson, and that's awesome. Congratulations, Your Majesty.

I feared i was in a sea of Republicans. thank Jim for you.

Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm- well, okay, I'm not a REGISTERED Republican, because I see political parties as nothing but secular cults and are 80% mob mentality with 20% pep rally mixed in, but I am definitely more Conservative than Liberal.

But what are Conservatives, REAL Conservatives about? We're about work and duty and continuing a legacy of greatness and putting 110% effort into making tomorrow better than today. And that's the kind of stuff that the Queen does. Might not be obvious, she might not be swinging a sledgehammer and literally building the foundations of Britain, but just having the Queen BE the Queen gives the country a lasting stability and an ideal that everyone can aspire to.

I daresay that a problem that America has is that, at the moment at least, we lack a historical icon that we can ALL identify with. Some people love Washington or Lincoln, others idolize FDR or Teddy Roosevelt. A couple like Kennedy, despite him doing very little besides call himself a donut, cheat on his wife, and then disperse across a wide area at high velocity. But every President is their own identity. The Queen is a continuation of The Monarchy, and that's a source of Pride. And that's cool.

Pretty sure he meant republican as in people who would prefer a republic instead on a monarchy, not the American political affiliation. Advocating a republic doesn't necessarily place you anywhere on the right/left spectrum. A socialist and a libertarian can both believe in the removal of monarchy.

OH, okay, I got ya. But you can have both. And I like it.

 

[Bluestorm83]

While I don't much care for the Royal FAMILY, I do have an enormous amount of respect and admiration for the Queen. I've seen a lot of things on her life and what exactly she has to do, and let me tell you, it's not easy. People here in America joke that she gets an enormous salary to do nothing, but honestly, she never gets to do nothing. She's the Queen. That's not just a title, that's a job. Every second of every day she has to be "On."

Anyone ever work in Retail? Know that fake, smiley, care about the customer act that you have to do to keep your job? That's the queen, 100% of the time. She can never lose her temper, she can never just say "Fuck it, I'm tired and going home," she can never go for a walk in a park on her own. Anyone here ever lose a parent? Any of you who did ever have to address a nation while it happened, holding back all of the emotions that we all would have in that situation? Who here wants to give up the ability to bum around in sweatpants and a T-shirt drinking beer and watching TV to instead have constant fancy dinners and receptions? Wouldn't it be great to be constantly meeting foreign leaders, who get to make actual policy, and have all the pressure of never insulting them accidentally without any of the actual authority to do anything if they were to offend you?

But anyway, I don't care about this baby's PARENTS, but to me, The Queen just got herself a Grandson, and that's awesome. Congratulations, Your Majesty.

Wah wah. The taxpayers are still paying to keep rich ol' Lizzie on top of the throne doing fuck all but occasionally knighting people and driving around in a posh car, while she's probably thinking, "I wish these commoners would leave me alone and get a job, but hey-ho, they're paying for my champagne, so I'll smile and wave!"

Nice judgment. Let me just ask... what exactly have you done with YOUR life that's any more impressive than what she's done in hers?

Lol right because you give people different resources and then complain then guy who has to spend time making money to eat, whose words aren't heard by the world just because it was him that said it, does not manage the same impact on the world?

Not that I expect someone who seriously asked that question to be anything less than obstinate about their praise.

However hard he works, I work harder. However much money he makes, I make less. However much he eats, I'm way fatter. All I can hear from him is "Someone else has more than I do, and I can't secure those things I want for myself, so rather than accept my lot in life, I'm going to whine that someone else has more." Like it or not, she's inherited her place in life based on the work of her family over the generations. Whatever's mine I can leave to my son, regardless if it's a dollar or a global empire. The English Monarchy OWNED that country, then handed that power over Parliament. They had no obligation to do that. The English Monarchy OWNED America, and we stole it from them. I have no qualms about saying that. We took what we didn't own. Kicked their asses and took it. Now it's ours. That's life. But exactly like the work the founding fathers did to secure our country, the English Monarchy once did to secure theirs. To say that they don't "do anything" today is like saying we can take money that the elderly have after they retire, because they're "not doing anything" at the moment either.

Oh, wait, Socialists are saying that too...