Oh boy, you really need to be walked thru the steps, huh? I'll try to spell it out for you: Making a mockery out of the other persons argument is a form of rebuttal. Your attempt at mockery was piss-poor.
If you want to improve yourself consider practicing by moving beyond the simple "I know what you are, what am I" you've attempted in this response.
These nations comprise more than 100 million people. Even if the Epstein class personally impregnated 100 million children to deliver the population, the countries would still have basic legitimacy, because they contain these people.
If you're about to hit me with your definition of these countries just being the respective governments, not the people within, then you are using a definition outside the norm and should not be surprised that you piss people off, no matter what propaganda you want to believe in.
All countries have people in the lol. What are you even trying to argue here? There's plenty of peoples with unrecognised countries. There's plenty of countries with contested territory and people in the contested territory. There's plenty of countries with people who don't consider their country "legitimate" and countries with people who consider separatist movements in their country "illegitimate". Is your basis for legitimacy wether a country has people and a wikipedia page or what are you trying to get at here?
Leadership isn't appointed in an aristocracy, it's inherited, so you might have chosen the absolute worst descriptor. You could have used it as an adjective, maybe, but as the description of the structure itself it's completely moronic. Yeah China isn't an aristocracy because the positions aren't inhereted, there we go your mind is changed.
No aristocracy can coincide with nobility but the term itself just means a small privileged ruling class hold all the power. Yes you're right, in the middle ages this was mostly inherited, but that's not a requirement. Of course the king/emperor could appoint nobles aswell. All these inbred mfers had to start somewhere after all.
but the term itself just means a small privileged ruling class hold all the power.
Jesus Christ you keep doing this. Do you not see how rude it is to talk like you do on something you clearly dont understand?
If that were the definition, then every representative type of government would be an aristrocracy. It would make the definition completely redundant, because it would just describe "representative government" which we already have a descriptor for. Fuck you people. Thicker than bricks and the ego of a 40's physicist.
Did you mean to say "autocracy?" Like another user said, aristocracy involves a class of nobles with inherited rights.
Now, the system China had before the CPC came to power, that could reasonably be described as an aristocracy. But literally one of the first things that happened after the communists came to power was that that class was forcibly eliminated and their land was redistributed to the people who worked it.
Words change, aristocracy in ancient greece meant 'rule by the best' and they regarded inheritence as corruption. And while I'm sure president Xi is influential, I doubt he has the 'absolute' power for the word autocracy to fit.
Olligarchy would've been more unambigous.
I'm trying to play chess with a bunch of pidgeons who think they're winning, smh
I don't live in ancient Greece, I live in the modern day where words are understood to mean what they mean now, not what they meant thousands of years ago.
I’m trying to play chess with a bunch of pidgeons who think they’re winning, smh
Holy shit you meant autocracy lmao. I wish I had half the ego you types do, to run my mouth about the governance of a specific country when I dont even know the difference between autocracy and aristrocracy. The hubris you have, goddamn. What a fucking idiot you are.
Anyway China is a democracy, one of very few in the modern world. People are elected on the basis of their merit, which is why you see most Chinese politicians arent lawyers from Ivy League schools, but people with real experience and more practically oriented educations. Because they're actually elected, instead of hand-picked by a small group of rich people that then support them.
And these people are able to govern 1.4 billion in the largest socialist country in the world, as opposed to whatever anarchist tendency you subscribe to which can boast of... Probably a decent soup kitchen or some funny internet drama.
My response is far more civil and respectful than the initial comment or any of their responses. Civility and respect is not just tone, but also action, and goddamn it is disrespectful to show up and spread shit everywhere like they did. Have the basic decency to not run your mouth on things you have fuck all understanding of. Me responding to you like this is in fact because they broke rule 1.
No aristocracy can coincide with nobility but the term itself just means a small privileged ruling class hold all the power. Yes in the middle ages this was inherited, but that's not a requirement.
How I which what you say is true, that they had soviets or some form of direct representation. But like the west they have a ruling class. It's just the CCP instead of bourgeois, though admittedly they strip away the pretensions of merrit by direct appointment. Workers at best have representations in the form of trade unions.
I'd cite some american university papers but you'd just call it propaganda. I which you could discard your rose tinted glasses and were able to criticise china. I mean their planned economy is way better than the west's economy based on greed driven decisions. Nontheless the decisions are ultimately made by a ruling class.
"Aristrocracy" as a system of governance is one where a noble elite pass on government positions through inheritance.
In practical application this never has such a clean-cut look, just like every other structure of governance. "Democracy" means rulership of the people and yet no modern "democracy" has all people show up and all vote on everything.
A "monarchy" is a rule of a singular dictator who inherited the position, yet in practice every monarchy was not just one guy deciding everything with absolute power and the ability to discount other powerful nobles. Yet we still describe them as monarchies.
That actual aristocracies don't fit neatly with the absolute description, does not mean that that is not what "aristrocracy" as a form of governance is.
Because yes, in practice, you had to become a noble somehow. And sometimes you didnt inherit stuff. Just like how in democracies functionaries aren't directly elected and laws are passed by representatives rather than all the people and some of those representatives might not even be elected, yet we still designated the system as a democracy.
An aristrocracy is not just "a small ruling class holding all the power". If that were the case then every parliamentary or representative democracy would be considered an aristrocracy. The inheritance of title and position is key, you absolute moron.
If you wanted something you could have made a very bad argument for oligarchy. But really you should just shut the fuck up on things you dont know and learn instead.
3
At least not the current Amerikkkan puppet state LMBO | Spyke
56 replies
This thread has potential
Fake ass countries
What a spread of opinions in this one. You are hard to nail down on what you believe.
These flags, what do they all have in common?
They've all got blue in them?
They're all vassal states of the US empire. The US controls them and in south Korea's case their army is commanded by an Amerikan.
Their only goals are to project their empire's power and encircle Russia and China. Japan is also a vassal state the same way.
You got all that out of a flag? Farken hell, maybe you Mother Lovers are onto something
This might be the worst attempt at a rebuttal Ive ever seen. They got it from knowing about the countries the flags represent.
I think you mean your buttal. Also how did you think my original comment was not taking the piss?
Oh boy, you really need to be walked thru the steps, huh? I'll try to spell it out for you: Making a mockery out of the other persons argument is a form of rebuttal. Your attempt at mockery was piss-poor.
If you want to improve yourself consider practicing by moving beyond the simple "I know what you are, what am I" you've attempted in this response.
??
oh true
I believe, jankforlife just believes in pissing off as many people as possible...
it'll only piss you off if you believe in the epstein class' propaganda.
These nations comprise more than 100 million people. Even if the Epstein class personally impregnated 100 million children to deliver the population, the countries would still have basic legitimacy, because they contain these people.
If you're about to hit me with your definition of these countries just being the respective governments, not the people within, then you are using a definition outside the norm and should not be surprised that you piss people off, no matter what propaganda you want to believe in.
it's about who controls them right now.
without the united states empire taiwan, south korea, and isreal would not exist as countries and ukraine wouldn't be controlled by fascists.
Do you believe in the basic legitimacy of the DPRK, sometimes called "North Korea"?
All countries have people in the lol. What are you even trying to argue here? There's plenty of peoples with unrecognised countries. There's plenty of countries with contested territory and people in the contested territory. There's plenty of countries with people who don't consider their country "legitimate" and countries with people who consider separatist movements in their country "illegitimate". Is your basis for legitimacy wether a country has people and a wikipedia page or what are you trying to get at here?
This theory is, this with all due respect, a failure of imagination.
The only ones I piss off are lemmy libs such as yourself LMBO
What does lmbo stand for?
They answered in a different thread. It's "Laughing my butt off".
Thanks. I guess they're trying to make it a thing?
"memes"
memes can be political too, and they can still be memes even if they don't align with your carefully cultivated worldview
They can also be good or interesting.
A claim that has yet to be proven, but I, like you, still believe we will someday see the first Funny Post
Leave me alone
Go back to reddit
Why would I?
States have legitimacy?🤡
Even China imho is a modern aristocracy, change my mind.
Y'all really just pick negative words at random to describe China as, I swear you picked "aristocracy" out of a hat.
Uhm actshually i pulled it out of my ass🤓
No wonder it's a shitty description.
You've got a better word for a top-down system for appointing leadership?
Leadership isn't appointed in an aristocracy, it's inherited, so you might have chosen the absolute worst descriptor. You could have used it as an adjective, maybe, but as the description of the structure itself it's completely moronic. Yeah China isn't an aristocracy because the positions aren't inhereted, there we go your mind is changed.
No aristocracy can coincide with nobility but the term itself just means a small privileged ruling class hold all the power. Yes you're right, in the middle ages this was mostly inherited, but that's not a requirement. Of course the king/emperor could appoint nobles aswell. All these inbred mfers had to start somewhere after all.
Jesus Christ you keep doing this. Do you not see how rude it is to talk like you do on something you clearly dont understand?
If that were the definition, then every representative type of government would be an aristrocracy. It would make the definition completely redundant, because it would just describe "representative government" which we already have a descriptor for. Fuck you people. Thicker than bricks and the ego of a 40's physicist.
Did you mean to say "autocracy?" Like another user said, aristocracy involves a class of nobles with inherited rights.
Now, the system China had before the CPC came to power, that could reasonably be described as an aristocracy. But literally one of the first things that happened after the communists came to power was that that class was forcibly eliminated and their land was redistributed to the people who worked it.
Words change, aristocracy in ancient greece meant 'rule by the best' and they regarded inheritence as corruption. And while I'm sure president Xi is influential, I doubt he has the 'absolute' power for the word autocracy to fit.
Olligarchy would've been more unambigous.
I'm trying to play chess with a bunch of pidgeons who think they're winning, smh
I don't live in ancient Greece, I live in the modern day where words are understood to mean what they mean now, not what they meant thousands of years ago.
You are the pidgeon.
can't change something that's not there to begin with
It shows. Always happy to give you the impulse to start though <3
Holy shit you meant autocracy lmao. I wish I had half the ego you types do, to run my mouth about the governance of a specific country when I dont even know the difference between autocracy and aristrocracy. The hubris you have, goddamn. What a fucking idiot you are.
Anyway China is a democracy, one of very few in the modern world. People are elected on the basis of their merit, which is why you see most Chinese politicians arent lawyers from Ivy League schools, but people with real experience and more practically oriented educations. Because they're actually elected, instead of hand-picked by a small group of rich people that then support them.
And these people are able to govern 1.4 billion in the largest socialist country in the world, as opposed to whatever anarchist tendency you subscribe to which can boast of... Probably a decent soup kitchen or some funny internet drama.
Rule one please
My response is far more civil and respectful than the initial comment or any of their responses. Civility and respect is not just tone, but also action, and goddamn it is disrespectful to show up and spread shit everywhere like they did. Have the basic decency to not run your mouth on things you have fuck all understanding of. Me responding to you like this is in fact because they broke rule 1.
The image does not load sadly :(
No aristocracy can coincide with nobility but the term itself just means a small privileged ruling class hold all the power. Yes in the middle ages this was inherited, but that's not a requirement.
How I which what you say is true, that they had soviets or some form of direct representation. But like the west they have a ruling class. It's just the CCP instead of bourgeois, though admittedly they strip away the pretensions of merrit by direct appointment. Workers at best have representations in the form of trade unions.
I'd cite some american university papers but you'd just call it propaganda. I which you could discard your rose tinted glasses and were able to criticise china. I mean their planned economy is way better than the west's economy based on greed driven decisions. Nontheless the decisions are ultimately made by a ruling class.
"Aristrocracy" as a system of governance is one where a noble elite pass on government positions through inheritance.
In practical application this never has such a clean-cut look, just like every other structure of governance. "Democracy" means rulership of the people and yet no modern "democracy" has all people show up and all vote on everything.
A "monarchy" is a rule of a singular dictator who inherited the position, yet in practice every monarchy was not just one guy deciding everything with absolute power and the ability to discount other powerful nobles. Yet we still describe them as monarchies.
That actual aristocracies don't fit neatly with the absolute description, does not mean that that is not what "aristrocracy" as a form of governance is.
Because yes, in practice, you had to become a noble somehow. And sometimes you didnt inherit stuff. Just like how in democracies functionaries aren't directly elected and laws are passed by representatives rather than all the people and some of those representatives might not even be elected, yet we still designated the system as a democracy.
An aristrocracy is not just "a small ruling class holding all the power". If that were the case then every parliamentary or representative democracy would be considered an aristrocracy. The inheritance of title and position is key, you absolute moron.
If you wanted something you could have made a very bad argument for oligarchy. But really you should just shut the fuck up on things you dont know and learn instead.