• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

News and Headlines...

Well, that's the Royals done for then. The only respectable Royal left has passed on. RIP Liz.
 
I don't think Charles will be that popular as king. But at least Andrew is not king.
 
Yeah. Charles isn't actually a bad guy, but he has made unpopular moves and doesn't have 70 years to become a British institution like his mother did. He doesn't have the time or likely the inclination to build up the mystique and public persona like Elizabeth did.
 
He at best is unremarkable, at worst annoying and weird.

on a different subject:


I still find it annoying people get so mad at others criticizing someone after they die unless they despise them. Like, what unwriting waiting period rule is there about this sort of thing? There's no difference shitting on the queen the day of her death or 20 years from now. She"s still dead.
 
Blackgutter said:
I still find it annoying people get so mad at others criticizing someone after they die unless they despise them. Like, what unwriting waiting period rule is there about this sort of thing? There's no difference shitting on the queen the day of her death or 20 years from now. She"s still dead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The phrase you're looking for is "too soon".

In short, it's called having some human decency to not dump on someone who just died. It's not a very high bar.
 
Biigoh said:
The phrase you're looking for is "too soon".

In short, it's called having some human decency to not dump on someone who just died. It's not a very high bar.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't really understand that part unless we're talking about a random nobody. If it's a public figure, I really don't get it why it matters. I don't bother trying to do it anyway because of the infraction I'll get and people stop caring in about a week.
 
Public figures are people too, with families who care about them and who would appreciate it just as much as a random stranger if idiots on the internet could extend basic human decency.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree that it's necessary, but the reasoning behind it is exactly as sound for a public figure as for a random stranger.

"A person died, don't be an arse."
 
Blackgutter said:
I don't really understand that part unless we're talking about a random nobody. If it's a public figure, I really don't get it why it matters. I don't bother trying to do it anyway because of the infraction I'll get and people stop caring in about a week.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm going to lay it out as simple as possible.

A person died. It doesn't matter if they're J Random Old Person or J Random Young Person or X Celebrity or Y Royalty. It doesn't matter because they're human and a person at the end of the day.

It's BARE basic human human decency to not dump on them because they're people and they just died.

This is like if your parents died and someone going "I don't see why I can't dump on them, they're dead and no one cares, right?" right afterwards.

So, it's not a celebrity/royalty thing, it's about someone who just died.
 
Biigoh said:
I'm going to lay it out as simple as possible.

A person died. It doesn't matter if they're J Random Old Person or J Random Young Person or X Celebrity or Y Royalty. It doesn't matter because they're human and a person at the end of the day.

It's BARE basic human human decency to not dump on them because they're people and they just died.

This is like if your parents died and someone going "I don't see why I can't dump on them, they're dead and no one cares, right?" right afterwards.

So, it's not a celebrity/royalty thing, it's about someone who just died.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That wouldnt happen because Im a nobody and no one would hate me enough to bother. Regardless I dont personally do it myself because its a pointless attempt at being edgy that gets old when people stop pearl clutching after the persons been dead for a while. I just object in princible because it makes zero sense, arbitrary time period after a person dies and suddenly their untouchable.
 
Blackgutter said:
That wouldnt happen because Im a nobody and no one would hate me enough to bother. Regardless I dont personally do it myself because its a pointless attempt at being edgy that gets old when people stop pearl clutching after the persons been dead for a while. I just object in princible because it makes zero sense, arbitrary time period after a person dies and suddenly their untouchable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But if someone hates your parents enough to do so after they die? Or they absolutely loathe you?

It's an arbitrary thing that goes don't talk smack about dead people especially if the death was recent.

It's kind of like when 9/11 happened, you don't talk smack about the event or the people who died right after it.

If you can't work out why you shouldn't disrespect the recent dead, I don't know what to say.
 
Biigoh said:
But if someone hates your parents enough to do so after they die? Or they absolutely loathe you?

It's an arbitrary thing that goes don't talk smack about dead people especially if the death was recent.

It's kind of like when 9/11 happened, you don't talk smack about the event or the people who died right after it.

If you can't work out why you shouldn't disrespect the recent dead, I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I get why not to do it, people get mad and pissy at you and then usually on a forum you get ejected from a thread. Doing it in person is social suicide. Doesnt stop from some of the queen death jokes being funny.

Edit: I am not sure how much more I can discuss this because I think I might be violating the off topic rule for the thread. Sorry for the derail.
 
Last edited:
The thing I find annoying is that people want to disrespect Queen Elizabeth when she earned her respect for her duty during WW2.

Like holy hell she drove ambulances while London was being bombed by Nazis, and people want to disrespect her now that she's passed away.

Fuck those people.
 
I wouldn't mind people criticising her if they were actually criticising her and not just being opportunistic arses who waited until she was dead to find the "courage".

But none of the criticism I've seen is actually fairly aimed at her. She is not responsible for Andrew's actions, nor does her lack of apology for the actions of the British Empire amount to tacit support like I've seen some people say. She couldn't actually apologise without breaking British law and breaching Parliamentary Supremacy, and the last British Monarch to do that lost their head. Literally.
 
Blackgutter said:
I just object in princible because it makes zero sense, arbitrary time period after a person dies and suddenly their untouchable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the arbitrary time period has to do with giving the people who do care about the deceased, whose emotions are likely pretty raw, time to work through their grief (the corpse obviously doesn't care either way). Whether the cutoff should be more clearly defined, probably, but it is what it is.

That said, I don't really think how famous a given person is has much to do with how socially acceptable dancing on their grave is seen as, it being more to do with how reviled or beloved they are. The local rapist or Osama bin Laden aren't likely to get many defenders, but a local hero or Robin Williams probably aren't acceptable targets. The Queen isn't as controversial as say, Margaret Thatcher (and there was pushback to celebrations of her death), but there's still a fair bit of antipathy directed toward the royal family and the institution it represents.
 
I just want to say if someone thinks people haven't been criticizing her for all the things they're bringing up right now then they haven't been looking in the right places.
 
Firedon said:
I just want to say if someone thinks people haven't been criticizing her for all the things they're bringing up right now then they haven't been looking in the right places.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There are no perfect people. She wasn't always right, wasn't always the best, but IMO she was pretty good all the same. There is definitely criticism of her, legitimate and not.

However, it remains true that if you find a world leader that you think has no faults and nothing wrong with them, then I've found which world leader has snared you with their hype machine and has you believing their lies.
 
MadGreenSon said:
There are no perfect people. She wasn't always right, wasn't always the best, but IMO she was pretty good all the same. There is definitely criticism of her, legitimate and not.

However, it remains true that if you find a world leader that you think has no faults and nothing wrong with them, then I've found which world leader has snared you with their hype machine and has you believing their lies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

she was a apolitical figurehead for the uk. Most of what she did to affect change must by definition be very little for her to stay apolitical as queen of England.
 
Blackgutter said:
she was a apolitical figurehead for the uk. Most of what she did to affect change must by definition be very little for her to stay apolitical as queen of England.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
She did charity work as I understand it and otherwise upheld the functions of being Queen. Undoubtedly there is some politics in it, but... <shrug> So what? Her main goal as I understand it was to influence the voting public towards one party/issue or another as little as possible.

Whether the people of the UK choose to admit it or not, the Royal Family very much can and does influence them, she tried to wield that power with as light a hand as possible.
 
Is this the obituary thread?

Here's a photo allegedly taken at Twitter HQ:

lK8ikrx.jpeg
 
Here hoping that that turkey can recover after the earthquake.
 
Silicon Valley Bank has gone under. The bank was known for providing startup capital for new business ventures, and many companies that got their start through them still had a lot of money invested in them. FDIC insurance only covers up to $250,000 per account. All of 2.7% of the accounts in SVB had less than $250,000 in them.

Expect a tech bubble pop next week as numerous tech companies suddenly can't pay their employees.
 
Biigoh said:
It's an arbitrary thing that goes don't talk smack about dead people especially if the death was recent.

It's kind of like when 9/11 happened, you don't talk smack about the event or the people who died right after it.

If you can't work out why you shouldn't disrespect the recent dead, I don't know what to say.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
eh, if I say someone did a stupid on x day, and then a day later that same person dies and I again say that they did a stupid on x day, would that be insensitive? i think otherwise.
 
Hyp3rB14d3 said:
Silicon Valley Bank has gone under. The bank was known for providing startup capital for new business ventures, and many companies that got their start through them still had a lot of money invested in them. FDIC insurance only covers up to $250,000 per account. All of 2.7% of the accounts in SVB had less than $250,000 in them.

Expect a tech bubble pop next week as numerous tech companies suddenly can't pay their employees.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Between that and another bank, crypto also lost 70 billion in the last 24 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top