Phoebe fucking Bridgers

[CaledonianGonzo]

15 hours ago, reflekting said:

Yep, this is a fair point but Phoebe isn't from colonised Africa. She isn't entitled to be the voice on their behalf. 

She shouldn't show solidarity?

[Superscally]

1 hour ago, MaxPower said:

100%. It doesn’t matter that the monarchy hasn’t been making substantial political decisions for most of Elizabeth’s reign, the monarchy is still responsible for being the soft power involved in the actions of the state.

No. Not 100%. Not even close. It would exert some soft power and in cases, some very significant sort power. It is of the nature of encouraging investment though, not like "Go 'ed Tony mate, that Saddam's a knobhead, who cares that there's no gas plants"

[MaxPower]

1 hour ago, Superscally said:

No. Not 100%. Not even close. It would exert some soft power and in cases, some very significant sort power. It is of the nature of encouraging investment though, not like "Go 'ed Tony mate, that Saddam's a knobhead, who cares that there's no gas plants"

This isn’t what I mean (although I do think it foolish to think that at no point during Elizabeth’s reign did the crown influence policy).

what I mean is that the existence of the monarchy, and the Queen, has given the UK state soft power globally just by its existence and Elizabeth being in role. In that sense, the crown is unseverably tied to the actions of the state, and therefore can be criticised for such.

Just because it may have made her position potentially untenable to publicly criticise the actions of the state, does not mean she is immune of criticism or absolve her of guilt. I am not concerned that she was motivated to keep quiet on political issues to maintain the power and position of the crown. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by MaxPower

[Superscally]

36 minutes ago, MaxPower said:

This isn’t what I mean (although I do think it foolish to think that at no point during Elizabeth’s reign did the crown influence policy).

what I mean is that the existence of the monarchy, and the Queen, has given the UK state soft power globally just by its existence and Elizabeth being in role. In that sense, the crown is unseverably tied to the actions of the state, and therefore can be criticised for such.

Just because it may have made her position potentially untenable to publicly criticise the actions of the state, does not mean she is immune of criticism or absolve her of guilt. I am not concerned that she was motivated to keep quiet on political issues to maintain the power and position of the crown. 

Nope. 

 

You're making a parallel to something like the Church being responsible for the Holy Wars. They were, even though it was the monarchy that drove that. If the Crown is to blame in recent years, then you're to blame too. Of course you're not. Voting Labour in 97 does not make you personally responsible for the war on terror.

 

Soft power does not dictate the actions of the State. That's pretty much the definition of soft power. She can't control what is done therefore she's not to blame. Try this for size. Take it to court. You're the prosecution. Tell me what she has DONE to directly facilitate a poor decision by the government. I don't know how much knowledge you have of the law, but I'll tell you this. Your case wouldn't last long in any court in this country, Europe or similar judiciary. 

[MaxPower]

36 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Nope. 

 

You're making a parallel to something like the Church being responsible for the Holy Wars. They were, even though it was the monarchy that drove that. If the Crown is to blame in recent years, then you're to blame too. Of course you're not. Voting Labour in 97 does not make you personally responsible for the war on terror.

 

Soft power does not dictate the actions of the State. That's pretty much the definition of soft power. She can't control what is done therefore she's not to blame. Try this for size. Take it to court. You're the prosecution. Tell me what she has DONE to directly facilitate a poor decision by the government. I don't know how much knowledge you have of the law, but I'll tell you this. Your case wouldn't last long in any court in this country, Europe or similar judiciary. 

She could have influenced political decisions by expressing an opinion them, except she didn’t because to do so would risk the power and privilege the monarchy grants her and her family. She does not get off the hook for being the face of a state that has done horrendous things because she stood by silently - the silence is complicit. 

Your labour in 97 point is a false equivalency, because you are not the figure head of the Labour Party nor the labour government, however If you voted for labour in 97 you’re of course not to blame for the Iraq War, but if you voted for Labour in 97 and failed to criticise the Iraq War, or supported it, then you can be criticised for such.

 

[km9]

It's so easy to sit on your laptop, typing out arguments that justify your position. I doubt it's quite as black and white in real life though.

[Superscally]

Just now, MaxPower said:

She could have influenced political decisions by expressing an opinion them, except she didn’t because to do so would risk the power and privilege the monarchy grants her and her family. She does not get off the hook for being the face of a state that has done horrendous things because she stood by silently - the silence is complicit. 

Your labour in 97 point is a false equivalency, because you are not the figure head of the Labour Party nor the labour government, however If you voted for labour in 97 you’re of course not to blame for the Iraq War, but if you voted for Labour in 97 and failed to criticise the Iraq War, or supported it, then you can be criticised for such.

 

Agree with you wholeheartedly on the Labour side. That was the point I was making. 

Interesting point you raise on the complicit silence and I get that, but I disagree. If the Queen abdicated, then Charles would have taken over in the same position. You need to separate the idea of our type of head of state versus that of an absolute monarchy or a president, who most likely do the same thing as your government or worse. The monarch is able to provide general advice as you would to a friend and the Queen very likely advised caution and offered another perspective, but you'll never know. You can't say that there was silence if you weren't in the wood to hear the tree fall. I would much rather have a voice of reason and apolitical reason that may, just may sway the judgement of a political leader with wisdom than another layer of self-interested government. 

[km9]

@Superscally"I would much rather have a voice of reason..."

If only more people thought this way.

[MaxPower]

12 minutes ago, Superscally said:

Agree with you wholeheartedly on the Labour side. That was the point I was making. 

Interesting point you raise on the complicit silence and I get that, but I disagree. If the Queen abdicated, then Charles would have taken over in the same position. You need to separate the idea of our type of head of state versus that of an absolute monarchy or a president, who most likely do the same thing as your government or worse. The monarch is able to provide general advice as you would to a friend and the Queen very likely advised caution and offered another perspective, but you'll never know. You can't say that there was silence if you weren't in the wood to hear the tree fall. I would much rather have a voice of reason and apolitical reason that may, just may sway the judgement of a political leader with wisdom than another layer of self-interested government. 

Yeah I don’t know what the queen did or said behind closed doors, but someone in her position wields huge sway in the public arena.

I don’t think the result wouldn’t have been her abdication, but the dissolution of the constitutional monarchy (I think, it has been a while since I thought about constitutional law) and conversion to a full democracy/republic.

so it would have been her giving up her and her family’s (enormous, colonial) wealth and privilege  as a result of taking some form of moral stand.
 

edit: deleted a bit, think we’ve probs exhausted this tbh.

Edited September 13, 2022 by MaxPower

[Superscally]

1 hour ago, MaxPower said:

Yeah I don’t know what the queen did or said behind closed doors, but someone in her position wields huge sway in the public arena.

I don’t think the result wouldn’t have been her abdication, but the dissolution of the constitutional monarchy (I think, it has been a while since I thought about constitutional law) and conversion to a full democracy/republic.

so it would have been her giving up her and her family’s (enormous, colonial) wealth and privilege  as a result of taking some form of moral stand.
 

edit: deleted a bit, think we’ve probs exhausted this tbh.

😃 

P.s. chuckling at the last bit. Agreed.

Down to the debate of whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. I think good...and a Phoebe Bridgers thread ain't the place to have that chat. Anyways, as regards Phoebe's input. She had every right to post what she did, solidarity wise, but she probably should know more about something before she influences thousands of people. I'd be very surprised if she knew quite how little say the Queen would have had.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Superscally

[Superscally]

1 hour ago, km9 said:

@Superscally"I would much rather have a voice of reason..."

If only more people thought this way.

Cheers for that.

If you'd have asked me 20 years ago if we should have an unelected house giving the green or red light to laws I'd have told you they should get in the bin. It's only been the last few years where the Lords seems to have been the only brake on some of the batshit crazy motions that have been forced through the commons and even if they've been ultimately futile in many cases, they've been valuable in at least delaying some of the shite. In mamy cases they've forced important alterations too... 

Beware the career politician. 

[kingcrawler]

 

[VCK]

I have always been anti-royalist but I've found these "she was a coloniser!" takes to be disingenuous. Sure the British Empire was still in existence in 1952 and yes she did benefit from it as did anyone in a position of authority in the UK during that period, but by that point it was in the process of decolonisation, in the post-Attlee years. As always happens with these discussions about race and colonialism, fingers are being pointed at the wrong people.

My issue with Queen Elizabeth overall was that she did nothing at all as head of state, and made millions in taxpayer's money from it. No disrespect to the woman herself, RIP and all that, she just represented something I have never supported.

But that's just my two cents. More to the point, Phoebe Bridgers is incredibly bland, both musically and as a person.

Edited October 17, 2022 by VCK

[km9]

17 hours ago, VCK said:

...
But that's just my two cents. More to the point, Phoebe Bridgers is incredibly bland, both musically and as a person.

Agreed

[CaledonianGonzo]

18 hours ago, kingcrawler said:

 

Would have thought that Phoebe Bridgers would be the one performing as a skeleton.

[mjfiddy]

New boygenius (hopefully full album 🤞) looks to be incoming, on the Coachella lineup and a textbook clearing of instagram 

[Padjeq]

be nice to see boygenius at a festival this summer. Hoping for Glastonbury obv

[scatteredscreens]

Glastonbury or a festival at some kind is my preferred choice as well. Worried that the rabbid Phoebe fans will screech through a boygenius set so them at a festival might reduce that. It'd also be impossible to get a boygenius show ticket most likely.

[wro_lap]

Where would they play at Glasto? Early Pyramid maybe? I'd say late JP but Phoebe's just done that slot

[scatteredscreens]

5 minutes ago, wro_lap said:

Where would they play at Glasto? Early Pyramid maybe? I'd say late JP but Phoebe's just done that slot

gotta be park for that intimate vibe

[mjfiddy]

I always thought Lucy was on the 2020 poster but apparently not 

they are rumoured at other US festivals in August but they all seem to have a big space (Lucy and Julien with nothing, Phoebe clear after May supporting Taylor) - so could happen!

Heard maybe a March release for an album (by heard I mean absolute hearsay online) but would fit a March / April hole in Phoebe’s dates.

[gigpusher]

42 minutes ago, mjfiddy said:

I always thought Lucy was on the 2020 poster but apparently not 

they are rumoured at other US festivals in August but they all seem to have a big space (Lucy and Julien with nothing, Phoebe clear after May supporting Taylor) - so could happen!

Heard maybe a March release for an album (by heard I mean absolute hearsay online) but would fit a March / April hole in Phoebe’s dates.

I thought she was as well so much so that  had put her on my playlist to prepare. Not sure where I got the idea from. Maybe I was just trying to will it into happening. 

[dreams_burn_down]

 

[sisco]

22 minutes ago, dreams_burn_down said:

 

Very much hoping they play 

[Mezhyp1]

Don't know all dates but they're definitely in the UK in late August