In GQ Monty posted some very ignorant malarkey about Thailand’s royal family. I couldn’t even figure out what his point was. Here are the last two posts in the exchange, though without multi-quote you’ll want to click to see what I was responding to. (Yes there’s some obvious anger in my post here; this was after Monty had continued to bluster, despite my more gentle ignorance-fighting.)
Monty responded with this:
My guess is that he’s repeating some twaddle he picked up somewhere, and knows he can’t defend it, so announced he wouldn’t respond in GQ. I don’t think he has anything of substance to add, but will use a different excuse for not responding in the Pit.
I’ll ask other Dopers to review the thread and see which of the two (Monty or Septimus) had a coherent position, and which was just confused.
I’m not asking whether Monty or I is a more likeable person. (I’m sure I’ll lose that fight. ) I’d just like the factual exchange reviewed. My impression is that I presented facts and arguments and Monty had nothing at all but ignorance.
The king of Thailand is the longest-sitting living monarch, in 21st place overall as of today, more that five and a half years ahead of that British girl.
Originally I thought he might have in part been giving an example of an attack on the monarchy, followed by an inquiry about its penalty. But I wasn’t sure. Today’s posts went a little beyond that.
That said, I hope Monty drops by and clarifies. There’s nothing wrong with from suffering from the malady of only a little knowledge. Given my shakier knowledge, I frankly find both sides defensible.
Also, I’ll note that the discussion of Thai royalty was a semi-hijack in the linked thread. No worries, just an observation. Also, it would be nice to have this discussion in a thread where Thai residents are not posting, given the Terms of Use on this message board and other salient issues.
I know little about the Thai monarchy but I do know Thailand has some draconian punishments for those who show a lack of proper respect for the king, and the Government isn’t averse to using them.
From the Thai Criminal Code, Section 112: “Whoever defames, insults or threatens the king, queen, heir-apparent, or regent shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years.”
This is total bullshit in a supposed modern constitutional monarchy and democracy.
Though the current government of Thailand seems to be using the Lèse-majesté laws to punish dissent in general instead against of the Royal family specifically.
Gosh, how lucky Yul Brynner, or whoever sits the throne these days, is to have you here as his pit bull calling Monty to task. Monty isn’t nearly as astute as he believes himself to be, but At least he isn’t wasting lifespan asskissing a king who doesn’t even know he exists.
There has been but one serious biography of the King, by the American journalist Paul_1_Handley%% entitled Teh King Nvver Smiles (2006). It is listed at wikipedia: Thai officials have blocked access to websites advertising the book. From the Economist: [INDENT] Perhaps his gravest charge is that in 1976 the king seemed to condone the growth of right-wing vigilante groups that, along with the army, were later responsible for the slaughter of peaceful student protesters. As has happened often in modern Thai history (and could easily happen again now), the 1976 unrest was used as a pretext to topple the government and replace it with a royally approved one. [/INDENT]
If Monty isn’t as astute as he claims to be, that means he is spreading ignorance in GQ. And it he’s being obstinate about it, that’s a Pit-able offense.
Are you sure you didn’t mistake this for a different board?
First sentence: that follows not. Second sentence: it was a semi-hijack. Bringing the discussion elsewhere makes some sense.
To be clear BigT, there’s a huge subtext here. Insulting the king is a grave offense in that country: people have and will go to jail for it. That government has effectively shut down a fair amount of debate among foreigners as well: the whole matter is swept under the rug by deeming it a foreign custom.
Also, it’s within Monte’s right not to have to sort through weird accusations about wanting to expropriate royal wealth.
It’s lonely at the top.
The book is banned in Thailand, though reportedly available in photocopy. There are also unauthorized translations into Thai on the internet, reportedly.
Since the King of Thailand, like the Queen of Britain, is a constitutional monarch I couldn’t understand what Monty’s objection was. Just as some complain about money wasted on the Windsors, I thought Monty might object to the Thai royal wealth. Of course I should have objected to whatever his real complaint was, but he never told us what it was.
As I explained, the Lèse-majesté laws are often applied in prosecutions unrelated to royalty. It isn’t the King who brings such prosecutions. I don’t approve of those laws, but when one examines the totality of problems and associated solutions in Thailand, the Lèse-majesté laws aren’t even a “blip on the radar” – to focus on them as key to Thai governance shows baffling ignorance.
) I’d just like the factual exchange reviewed. My impression is that I presented facts and arguments and Monty had nothing at all but ignorance.