That’s Chairman Kong to you!
Checkmate Atheists!
Submitted 2 days ago by Godric@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/a08b3fbb-9a5e-4300-88f4-93321822f556.gif
Comments
tanisnikana@lemmy.world 2 days ago
psx_crab@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Senator Kong: Nanomachine, son!
CyberTheProtogen@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Armkong
SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
I don’t think many chairs could withstand Kong
thefluffiest@feddit.nl 2 days ago
Master Kong
BonkTheAnnoyed@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Wow, that’s a throwback…
sundray@lemmus.org 2 days ago
Minister of Kongliment
pitiable_sandwich540@feddit.org 2 days ago
Comrade Kong o7
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 days ago
The problem with Kings is they don’t live up to the marketing. Royals are a group of people that claim they have some genetic superiority to the rest of the species. They deserve the right to rule because they simply have superior blood. They’re smarter, stronger, faster, than everyone else. And in an era before modern nutrition, this was a lot easier case to make. The core thesis of monarchy is “ability runs in families. Let’s find the family with the genes best for governing, and just let them run the place.”
If that idea actually worked, monarchy would be a great system. But governing is not a skill that is passed on genetically. Royals are just ordinary human beings in fancy hats. In fact, they tend to be far stupider than the average person, as they’re born into wealth and privilege.
But King Kong? His elevated position over humanity truly is an inborn genetic trait. He is not a common human, and that’s undeniable. President Kong would imply we elected him as first among equals. King Kong is more appropriate in this situation.
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
Nobody elected Kong.
The answer is regicide, not class infighting.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Look I don’t respect official titles, he’ll always just be Donkey to me.