Schattenmann
-
Posts
8,763 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Schattenmann
-
-
To quote Ali G: "dat is a very sexist way to talk about dem !@#$%*es"
In all seriousness, liberal feminism (in America, I have no idea of the state of it anywhere else) has decided that to be equal to men, women must act like men. And since liberals adhere to no morality, it means they must act like the most depraved men. But women are not men, and men are not women.
Now, rather than defend Miley's slaggish behavior as they did Beyonce's (at the Super Bowl this year), they are asking "why not condemn Robin Thicke, too?!!! See, sexism!" But the problem is theirs still; to condemn Thicke is to condemn Miley, anyway. To congratulate Beyonce is to congratulate Miley. The idiocy of postmodernism allows them to have their cake and eat it too vis-a-vis "but there's no man on stage wtih Beyonce!" but people with brains know it's all garbage. Trash is trash is trash.
40 years ago I would have been appalled at David Bowie, but frankly he is the Naz with God-given ass and Miley (and Beyonce, and Britney, and Pink, and John Meyer for that matter) are all just sexed up trash who aren't nearly as controversial or dead sexy.
-
American 'culture'.
Ohhhhh, says the guy whose language has one cuss word for poop and sex, and also means "to give birth"
I'll take you on in spijkerpoepen; winner's country has a better culture.Miley's like beiber, they're both handsome ladies
What's the best thing about Miley's new haircut?
You can flip her over and pretend she's Justin Bieber.
-
I don't see what all this outrage is about, I just watched it on youtube, and it doesn't seem that bad at all.
I felt the same way. The video ended and I was still waiting to be offended.
Bowie did it better, probably because he was the Naz with God-given ass and well-hung with snow-white tan.
-
PS: Prince Imrahil, I miss your blogs. Get your name fixed and come back.
-
I'm quitting - See you in 5 weeks.
-
Hmm... the quote option is not working for me atm.
Welcome to Invision Pro (Power?) Boards 3!
-
It's my understanding that between the rules, the situation, and the responding mod, generally the offending nations are simply deleted and that's that, if action is taken at all. From there, if it's one person with actual multis, you just make a new, clean nation and learn your lesson; if it's two people you find two networks, or you play rock-paper-scissors and only one person gets to keep playing with 1 new nation.
People mistake "deleted" and "banned." A person who is banned is often not deleted immediately, and a person who is deleted is not necessarily banned.
-
I'm certain Ai must have at least a rudimentary nationbuilding guide. Read it.
-
I'm just going to go ahead and lay it down plainly: This is dumbassed and played out. You're not funny, the Riddle thing isn't funny, you're not cool.
In the top corner of this blog, click the little arrow, then select "delete" and stop wasting bandwidth. Come back when you have something to say that can't be said in a reply to one of the 35 threads already open on this subject.
-
Hey, Lamuella, glad to see you're around; after so many years of silence I had assumed you had quit.
For my part--and I won't ask you to agree--I simply find a certain comicality to the gnashing of teeth on your all's part over our decision to handle this specific war in this specific way. In my perspective, it has no sweeping implications for the future, much less is it the heralding of a once-and-future-hegemony as claimed by the most Chicken-Little-alarmists out there. It is the way this war must be fought, so that's they way we're fighting it.
They have decided that they can enforce the idea that "an attack on one is an attack on all"
References to this execution of the war as some kind of new, novel idea are silly.
The idea of an attack on one party being an attack on the other is the foundation of compulsive (in CoJ-speak, "Mutual" in the mundane) treaties and protectorates. It is uncommon for a DoW not to be posted, but it is far from true that we are not posting DoWs. The coaltiion has been created with the pretense of one-for-all; as follows, every alliance that has joined the coalition (to my knowledge) has posted an initial DoW stating their initial target and their membership/affiliation with Equilibrium with its one-for-all pretense. We are acting as one in concert, if, after an AA has joined, we need one nation of their's out of 50 to cover a stagger on another alliance, and you want a DoW posted for that given that Equilibrium has clearly stated what we're doing, then you're being silly.
This is more than DH afforded anyone in the DH-NPO War as a matter of too-cool-for-school bucking of Digiterran norms, and it was intentional to muddy the waters so that when the alliances they attacked "recognized hostilities" DH could activate defensive treaties. In point of fact, DH ran circles around their more conservative adversaries because they manipulated our adherence to conservatism and relied upon their own allies' unquestioning attitude about it.
Quit the opposite in this case, we have laid bare from the beginning exatly what the score is. For years, Doom House has laughed at "e-lawyers" and "moralists" while outmaneuvering them (and frankly from CoJ's position out here in the desert even I have chuckled at DH's ability to do it so well, it was funny in a very wry way). Today, however, many of your talking heads have suddenly found religion and find it repugnant that we're refusing to tie our own hands in this war, making moanful appeals to our senses of honor and morality to condemn us with charges of unethical behavior, and making legalistic arguments about defense and aggression and when a war begins or ends etc etc. That's funny, too.
For example, during the DH-NPO War, CoJ and 64Digits noticed that ODN's protectorate was still sending them massive amount sof tech while ODN was engaged with us. We informed the protectorate, Flood Empire, that those tech deals were an act of war. ODN went ballistic, threatened reparations, and at the end of the war CoJ had to apologize as a term of peace. Today, Voodoo of TOP queried GLoF to demand that GLoF declare peace with a dealer sending tech to TOP during war. Shall we now demand that TOP apologize to GLoF as a condition for peace? Simply comical.
Doom House and its allies know the basic system of inter-alliance norms which are not laws, but which everyone works within to make life easier for themselves. Not accepting ZI targets, sanctioning rogues, not aiding rogues, not aiding people at war. But for their own amusement DH has thumbed its nose at these norms, and applied them to everyone but themselves, while putting in place new and bizarre norms to benefit themselves. Now that their opponents have gotten a little--a very, very little--liberal with the traditional norms, you all can't hardly believe what evil devils we are.
Spare me.
whether Doomhouse win or lose, their way of playing the game will still be the victor.I hope this isn't a prelude to years of silly Vladimiresque claims of ~true victory~ on the part of DH.
-
Ah, homeschool. Should have guessed.
-
"I wanted to break the writer's fingers by the time I got to 'belie,' so I can't comment on the argument," I said in my thick Balkan accent, my usually playful grin curled into a dire grimace under furrowed brow. As if to accentuate both my distaste for the writer and subtly bring attention to my own impeccable wardrobe as compared to the slobs surrounding me, I plucked a small bit of lent from my lapel, regarded it with a glare, then flicked it to the side.
-
I think the issue demonstrated in this thread can be summarised as follows;
No, dude, you're overthinking it. Friends > infra.
-
"Comrade" Craig, if this is your idea of the way a rotten, social misfit talks to people:
1) Apparently I matter enough to C&G to get you ranting about my position and draw people out of the woodwork to defend yourselves on OWF. But no, I'm not trying to convince anyone in your bloc. You're really not the audience of my comments. It's the rank and file members, the lower gov, and once in a while the leadership of alliances who might read these threads and think to themselves "He's got a point, let's rethink signing with these guys." They don't "need" my help, but why wouldn't I try to help sway their opinion by manifesting negative PR for you guys?
2) What you're describing isn't hypocritical - CoJ is about as true to what I espouse as you can be. What you're describing is playing favorites or giving people more slack to avoid alienating them. And of course I do that sometimes when I think it will benefit my agenda. That's just politics/managing relationships. But I've leveled these criticisms at just about every corner of the web, and give positive reinforcement for dropping treaties all the time. I criticized INT this time, but I'm pretty sure I can find a post where I say the exact same things about IRON. I noted why C&G deserves extra attention at this moment.
3) Sorry, I'm going to "subject" you and your alliance to whatever posts I feel like. When you're not leading a huge AA, that's like the whole game. I speak out both as a player who wants the game to be more fun and as someone sick of people getting away with treaty spamming with little public accountability (which ties back to the game being less fun). Feel free to hide my posts if you think they're that meaningless and don't want to get worked up over them.
Then I dare say you dont' know what a social misfit is. You at least take us for idiots, because only an idiot would believe that OsRavan has been the recipient of ill treatment in this blog wherein he tells the world to shut up and leave him alone.
OsRavan clearly recapped his points for us, it was not to make a "call for civility in our OOC discourse." In fact, the entire topic of this blog is IC. You either didn't read it, or in your zeal to bail OsRavan out of a conversation that is over his head, you are trying to re-define the subject to the only thing Os is good at: OOC cordiality.
Let me remind you what the topic is in OsRavan's own words:
- The world isn’t black and white, good and evil. Stop trying to force everything into those categories.
- Respect that you will never know a third party as well as the people who are allied to them or *in* said alliance/bloc.
- You don’t have to portray someone as evil corrupt scum in order to disagree with them and want to fight them.
- I personally still adhere to the Friends Greater than Infra Policy.. and im far from alone in CnG. And when the time comes, CnG will do the best we can via *all* our allies. Doesnt mean we will be perfect. But we WILL do our best, and you cant ask for more than that. If our allies are not satisfied with said best, they will move on. If they are satisfied they will tell us so. And that will be between us and our allies not the peanut gallery.
- The world isn’t black and white, good and evil. Stop trying to force everything into those categories.
-
You . . . act as though my point is wrong by debating over the idea of friends greater then infra.. which is essentially irrelivant to the larger point I was making.
Here you are again. Moving the goal posts so you can whine about me and avoid the point.
You, OsRavan, YOU posted a recap of your main points, #4 was "Friends > infra" If it was irrelevant to your point, why did you make it your concluding argument? It is your longest point.
I addressed the weakness of your argument, which is that friends > infra is not a foreign policy that allows for a coherent long-term strategy. It is a simplistic propaganda line from a war fought 4 years ago., and it is not suited to make the decisions that C&G must make in the coming weeks.
C&G's direction is the subject of this blog, you cite f>i as C&G's guiding principle, I have addressed that, you have no answer so you state that your own argument is irrelevant to this blog which you wrote.
no schatt, I never open them with any intention of discussing them with *you*.
I wouldn't either, if I were you.
I dont really care if you do or do not like the term friends greater than infra. To each their own. I dislike debating with you, because you arent actually interested in what I have to say (and to be fair, im not all that interested in what you have to say at this point) so much as you are in figuring out how to try and attack whatever im saying.I think my next big hit is going to be an article where I reply to something you say, but I get someone else to post it, then after I've collected several, I put them all in one place. You're going to love it!
For what it's worth, you dislike debating me because you never have debated me. You post something riddled with all the things you're decrying--hypocrisy, propaganda, demonization--I point it out (because it's fun) knock your point (if one was made) and then you take your toys and go home with an : ::eye roll:: : and a : ::head shake:: : and a "I wasn't talking to you" right out of the elementary school cafeteria.
But it's not just me, as I pointed out, you can still answer ProdigalMoon.
-
If you don't have any response to what I said, I'm sure you'll have all the more time to answer ProdigalMoon.
But then, you never open these "discussions" with any intent of discussing anything, anyway.
-
Welcome to the OsRavan Two-Sided Mouth Tour, the show that took West Germany and Japan by storm has landed in North America and you're sure to be amazed!
Question: "Do I go around telling you what your alliances REALLY think?"
Answer: "The sheer hypocrisy of you pretending to be hounding int for not defending lsf (and the rest of cng for who knows what, im not even sure) due to you being some sort of noble crusader for the greater good... while you ignore anyone who had a divided treaty web but agrees with your general political outlook. Well the hypocrisy is enough to choke on. Why arent any of these allies on the other side being yelled at for not backing *us* up? Ohh yes.. because YOU *think* they will be on the side you want and *think* cng wont."
And that's all you need to know about the OsRavan Show. : ::eye roll:: :
"Encore!" you say? Well alright
I personally still adhere to the Friends Greater than Infra Policy.. and im far from alone in CnG. And when the time comes, CnG will do the best we can via *all* our allies. Doesnt mean we will be perfect. But we WILL do our best, and you cant ask for more than that. If our allies are not satisfied with said best, they will move on. If they are satisfied they will tell us so. And that will be between us and our allies not the peanut gallery.The audacity involved in decrying anyone who thinks politically about politics while yourself chanting a propaganda line from a war that pre-dates your existence as a philosophy is mind-blowing. Not to mention the irony of doing so while deriding anything you don't like as "propaganda." Friends>infra may explain C&G's internal dedication, but it does not explain C&G's actions on the global stage. It is just that, 4-year-old propaganda, and it is not a philosophy which allows for long-term coherent strategy. You hold yourself in high regard, OsRavan, for having no motive but to be a friend and make friends, but your pride in that point is in fact a hubris which has brought C&G to the vexing crossroads that you are rapidly approaching with no means of determining which way to go, or, as Vladimir put it: You are forever a slave and never a master. And as the defunct theory that serves as the foundation of your 'practical' action is undermined and destroyed by contraduction, the destructive life-denying force of nihilism begins to take hold and destroy you along with it.
If we are to understand what C&G is up to and what C&G will be up to, and why we had better look to the more frank reflections of GATO's MagicNinja.
-
Thanks for your reply, My Dear Shantamantan!
That is what I did: this entry links to Azaghul's post and it shows at the bottom of the page when you browse the thread. I just changed the title because I considered the standard "From: ..." title to be (as usual) a poor indication of the topic of the blog entry.You should use the "blog this" link under a post's avatar in the future so that people reading the thread are directly linked to the discussion.d'oh!
-
You should use the "blog this" link under a post's avatar in the future so that people reading the thread are directly linked to the discussion.
Well, hello. I'm glad you opened this blog.
The vast majority of treaties signed are based on friendships. Sometimes, there is a legitimate political unity underlying those treaties, and by "political unity" I mean the treaties have a specific goal behind them. But most often, a treaty is simply more like a Valentine card, or a means by which an alliance can show the world it's still active. The problem with this is that CyberNations is a geopolitical simulator, not Facebook-with-nations, and also not simply a war simulator, and while we go to war with people we dislike, we don't go to war simply because of dislike. We go to war over politics. And when the rubber hits the road, all those friendship ties make everything a mess--they become broken promises and tools by which the very few who understand that this is a political simulator manipulate dupes into doing their dirty work. Yes, dupes.
In my specific example to which Azaghul was responding, I said that NPO is on the right track to my philosophy that (1) alliances must become more self aware, develop identities, values, and philosophies, and base their actions on them and (2) alliances must develop foreign policies which are aligned with their internal identity, and sign treaties that are politically-based (treaties with a purpose).
Azaghul's reply belies a basic misunderstanding either of what I was saying or what NPO is doing. First off, NPO with its Francoism is a quintessential example of part 1 of the philosophy I laid out. Second, while NPO is signing treaties all over the place right now, NPO is cearly doing it with a purpose, with a goal, and these treaties are clearly political. Anyone that can't see that is in honest terms: stupid. If that includes Azaghul, so be it.
Right now, while NPO is on the way to its goal (whatever that may be) they are definitely in positions that create tension between NPO's internal values and its treaty obligations; Brehon made that clear as day at the onset of the last war, and I have infamously stated that "the Emperor's feet disagree with his mouth." BUT, that is not the same as maintaining a permanent, static foreign policy that has no cohesion, no reflection, and/or no direction. It will not happen in one day, as NPO reestablishes its world presence, big shifts are happening, and as in all things political (politics is how we decide who gets what), people who stand to lose influence, power, etc will be working to stop or slow NPO's advances. As such, there is going to be a period where NPO, its old allies, its new allies, its old enemies, and its new enemies are all going to be doing things they will not be doing once things are settled. That's change. And when things settle, some treaties will be gone, some new ones will be there, and their foreign policy will once more march closer in step with their internal philosophies. Because NPO is already a prime example of the model I am advocating, and NPO knows that it is a superior model.
And they say that the OWF is dead.
-
Quite the opposite, he addresses your points with specific arguments and examples, whereas you insist with generic statements that you don't even bother to document (let alone "prove"), at the same time implicitly and explicitly accusing him of being intellectually dishonest.I think that your ideas are clever and that you are an intelligent poster, but your absolute refusal to give Shatt credit and to approach his posts openly is handicapping your contribution to the discussion, which is a loss for everyone.Heh way to dance around the actual points with insults.He always does this. He starts up, I reply, he dismisses anything that I say as propaganda, and accuses me of doing nothing but insulting people while insulting me. Last exchange, his vague claims included that CoJ's philosophies are destroying the very game and that I personally make it my business to run people out of the game with OOC attacks. Still no bodies.
He dismisses the OWF altogether because of the ~level of discourse~ yet he--and everyone, out there, you--has the ability to do something about it and won't.
-
Don't quite have the three years free that I'd need to really join in here but the Laslo Institute for Facts would like to highlight the fact that "weeks" is probably a bit unfair, although I suppose you can measure anything in weeks providing there's been more than one since.Carry on!GATO ditched its allies in the middle of war because their dislike of Polaris was greater than their commitment to their "Friends". Weeks later, GATO was welcomed with open arms into C&G. Because GATO demonstrated its willingness to ditch friends for politics.You're correct; I thought it was sooner because OsRavan's mid-war re-election campaign platform during the DH-NPO War included getting closer to GATO. But, it was Feb when GATO ditched it friends to war due to politics, and it was September when C&G admitted GATO without GATO having done anything in between except talk. They could not have demonstrated any sort of post-DH/NPO return to commitment between condemning their old allies and finding their new ones because there was no war that concerned them in between.
And, again, completely contrary to OsRavan's insistence that friendships create a strong incentive to honor treaties because of the extreme taboo of a friend ditching a friend/ally, OsRavan himself campaigned on getting closer to GATO while the war that GATO fudged was still going on.
-
OsRavan, once again, while you offer only generalities, I have demonstrated specific examples across decades which disprove everything you have said. And, once again, unable to match fact with fantasy, you have accused me of insulting you simply because I have stymied you. Well, I suppose I have insulted your ego, at least.
I understand your withdrawal. Reality locked this one up before the first keystroke.
-
OsRavan, you already agree with me:
Alliance leaders must learn restraint in which friends should be just that, and which friends also have the political continuity to also be allies.
Those who base their FA on both real-politic needs *and* genuine friendships will end up with a FA foundation that can be relied on in bad as well as good times.
But you persist in an argument of vocabulary. This is not the intellectual debate you keep asking me for. You must come to realize that sometimes you're going to agree with even your most bitter opponents. Take myself and VE, for example.
*relationship* is a vague word. Sure everything is determined by 'relationships' but thats cause everyone has a relationship good or bad strong or weak. Saying you have a 'relationship' ultimately means nothing. You and I have a relationship schatt. That doesnt mean it would be the healthy foundation of a treaty ::grins::.
I also dispute (since its a sunday night and im home and have nothing better to do) your dismissal of the word friendship. Because like it or not ic and ooc thats precisely what drives this game. Friendship and dislike. People are friends... ooc and ic (and yes the two overlap) and thats how coalitions are built. That friendship is often what drives real politic, and certainly the two are intertwined. And its also how coalitions fall apart.
Its for that very reason by the bye, that 'friends greater than infra' is still a guiding principle of this game. Why do you think alliances that abandon their friends in war are ridiculed and have such backlash that their politics become stunted and often their members leave in droves? Because the number one cardinal sin in CN is to abandon a *friend.* Not a relationship or a political connection... a *friend.* Juvenile or not. Its not cause you abandoned a 'relationship' that dishonoring a treaty is the most heinous crime in CN. Its because that 'relationship' is viewed and expected to be more then just professional. A betrayal of a treaty is viewed as a betrayal of trust on a personal level. Its one thing in CN to tell your friends ahead of time 'we cant back you cause of the political situation and thus we cant have a treaty.' And its viewed as something else to sign a treaty with your friends and then not honor that commitment.
The only reason treaties have meaning in the game is because of the consequences of not honoring them. And those consequences are based off the expectations of how 'honorable' people deal with friends, and the idea of 'friends greater then infra'. Note... that doesnt mean everyone actually meets those expectations or are friends with their treaty partners. But that is the cultural *expectation* in this game. And thus a betrayal is more then an alliance simply looking out for their own needs. You can think that silly maybe, but its the reality.
I also personally think its a good reality. Think how meaningless every action in this game would be without friendship guiding it. Theres nothing OOC really at stake unlike real life politcs. So what are the 'stakes' of cn? Pixels i suppose. But when you have large warchests mixed with ambivalence about your nation, those arent enough. What keeps the game going are the 'relationships' as you said. But specifically two types of relationships... friendship and 'hatred' (quotes since I eye roll over hating people in this game the way you do over friendship).
Once again, while I am discussing what are generally hypotheticals, you on the other hand are spouting fantasies. You have taken a position opposite me (because its Sunday and you're bored) and worked from there, and in doing so everything you just wrote is actually the exact opposite of reality.
GATO ditched its allies in the middle of war because their dislike of Polaris was greater than their commitment to their "Friends" Weeks later, GATO was welcomed with open arms into C&G. Because GATO demonstrated its willingness to ditch friends for politics.
When the democratic process of MCXA resulted in an ouster of gov, TSO was formed, pilfered a large part of the membership, and threatened war with their former alliance mates. They were rewarded with protection from TOP and stigmatization of MCXA proper.
Polaris made Echelon and MCXA the alliances they were, from middling lackies to harbingers of doom. Then the two delivered Polaris into the clutches of their enemy, and Polari's oldest and best friends looked on with smiles wide whilst MK defender Polaris, first coining the term "friends>infra" They were rewarded with membership in One Vision.
Bob Ilyani and his regent used the malicious OOC slanders of a jilted divorcee to hand over the founders of Ragnarok to MK for techraiding. They betrayed the heart--however flawed--of RoK and their friendship. Bob went straight from that snafu into the Heptagon of TOP.
You are wrong to the very core, OsRavan. "Friendship" is a concept alien to this world, because Digiterra is a political realm.
The ethereal consequences you say await those who ditch their friends are reserved only for those alliances which are already ostracized, and whose actions won't matter either way because they've been labeled "WAE" and will not be judged based upon action until their tormentors have decided to use them. Like ODN. Like GATO. Even now, like Pacifica.
Far from friendship, the alliances at the top of the global order have used the sentimentality of the many for manipulation, selling-out, and betrayal over and over again. Their system--the global system--in the mean time, has tangled up the vast majority of political actors, leaving only a tightly-controlled, boring, ballet rather than the dynamic and fast-paced vision I have laid out.
But, you have already stated your agreement with my original position, and we need not argue the detrimental effects of the dominant foreign policy philosophy; we're living in it, we all know.
An ally shouldn't be someone you have to be able to trust completely. An ally should only be someone who you share a common cause or objective with on a temporary basis or measure. A friend however is someone you should be able to trust completely on a long term basis.
You are very correct. There are many times in which a purely political union is entirely appropriate, Mjolnir is the purest and best example, and it worked out splendidly. The ability to react to the moment by maintaining the greatest sovereignty (freedom) is a central goal of Justitian ideology.
::yawns:: D34th insults ODN. Color me shocked.
The irony contained in this post is greater than words can describe.Give me an ally I can truly trust any day of the week and twice on sunday over an 'ally' who will be with me when im on top but that I can't trust with my back turned.We were all thinking it.
-
But the implied judgement of your deriding of "friends greater then infra," which is that friendship has no role in the signing of treaties, is equally eye roll worthy. I dont think many people want to live in a world where treaties are just pieces of paper with no meaning or relationship behind them other than a mutual political gain. If for no other reason then that is a pretty damn shaky foundation on which to build... well... anything.
Those who base their FA on both real-politic needs *and* genuine friendships will end up with a FA foundation that can be relied on in bad as well as good times. Give me an ally I can truly trust any day of the week and twice on Sunday over an "ally" who will be with me when I
m on top but that I can't trust with my back turned.
An okay reply, but not to this blog.
The SolutionAlliances must learn to embrace their true nature as political entities. Alliance leaders must learn restraint in which friends should be just that, and which friends also have the political continuity to also be allies. Not every friend can be an ally.
I pointedly did not include ". . . and not every ally can be a friend."
The idea that a treaty--a political union--should be entered into with another alliance with which one does not have the sufficient underlying relationship to sustain it is obvious, that's why it need not be discussed in detail.
And I say "relationship" rather than "friendship" wherever I can precisely because friendship is a playground word.
I'll take you on in spijkerpoepen; winner's country has a better culture.
RE: Miley
in Shadow's Vault
A blog by Schattenmann in General
Posted
That is postmodernism at work.