Grigoris Lambrakis
-
Posts
144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Grigoris Lambrakis
-
-
If you get NEAT in too, this will start looking like a nice micro-leftist bloc opening some interesting possibilities, although it also has lilmitations known to all. I wish you all success :) .
-
7. LSF did have more allies, but we felt powerless to help them after the ally that could do the most to help them had turned their back on LSF.
You sir are a hypocrite, CBs don't matter to you, treaties don't matter to you, nothing matters to you, but you seem to really love your pixels, if you honour your treaties only when you have the upper hand. Is this the moral high ground from which you judge us?
I shall not discuss this further here. It's being discussed in private channels and is in a correct direction.
-
I'll keep this quote from VL, cause it really is the core of it:
I guess the real question we have to ask ourselves at this point is whether or not we even want to heal the wounds inflicted on us all in the past year or so. If the answer is yes, the only way we'll ever move on is just by forgiveness and letting go of grudges. Continued analysis of all that BS won't get us anywhere, and neither will this war.
Talking BS on OWF will certainly get us nowhere.
-
Would you care to give any details about how I got it wrong?
Orite, I'll walk right into your trap and sum up some of the info and arguments that are already well known.Int's side:
1) An oA is optional.
2) Rogues??? Where's my CB???
3) It's hard to attack the treaty partner of our allies just based on an oA, without a CB and with NoR offering peace.
4) We tried nevertheless.
5) Wtf was that IRON thingy? And a secret message, really???
6) Trot, wtf?
7) I thought you had some more allies?
LSF's side:
1) Trot said you'd back us.
2) We are LSF, your brothers of always, they are NoR...
3) Ghost us or sth, we are being stomped...
These are the two sides' arguments. I call this grey because I'm a softy when it comes to LSF.
-Rigas
-
I'll give it a shot then.
All the exchanges I had with Momentum have indeed been both pleasant and productive. He has this rare metal of character, where pragmatism is put in the service of ideals, that I always search in people I hope I can call brothers and friends.
Q is also made of the same material, which makes me confident about the future of The International.
-Rigas
-
LSF attacking you now and getting justice, has nothing to do with whether or not you were responsible for the treaty you had with them at the time of the last war. If you sign a treaty you should be willing to follow your word. If you don't follow that a treaty you sign, don't be surprised when people are upset with you.
Also all the word smithing in the world does you no good if you don't have decent logic to back it up,.
I fought in the LSF-NoR war and even did the peace negotiations and prepared the peace treaty for LSF before quitting to join Int. You got it wrong sir. Only seldom are things painted black and white and I can tell you that this picture was mostly grey.Your powindah efforts to fuel a sad conflict between leftists has been dully noted. But please bear in mind that interfering in familly bussiness is not a gentleman's way.
-Rigas
-
It feels good to have Q back. Reminds me of really old times :) .
-Rigas
-
The Silent threads were loads of fun. I didn't lose a single one of them, posting as passionately as M-S does now. Who would think back then that, instead of fighting, so many of us would end up in the same alliance?
The Left will heal from this as it has from everything else.
-Rigas
-
Welcome NoR. I think it's about time I change my sig :).
-
The whole divide is amusing at best. Some guys claiming that they are pragmatic while they fight a suicide war. And some other guys claiming to be idealists while adding themselves to a dog pile. I should rebuild PFJ or something, there's too much Monty Python material being tossed around.
-
Maybe you should start a conference again. I wouldn't call it "The Internationale" this time around though. :)
I would welcome a conference discussing what the Left on planet Bob is and could be in 2013. This could be fun and perhaps even productive. Although there's too much bad blood right now.
The current situation of INT is interesting in light of the history of the left. The ICP initially had neutrality as a principle, even in GWI, but eventually it joined up with the League, and the SWF with Aegis, and so on. At the time, this was justified with the idea of the NPO and allies constituting a hegemonic imperialist power. Now, years on, this can hardly be credibly said, or you'd have to brand both sides in the ongoing war with this label, and then you'd have to go back to neutrality. In any event, both INT and the LSF have gone their own ways and found their own allies.
All the leftist alliances have learned to live in a world where people have different opinions, but the LSF just allies itself with whomever it wants, whereas INT has continued the years-old historical process of the biggest leftist alliance embedding itself into a major power bloc. That is a choice that one can make, but it can hardly be justified by anti-imperialism any more. For INT, the communism is a theme, a flavour, and that's their choice, and nobody can begrudge them that they're big and they've got powerful friends, etc. But they can hardly turn around and whine that the LSF are "attacking their own comrades" when such a connection has not existed for a while now.I agree that neutrality would be a more consistent choice for the Left. However, our stance, LSF's and Int's at least, has been forged by our history to a point of no return. Chosing a side was not only a question of principles but also of survival, especialy at times when NoV/NoR was far more aggressive, allied to the dominant side and rolling us for the kicks. Now, after all these years and wars we've fought, if we were to declare neutrality, no one would take it seriously or conceder it sincere. It's too late for that.
Furthermore, despite the general feeling, there are traces of ideology on Bob which are worth defending from a leftist or at least "progressive" point of view, a set of principles, formed through the opposition to the Hegemony and Q, formed and applied through the Karma revolution: no forced disbandment of alliances, no reps paid for alliance wars, no perma ZI lists, no rolling people for speaking their mind. That's what the world was before Karma, you didn't even dare speak your mind on OWF, or you would end up blitzed the very next day. I do hope that you can see how the left relates to ideas such as free expression, self determination (no forced disbandment), opposing exploitation (no reps based on the right of might), protecting minimal individual rights (no perma ZI) etc.
From this point of view, embedding ourselves into this particular power bloc can be regarded very consistent with our ideals, which I'm not certain whether LSF can say about their recent choices.
-
Cata said it all in less than 2 lines. Anyone that has been here long enough can see in just how many ways this is profoundly wrong. I do not see the point of perpetuating an empty exchange of words when actions are what matters.
-
There's nothing new happening here. We are honoring our treaties by defending NATO. Not just from you, but from ODN, as well. The LSF, now Die Linke, maintains its historical precedence after over six years of doing just that. INT took us for granted, and spat upon UCR as mere 'micros', whereas the LSF understands that comrade really means 'friend', and began the work of building true solidarity. UCR and the LSF are not mere treaty partners, but are now one and the same. Something that, again, INT took for granted of the Black Guards.
Nothing personal here, ultimately. But the LSF fights for its true comrades, and learns to swiftly cast aside that which is false in our eyes, in our hearts.Your targets were all Int, you only acquiered ODN targets after all our slots were taken. And it's hard to bellieve that it's not personal when you have just produced a libellous materpiece abour our "Babylonian" ways. Furthermore, UCR has no excuses.
I still welcome the change of tone and perspective.
-
I can see where we differ M-S, but I never thought it would come to fighting over this. Nor do I think that this is the result of -passionately- applied reason. It's an act dictated by the feeling of betrayal perhaps, but still irrational and profoundly wrong. I obviously don't care about the weight of two micros when I'm in the war I'm in. If anyone thinks that, he obviously can't read stats. But I always had the left in heart, it has always been my reason to stay around, and this situation genuinely aggrieves me.
-
Are you suggesting that micros can exist in this world without protectors Hereno? When the liberation accords were signed, was anyone other than the commies ready to sign a treaty with LSF and keep it safe? When UCR was first trying to sign [i]some[/i] treaty, did anyone take them seriously other than the commies?
-
And M-S posts again. Int may be the whore of Babylon, but I always liked colourful whores better than self-righteous priests, preaching from a safe distance the purity of their deserted souls, advocating virginity cause they can have no erections no more. Int never destroyed your alliances, while it has always been in its interest to do so, instead it kept you safe, time and time again, and if the price was its soul, it paid this price gladly. Someone had to pay that price. You should be grateful for that. You obviously are not. To each his sins I guess. Shoot the "whore" down now then, lynch her, "teach her a lesson", that's so pure, so white-feathered, a page from the Bible of the one true God; so libertarian of you.
-
There is no recognition of hostilities. There is only a dog pile. There is only a despicable act with no real precedent in the history of the CN left. You are shooting your comrades while there was no treaty obligation for you to do so. No legalistic mumbo-jumbo can change the essence of your act. I have no words.
-
this treaty was a long time in the making, this war happened though, who knows how long it will last,btw who is 'rigas'?
[OOC]You can't change your original nick in forums. Trik here[OOC] -
Pathetic. This treaty, which you use to add yourself to a dog pile against comrades, was not active at the time LSF declared on Int and ODN. Your DoW has no legal basis. No practical value. No moral consistency. Pathetic.
-
That LSF matter... CnG couldn't go in because MK was allied to NoR. Simple as that. NoR now has a chance to prove that this was a correct choice. I highly doubt it will.
-
[quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1348763679' post='3034823']
How many courageous wars did INT fight? I count 0.
[/quote]
Any man can have his opinion, and his intellect is measured by it, but I hope you can see the irony of an alliance that never fights calling out for cowardice an alliance that carries the scars of all globals since its creation. Int has fought against 21 alliances so far...
LSF can talk, even if they are in the wrong, cause they do know how to burn for friends. But UCR talks now? Really? -
What's UCR's military history already? I've been away for a good moment. I dunno. How many wars has glorious and courageous UCR fought in its long history? I think the answer is just one, against a micro. Perhaps I'm wrong?
-
Well, how would you call a group that refers to
1. Anarchism.
2. Pirates or Machno, never certain which of the two.
3. Dune.
All in one, really? -
[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1348155605' post='3032285']
You left the largest leftist alliance to join INT.
LSF wasn't a micro until INT sat around and watched it burn.
[/quote]
1m ns and 25 members is still a micro in my book.
And no, lsf is not leftist, it's post-modern anarchist
. But I won't start ranting about LSF again now, I'm quickly growing bored myself of listening to myself ranting about lsf 
.
On the Decline of Moral Politics
in Open World RP
Posted · Edited by Grigoris Lambrakis
An interesting discussion but I disagree with your estimation Hereno.
I think that CN has been a lot more "immoral" in the past: forced disbandment of alliances, PZI lists, using threats and force to silence criticism on OWF, huge reps with no other foundation than the right of might. All these are examples where "moralism" has actually won and has made a more "moral" stance the norm. But these are choices which depend on the decision of the collective.
The "no nuclear strike first policy" to which you refer is a case which depends more on the choices of individual nation rulers. As such, it has been abandoned more because it was hard to enforce than for any other reason.
EQ's "an attack on one is an attack on all" policy is still relatively new and it remains to see whether it will dominate future wars or not. However, while it changes one of our rules, it is not moral or immoral as such. One could claim that it is yet a victory of "moralism", since the web allowed for all the backstabbing and leaving alliances to dry that we have seen in the past. "An attack on one is an attack on all" is perhaps a less rigid rule, but it is a more moral rule, at least from Kant's point of view.
I think that what you are trying to grasp is a certain feeling of vainness, which is however the result of the victory of moralism rather than the opposite. You see there used to be bad guys and good guys and this was meaningful for both, cause the bad guys would profit (alliance reps following globals are an excellent example) while the good guys had a cause to fight for. While nowdays everyone is "good" or simply "less good", which makes it less exciting for everyone (I seriously don't know why to fight in wars any more). Ofc this is natural because the good guys will naturally tend to win in a situation where you can't exterminate the opponent...
-Rigas