Ginji Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 Said it's not moe alliance, put a moe addict as herald. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 Good times indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 [quote name='Ginji' timestamp='1335207494' post='2957871'] Said it's not moe alliance, put a moe addict as herald. [/quote] This is actually a somewhat legit criticism from an NG weeaboo. Well, just because someone is a moe addict, doesn't mean the alliance will take on that persona. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335206810' post='2957869'] You're not calling any bluff, you're trying to goad me into stating something that would not be permissible here. Given your proneness to making insanity and personality disorder accusations, I see it as nothing but a pragmatic move to try to be the victim. [/quote] Nice to see you dealing with MK in an orderly fashion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 [quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1335042162' post='2956748']edit: I like the flag.[/quote] Without the glow it would be a beauty. About the remaining: no comment (I didn't read past the first page, anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted April 23, 2012 Report Share Posted April 23, 2012 [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1335220490' post='2957937'] Without the glow it would be a beauty. About the remaining: no comment (I didn't read past the first page, anyway). [/quote] More used as a logo or etc. If it ever needs use as a proper flag removing it will take only seconds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanore Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [i]ooc: Just so you know Roq when I called you a fringe loony it had no ooc conotations. I meant that entirely within the political realm of this world, the same way I would call a 9/11 truther a fringe loony elsewhere. That was entirely me, IC, calling you a loony for your also IC beliefs. I actually don't know a thing about you ooc. /ooc[/i] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Expletive Deleted Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Ginji' timestamp='1335207494' post='2957871'] Said it's not moe alliance, put a moe addict as herald. [/quote] I'm hardly a moe addict. I got burned out on K-On and Haruhi. On the other hand, I enjoyed Working!! but I really wanted to see Souta x Inami. I haven't watched any anime within the last couple months except for A Certain Magical Index. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1335234145' post='2958209'] [i]ooc: Just so you know Roq when I called you a fringe loony it had no ooc conotations. I meant that entirely within the political realm of this world, the same way I would call a 9/11 truther a fringe loony elsewhere. That was entirely me, IC, calling you a loony for your also IC beliefs. I actually don't know a thing about you ooc. /ooc[/i] [/quote] Like how is it anywhere near a conspiracy theorist? I'm not really putting forth any radical claims. I'm more upfront about them, but the only things I've really stated is that C&G is intimately tied to DH/PB. I've also stated there's always some political dynamic involved going on and it existed before the last war even happened, and everyone knew about it even before. I mean stating things in clear terms does piss people off since they don't want to hear about their ally is an MK toadie or stuff like that, but it's more the bluntness that is at issue than the actual claims. That's where it's not mainstream since a lot of people aren't really ready for it. I mean, not only have the people publicly broadcasted their intentions as Schattenmann mentions it, but you'd have to believe we're in a post-political landscape to say there's no overarching antagonism that is shaping what the next war would be. I mean, someone has to be the "enemy" for the dominant political force and it's been clear who. Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanore Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335244620' post='2958321'] Like how is it anywhere near a conspiracy theorist? I'm not really putting forth any radical claims. I'm more upfront about them, but the only things I've really stated is that C&G is intimately tied to DH/PB. I've also stated there's always some political dynamic involved going on and it existed before the last war even happened, and everyone knew about it even before. I mean stating things in clear terms does piss people off since they don't want to hear about their ally is an MK toadie or stuff like that, but it's more the bluntness that is at issue than the actual claims. That's where it's not mainstream since a lot of people aren't really ready for it. [/quote] I was just trying to make the point. You're actually more akin to a revolutionary/freedom fighter in mentaility, which is still a type of fringe loony in the right cases. It's the NWO man. They control what you eat, when you sleep, what you watch/hear/read, and what you think, man. They've got control man and unless we step up it's over. GAME OVER MAN. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4eEGeqC-8M]Roq Roq, fight da powah! [/url] I also take issue with what seems to be your political belief system, that is something modeled off a Machiavellian world view. At least from what I see and how I interpret it. The problem is that such a world view while having a solid basis is somewhat off the mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1335245605' post='2958352'] I was just trying to make the point. You're actually more akin to a revolutionary/freedom fighter in mentaility, which is still a type of fringe loony in the right cases. It's the NWO man. They control what you eat, when you sleep, what you watch/hear/read, and what you think, man. They've got control man and unless we step up it's over. GAME OVER MAN. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4eEGeqC-8M]Roq Roq, fight da powah! [/url] I also take issue with what seems to be your political belief system, that is something modeled off a Machiavellian world view. At least from what I see and how I interpret it. The problem is that such a world view while having a solid basis is somewhat off the mark. [/quote] I'm not really positing any secret organizations or anything. I'm simply saying those with the most political influence will tend to go after people. What I do posit is that frequently people who have already been on the other side frequently will allow past squabbles to get in the way of cooperation and it lends itself to a divide and conquer strategy. Machiavellian worldviews are the ones the alliances that wield political power(keep wield) in mind operate on. The losers and potential losers of wars frequently aren't machiavellian enough to compete and that's why those who are willing to see the world in Machiavellian terms tend to win. [quote]It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.[/quote] Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phineas Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1335245605' post='2958352'] I was just trying to make the point. You're actually more akin to a revolutionary/freedom fighter in mentaility, which is still a type of fringe loony in the right cases. It's the NWO man. They control what you eat, when you sleep, what you watch/hear/read, and what you think, man. They've got control man and unless we step up it's over. GAME OVER MAN. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4eEGeqC-8M]Roq Roq, fight da powah! [/url] I also take issue with what seems to be your political belief system, that is something modeled off a Machiavellian world view. At least from what I see and how I interpret it. The problem is that such a world view while having a solid basis is somewhat off the mark. [/quote] I don't know you, but you need to moderate your kool-aid consumption, even if just a little. Roquentin may be unpopular and even considered Machiavellian, and for good reasons based on the past and even present events, but when it comes to his knowledge of history and present trends, he is hardly a conspiracy theorist. When a person comments on things he or she knows are uncomfortable to certain powers, they already know and accept that some people will want to marginalize them. Calling them conspiracists is tired and simply not founded on reality. I suspect you already know this, but sometimes I wonder given the consistency of your OWF comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanore Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335245835' post='2958356'] I'm not really positing any secret organizations or anything. I'm simply saying those with the most political influence will tend to go after people. What I do posit is that frequently people who have already been on the other side frequently will allow past squabbles to get in the way of cooperation and it lends itself to a divide and conquer strategy. [/quote] You also state or imply several times that an individual's treaties outside of a certain core don't matter. Or that alliances with less political capital don't exert themselves on those with more. Or that those you consider to be the "ring leaders" pull the heartstrings of other alliances to sway the judgement of spheres of influence with no feedback, pushback, argument, or compromise. You belittle the efforts and influences of other spheres of power because they, in your opinion, were too small and inconsequential. This completely ignores that participating parties knew what they were getting into and are mostly happy with the outcome. It also ignores that at the end of the day nobody gets exactly what they want in politics, nobody. You settle for "close enough". The idea that, ultimately my allies don't matter, or at the end of the day only matter in so much as they benefit specific elements of my coalition, and ultimately they can be cast aside, is indeed a radical and fringe belief. I will always treat it like one. [quote] Machiavellian worldviews are the ones the alliances that wield political power(keep wield) in mind operate on. The losers and potential losers of wars frequently aren't machiavellian enough to compete and that's why those who are willing to see the world in Machiavellian terms tend to win. [/quote] As I said they are off the mark though. The idea is that " Everyone is a predator, altruism doesn't exist, everyone is out to get you" and so you become a predator yourself to stay alive. The problem with this idea is that while yes, we're a predatory species, and yes, we are a self motivated species, we are also a social species. Everybody is predatory, and everyone is completely self consumed, that does not mean though they are entirely malevolent. Machiavellian practices work not because everyone is a predator and you are finally acting like one as well. They work because actual malevolence and evil aren't common traits in mankind and so people don't expect the fact that you are actually a !@#$@#$ sociopath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Chele Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335245835' post='2958356'] Machiavellian worldviews are the ones the alliances that wield political power(keep wield) in mind operate on. The losers and potential losers of wars frequently aren't machiavellian enough to compete and that's why those who are willing to see the world in Machiavellian terms tend to win. [/quote] You do realize that the Machiavellian exemplar prince from another world, Cesare Borgia, was entirely dependent on support from a power greater than himself, and eventually exiled, imprisoned and killed when that power changed, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335247169' post='2958366'] You do realize that the Machiavellian exemplar prince from another world, Cesare Borgia, was entirely dependent on support from a power greater than himself, and eventually exiled, imprisoned and killed when that power changed, right? [/quote] That tends to happen, yes, so don't be dependent on a "patron". Hell, it didn't really take much for me just "communal bonds" being prioritized over self-interest. The lesson is pick successors wisely or else they'll $%&@ up. [quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1335247114' post='2958364'] You also state or imply several times that an individual's treaties outside of a certain core don't matter. Or that alliances with less political capital don't exert themselves on those with more. Or that those you consider to be the "ring leaders" pull the heartstrings of other alliances to sway the judgement of spheres of influence with no feedback, pushback, argument, or compromise. You belittle the efforts and influences of other spheres of power because they, in your opinion, were too small and inconsequential. This completely ignores that participating parties knew what they were getting into and are mostly happy with the outcome. It also ignores that at the end of the day nobody gets exactly what they want in politics, nobody. You settle for "close enough". The idea that, ultimately my allies don't matter, or at the end of the day only matter in so much as they benefit specific elements of my coalition, and ultimately they can be cast aside, is indeed a radical and fringe belief. I will always treat it like one. As I said they are off the mark though. The idea is that " Everyone is a predator, altruism doesn't exist, everyone is out to get you" and so you become a predator yourself to stay alive. The problem with this idea is that while yes, we're a predatory species, and yes, we are a self motivated species, we are also a social species. Everybody is predatory, and everyone is completely self consumed, that does not mean though they are entirely malevolent. Machiavellian practices work not because everyone is a predator and you are finally acting like one as well. They work because actual malevolence and evil aren't common traits in mankind and so people don't expect the fact that you are actually a !@#$@#$ sociopath. [/quote] There is feedback, but it's ultimately inconsequential and I think the last war proved the thesis quite nicely. People are cast aside when their usefulness is no longer there. I make no claims about human nature. My critics do that. I believe people are shaped by norms that ingrained and they are hard to shake off. Machiavellian tactics work because they are pragmatic and bold pragmatism wins. Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravnica Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote]If Roquentin scoops up micro alliances, then I'm perfectly happy. More will spring up when the next war happens anyway, which makes me sad.[/quote] See the point I'm making? Micro alliances are annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Chele Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335247372' post='2958367'] That tends to happen, yes, so don't be dependent on a "patron". Hell, it didn't really take much for me just "communal bonds" being prioritized over self-interest. The lesson is pick successors wisely or else they'll $%&@ up. [/quote] So don't be Machiavellian or do? I'm not sure now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335247504' post='2958369'] So don't be Machiavellian or do? I'm not sure now. [/quote] . Secure an independent base of support and don't rely on anyone long-term. There is a reason people were upset that I frequently made non-core alliances a priority in terms of keeping them happy. Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanore Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335247372' post='2958367'] People are cast aside when their usefulness is no longer there. [/quote] This clashes with the treaty web. [quote] bold pragmatism wins. [/quote] Can I hire you to do GATO's PR? Seriously. Going from " Malevolent Sociopathy and Cynicism " to " Bold Pragmatism" is amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phineas Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335247504' post='2958369'] So don't be Machiavellian or do? I'm not sure now. [/quote] Many of us still have much to learn, but I have faith. I, too, was once on the wrong path and know its powerful allure. It is hard to shake off the ways of the past, and it is especially hard not to cling to the old methods when you remember how well they worked. Eventually it will make sense. It may take years, but it will happen. [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335247619' post='2958370'] . Secure an independent base of support and don't rely on anyone long-term. There is a reason people were upset that I frequently made non-core alliances a priority in terms of keeping them happy. [/quote] This is your Achille's heel, Roq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Chele Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Lanore' timestamp='1335247864' post='2958373'] Going from " Malevolent Sociopathy and Cynicism " to " Bold Pragmatism" is amazing. [/quote] Don't you see? The best way to gain allies is to tell them openly that you will support them for as long as they are useful to you. Then, nobody can ever accuse you of being a survivalist or hypocrite later, because everyone knew going in that it was only a relationship of convenience. Like a marriage for insurance or financial aid purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Don Chele' timestamp='1335248119' post='2958377'] Don't you see? The best way to gain allies is to tell them openly that you will support them for as long as they are useful to you. Then, nobody can ever accuse you of being a survivalist or hypocrite later, because everyone knew going in that it was only a relationship of convenience. Like a marriage for insurance or financial aid purposes. [/quote] As long as they support you. Even if it was as bad as you put it, at least there'd be no BS. I don't know where sociopathy comes in. [quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1335248048' post='2958376'] Many of us still have much to learn, but I have faith. I, too, was once on the wrong path and know its powerful allure. It is hard to shake off the ways of the past, and it is especially hard not to cling to the old methods when you remember how well they worked. Eventually it will make sense. It may take years, but it will happen. This is your Achille's heel, Roq. [/quote] How is it my Achille's heel? I mean, I'm under no delusions that my alliance is a potential hegemonic power. It'd be moronic to think that. It's more directed to people who have the NS. Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phineas Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335248607' post='2958382'] As long as they support you. Even if it was as bad as you put it, at least there'd be no BS. I don't know where sociopathy comes in. How is it my Achille's heel? I mean, I'm under no delusions that my alliance is a potential hegemonic power. It'd be moronic to think that. It's more directed to people who have the NS. [/quote] It's just about how one approaches politics. Think of alliances you like as ends and not means and you will go far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted April 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Phineas' timestamp='1335249053' post='2958386'] It's just about how one approaches politics. Think of alliances you like as ends and not means and you will go far. [/quote] I'm not making any normative claims on the whole "people are discarded when they're no longer useful" It's a descriptive claim and it doesn't really mean I agree with the mentality. In fact, I think, in the end doing that ends with you in a similar position to NPO when Karma came. The vision I have is not one where the dominant powers are dominant by virtue of their cultural hegemony which entices people to buy into how cool they are, but rather what the dominant power can offer you. There has been a hegemony of ideology and brute force and there's been the cool kind. I advocate a different one. Here goes the premise of the current ruling structure is "If you're useful to us, we'll go to you, and if you're not, maybe if you suck up enough, we'll give you a seat." Anyone who is not immediately useful or "cool" will be looked down upon. For instance, Invicta gets a lot of crap. Edited April 24, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Chele Posted April 24, 2012 Report Share Posted April 24, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1335249209' post='2958387'] There has been a hegemony of [s]ideology[/s] and brute force and there's been the [s]cool[/s] [b]brute force[/b] kind. I advocate a different one. [/quote] You still advocate a hegemony though, your roots are showing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.