The politics of contempt

[Ogaden]

One remarkable consequence of what is now the third year of 'elitism' being the dominant ideology of Bob (since the collapse of 'honorism' after Karma) is the staggering lack of respect that permeates the world like an unpleasant smell.  The tribal bloodfeuds of the past few years and lingering resentments, ancient grudges and boredom fueled bloodlust are one thing, but these highly motivating factors have taken a backseat to the politics of contempt.

 

I would argue that it is contempt, not hate, that drives politics, fuels wars, and compels savagery on a global scale.  Like a genocidal maniac, the afflicted and contemptuous lords of Bob politics embark on wars not to further an agenda or even protect themselves, but rather to cleanse the world of scum, like a nuclear janitor.

 

Perhaps politics has always been this way, but it seems worse now.

[MCRABT]

Contempt doesn't drive politics, power drives politics, contempt is simply a by-product of competition in an archaic world. I hate pointing out the obvious but perhaps it seems worse for you now because your alliance is in a vulnerable state politically?

[Joe Kremlin]

Elite alliances aren't contemptuous, just superior to everyone else.

[Prodigal Moon]

It was interesting to see this actually codified recently with the self-branding of an entire coalition as "Competence" and the implication that the other side was incompetent. For years we've had to hear about how DH et al. were able to maintain a powerful political potition because of their superior political skills, and lack of any competent opposition. When a grouping finally does emerge that soundly defeats them, they try to brush it off by reassuring themselves that, despite their inferior position at the moment, there is still some vague quality that makes them intrinsically better than those who defeated them. I have no doubt that civilizations have used this strategy for centuries, but it is highly amusing to see it play out in real time.

[Ogaden]

Contempt doesn't drive politics, power drives politics, contempt is simply a by-product of competition in an archaic world. I hate pointing out the obvious but perhaps it seems worse for you now because your alliance is in a vulnerable state politically?

 

Power drives politics, but contempt drives violence.  If this was not the case, alliances would not deprive themselves of strategic resources, political capital and whatnot to attack meaningless opponents.  Contempt however is a powerful motivator.

[Alex987]

What I find interesting is how prevalent seemingly backwards etiquette is on Bob. Many are openly hostile, but then in private they are more pleasant and less confrontational.

 

Edit: To elaborate more, it seems that people focus much more on displaying their good qualities in private than they do in public.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Alex987

[IYIyTh]

i hate everyone.

 

everything is easier this way!

[Zacharias]

Of course it is. The majority of wars happen because someone was pissed about how the previous war ended.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Zacharias

[Icewolf]

What I find interesting is how prevalent seemingly backwards etiquette is on Bob. Many are openly hostile, but then in private they are more pleasant and less confrontational.

 

Edit: To elaborate more, it seems that people focus much more on displaying their good qualities in private than they do in public.

That is quite easy to explain. In public people are always playing politics. In private people are often not and just chilling. It is also much easier to be harsh in the OWF where everything is heated and there are dozens of posters and threads can spew out ten pages in a night so tomorrow you are not remembered. When its three or four people on IRC or in one thread it is much harder to be harsh and much more likely to lead to nastiness. 

As for the OP, I would say paranoia is driving things more now than contempt. Every discussion I have had in the last fortnight has at least in some regard touched on who wants to roll who...apparently every bloc is gunning to kill someone else whilst denying any hostile attention and assuming that someone is coming after them.

 

[Bob Ilyani]

It was interesting to see this actually codified recently with the self-branding of an entire coalition as "Competence" and the implication that the other side was incompetent. For years we've had to hear about how DH et al. were able to maintain a powerful political potition because of their superior political skills, and lack of any competent opposition. When a grouping finally does emerge that soundly defeats them, they try to brush it off by reassuring themselves that, despite their inferior position at the moment, there is still some vague quality that makes them intrinsically better than those who defeated them. I have no doubt that civilizations have used this strategy for centuries, but it is highly amusing to see it play out in real time.

Yeah, no.

 

The political position that Competence found itself in was not one brought about by its own incompetence, but rather by the inevitability of the cycle that is politics in this game world. Eventually, any leader will face a resistance of strength, just by the nature of what being a leader entails. If I need any proof, I can point to the coordination (or lack thereof) between "Equilibrium" alliances, the infighting between their alliances, and the face that they only narrowly achieved victory despite massive numerical and statistical advantages.

 

On the note of the OP, I've seen plenty of relationships built upon most respect. I can safely say that none of TOP's current treaty partners have anything less than our full respect, and that some of those relationships (MK and Umbrella come to mind) only began in the first place because of the mutual respect shared between both parties. In addition, I respect a few alliances opposing my own position- the New Pacific Order, who manages to survive, maintain political relevancy, and manipulate others on a scale unmatched in this world's history comes to mind- as well. Perhaps you feel that there is a lack of respect in alliance politics because your alliance has nothing worth respecting?

[Neo Uruk]

Well said, Bob.

 

And yeah. Most people in this game just hate each other. It's what happens when several different culture clashes happen [i]within each alliance[/i]

 

OOC: Think of CN alliances as US political identification. If you ask the average person who identifies as Democrat what they think of Republicans, or specifically the Tea Party, you'll likely get a harsh answer.

[Prodigal Moon]

Yeah, no.

 

The political position that Competence found itself in was not one brought about by its own incompetence, but rather by the inevitability of the cycle that is politics in this game world. Eventually, any leader will face a resistance of strength, just by the nature of what being a leader entails. If I need any proof, I can point to the coordination (or lack thereof) between "Equilibrium" alliances, the infighting between their alliances, and the face that they only narrowly achieved victory despite massive numerical and statistical advantages.

 

I have never suggested that I think DH et al. are incompetent - far from it. Personally, I don't think political position is a good indicator of competence (or incompetence on the part of rivals). I'm just amused at the implications of that argument, coming as it did from certain members of defeated alliances. It sounds like you agree with me more than them.

 

The rest of that "proof" is really subjective and I'm sick of hearing about it and the word competence (also subjective and ill-defined) in the same breath. None of it's particularly relevant to what I'm pointing out.

[Avakael]

It was interesting to see this actually codified recently with the self-branding of an entire coalition as "Competence" and the implication that the other side was incompetent. For years we've had to hear about how DH et al. were able to maintain a powerful political potition because of their superior political skills, and lack of any competent opposition. When a grouping finally does emerge that soundly defeats them, they try to brush it off by reassuring themselves that, despite their inferior position at the moment, there is still some vague quality that makes them intrinsically better than those who defeated them. I have no doubt that civilizations have used this strategy for centuries, but it is highly amusing to see it play out in real time.

This. This has been the bane of my existence regardless of what alliance I've been in, and the NPL is the only one which seems to know some kind of limits, because they are statistically enforced. Even then, within the lower tier, the majority of the NPL seems to assume it is invincible. If this invincibility of any alliance was tested more often, I imagine it would be far less common.

[Bob Ilyani]

I have never suggested that I think DH et al. are incompetent - far from it. Personally, I don't think political position is a good indicator of competence (or incompetence on the part of rivals). I'm just amused at the implications of that argument, coming as it did from certain members of defeated alliances. It sounds like you agree with me more than them.

It's important to distinguish between political position and political ability in this case, because the latter absolutely is an indicator of competence. Indeed, often times alliances who are in threatening political positions are so because of their political ability (or more specifically, the threat of that ability).  There are plenty of alliances, on the other hand, that are simply lacking in political ability. When given numbers, powerful nations, strong treaties, and hated enemies, they just can't help but mess it up.  As a result, they honestly can't (and shouldn't, in my opinion) be labeled as anything less than incompetent. The Dos Equis member alliances come to mind.

 

The rest of that "proof" is really subjective and I'm sick of hearing about it and the word competence (also subjective and ill-defined) in the same breath. None of it's particularly relevant to what I'm pointing out.

It's an aside, but I'd disagree with you on that one. Competence could absolutely have been defeated earlier, or more decisively, had its opponent alliances not been rampant with inactivity, sporadic in organization, and constantly divisive on the political front. Equilibrium, as a result of its own members, made its war effort significantly more difficult than it ever had any right to be.

[Ogaden]

I knew I could count on you to be exhibit A Bob, many thanks

[Neo Uruk]

I knew I could count on you to be exhibit A Bob, many thanks

But he's right.

[Azaghul]

It was interesting to see this actually codified recently with the self-branding of an entire coalition as "Competence" and the implication that the other side was incompetent.

Because your side WAS incompetent.  There are plenty of people that were IN your coalition that say it was awful, the worst coalition they've ever been in or close to it. I've personally had several of those conversations, and know of numerous others.

 

It's not just backchannel stuff or heresay that supports that conclusion either.  There's the public "undeclarations" on MK trying to keep NG out followed by the declarations on TLR.  The fact that Competence had a better than 1 to 1 damage given / taken ratio.  Someone on our side totaled it up for all active wars and it varied between around 1.05 to 1.2  That is unprecedented for a losing coalition, in previous wars the damage ratio has favored the larger coalition.  The larger side has, from a logistical standpoint, major advantages that, all other things being equal, should allow it to achieve a better than 1 to 1 damage ratio.  Obviously, your side eventually won because in a war of attrition a 1.2 damage ratio can't overcome a 2 to 1 numbers disadvantage.  But it shouldn't have been as close as it was.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Azaghul

[D34th]

I still think that the most hilarious thing of the war was call Competence an side who had Deinos, The International, GATO, Hooligans, HB, TLR, GOONS and VE. 

 

The second most hilarious thing is people who lost to EQ calling them Incompetent or "worst coalition ever" without notice that they're insulting themselves at the same time.  

Edited May 30, 2013 by D34th

[Neo Uruk]

I still think that the most hilarious thing of the war was call Competence an side who had Deinos, The International, GATO, Hooligans, HB, TLR, GOONS and VE. 

 

The second most hilarious thing is people who lost to EQ calling them Incompetent or "worst coalition ever" without notice that they're insulting themselves at the same time.  

The outcome of the war has nothing to do with the competence level of EQ. That's like saying selling music makes a good artist.

[Schattenmann]

Yeah, no.

 

The political position that Competence found itself in was not one brought about by its own incompetence, but rather by the inevitability of the cycle that is politics in this game world. Eventually, any leader will face a resistance of strength, just by the nature of what being a leader entails. If I need any proof, I can point to the coordination (or lack thereof) between "Equilibrium" alliances, the infighting between their alliances, and the face that they only narrowly achieved victory despite massive numerical and statistical advantages.

 

On the note of the OP, I've seen plenty of relationships built upon most respect. I can safely say that none of TOP's current treaty partners have anything less than our full respect, and that some of those relationships (MK and Umbrella come to mind) only began in the first place because of the mutual respect shared between both parties. In addition, I respect a few alliances opposing my own position- the New Pacific Order, who manages to survive, maintain political relevancy, and manipulate others on a scale unmatched in this world's history comes to mind- as well. Perhaps you feel that there is a lack of respect in alliance politics because your alliance has nothing worth respecting?

 

So, which it is, Bob?  It's a shame it's NPO, because they're going to take this personally, but really.  Really.  Tell us how much of a mess EQ was out of the left side of your mouth while telling us how masterful NPO is out of the right one more time.  25 times this week at least, and it's still funny.  Are you guys doing it on purpose, or do you really not see the irony? [hr]

The politics of contempt are at least 3 years old: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/93789-creative-annihilation

Edited May 30, 2013 by Schattenmann

[Azaghul]

So, which it is, Bob?  It's a shame it's NPO, because they're going to take this personally, but really.  Really.  Tell us how much of a mess EQ was out of the left side of your mouth while telling us how masterful NPO is out of the right one more time.  25 times this week at least, and it's still funny.  Are you guys doing it on purpose, or do you really not see the irony? [hr]

The politics of contempt are at least 3 years old: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/93789-creative-annihilation

There's only so much NPO and the other decent alliances could do when working with so many incompetent ones.

[jerdge]

I have seen people putting up shows of disdain and scorn at the expenses of (those that they consider) the weak since 2007.

 

OOC: The only difference may be that people didn't use to do it Out Of Character too.

[Prodigal Moon]

Because your side WAS incompetent.  There are plenty of people that were IN your coalition that say it was awful, the worst coalition they've ever been in or close to it. I've personally had several of those conversations, and know of numerous others.

 

It's not just backchannel stuff or heresay that supports that conclusion either.  There's the public "undeclarations" on MK trying to keep NG out followed by the declarations on TLR.  The fact that Competence had a better than 1 to 1 damage given / taken ratio.  Someone on our side totaled it up for all active wars and it varied between around 1.05 to 1.2  That is unprecedented for a losing coalition, in previous wars the damage ratio has favored the larger coalition.  The larger side has, from a logistical standpoint, major advantages that, all other things being equal, should allow it to achieve a better than 1 to 1 damage ratio.  Obviously, your side eventually won because in a war of attrition a 1.2 damage ratio can't overcome a 2 to 1 numbers disadvantage.  But it shouldn't have been as close as it was.

 

You're painting 42 alliances - half the NS in the world - with a very broad brush, using a condescending, black-or-white label. That is, you're not saying they're less competent, or flawed, or have certain strengths or weaknesses, or strong alliances and weak alliances, but are just "incompetent" - period.

 

The irony is that it was probably exactly this kind of insulting bs that turned such an enormous coalition against you in the first place. So if you want to keep spitting in our/their faces even after admitting defeat, by all means - please carry on.

 

Because regardless of what you think of EQ, the bottom line is that they won and you lost this time. So does ending up on the losing side mean you're less competent, or is there more to it than that?

[RevolutionaryRebel]

Oh, this is rich. 'Competence', 'incompetence'... 'equilibrium', 'disequilibrium'? These labels were and are simply a recent example of the false bubble of 'animosity' that Alliances wrap themselves in, in order to galvanise their members, support their wasteful quests for dominance and fuel their foolhardy feuds over pixels. When you lack a cause to fight or a real measure of differentiation, you have to invent one. And so it has happened that these 'feuds' are ignited, as a way to hide from the truth that is the futility of your strife, and make the pain of nuclear war bearable. You will fight over the crown, passing it from holder to holder, purposefully starting disputes with other Alliances and stoking the fire until it turns competition into opposition. You create demagogues to 'crusade' against, an yet, this façade reveals itself after every conflict, as the allegiances twist and turn. Supposed enemies ally with one another, old allies break up unceremoniously... the wheel turns.

 

So does ending up on the losing side mean you're less competent, or is there more to it than that?

In the cases of IRON-VE, and/or NPO-ODN, 'sides' don't seem to matter when it comes to 'losers' or 'winners'. Those are simply two recent examples of cross-bloc treaties  following a 'global war'; there are many others in the annals, so talking-up and chest-beating on both sides isn't the primary determinant of alliance foreign policy.

EDIT: But it does serve as a good excuse for burning some nations while others rest in Peace Mode. Or various acts of mass suicide during wartime. Rolled or not, your 'enemies' will insult you during and after the conflict, until their myopia suddenly disappears as soon as political interests intervene.

Edited May 30, 2013 by revolutionary rebel

[Ogaden]

Because your side WAS incompetent.  There are plenty of people that were IN your coalition that say it was awful, the worst coalition they've ever been in or close to it. I've personally had several of those conversations, and know of numerous others.

 

It's not just backchannel stuff or heresay that supports that conclusion either.  There's the public "undeclarations" on MK trying to keep NG out followed by the declarations on TLR.  The fact that Competence had a better than 1 to 1 damage given / taken ratio.  Someone on our side totaled it up for all active wars and it varied between around 1.05 to 1.2  That is unprecedented for a losing coalition, in previous wars the damage ratio has favored the larger coalition.  The larger side has, from a logistical standpoint, major advantages that, all other things being equal, should allow it to achieve a better than 1 to 1 damage ratio.  Obviously, your side eventually won because in a war of attrition a 1.2 damage ratio can't overcome a 2 to 1 numbers disadvantage.  But it shouldn't have been as close as it was.

 

Uh, we did better than a 1:1 damage ratio in the Dave War, I guess your coalition was a complete failure too!

This is a good example of what I was talking about earlier.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Ogaden