The Zigur Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 The Party is the vanguard reaction against !@#$ posting. The root of this !@#$ posting comes from our opponents citing grandiose ideas such as stability, order, and lulz. The Party does not accept that any mere words or the misinterpreted meanings behind words can define our political realm, and furthermore, does not accept that any single words or ideas can be the sole bastion of hope and progress in our political realm. Questions. 1. How does your party define shit posting? 2. What is grandiose about the stated ideas? 3. If words cannot define the political realm, what will? 4. Who asserts that "single words or ideas can be the sole bastion of hope and progress in our political realm?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOLO SWAG Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Questions. 1. How does your party define !@#$ posting? 2. What is grandiose about the stated ideas? 3. If words cannot define the political realm, what will? 4. Who asserts that "single words or ideas can be the sole bastion of hope and progress in our political realm?" Answers. 1. mlyp 2. The way you speak of lulz, order, and stability is pretentious. 3. It is the opinion of the Party that words cannot define anything; things simple are one way or another. 4. You do. When you speak of revolution, more important to you, your type revolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Answers. 1. mlyp 2. The way you speak of lulz, order, and stability is pretentious. 3. It is the opinion of the Party that words cannot define anything; things simple are one way or another. 4. You do. When you speak of revolution, more important to you, your type revolution. 1. lol k 2. The validity of an argument is not normally judged by its "pretentious" quality. 3. (ooc: Your party's opinion is obviously wrong.) 4. Neither myself nor the Party has stated that "single words or ideas can be the sole bastion of hope and progress in our political realm." (ooc: to quote chairman Mao "If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no significance.") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 You guys are too serious: y'all need to lighten up and lulz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 You guys are too serious: y'all need to lighten up and lulz. Only one side is particularly serious about this. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Only one side is particularly serious about this. :P Stop spoiling my fun, WarriorSoul. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Stop spoiling my fun, WarriorSoul. ;) I've finished all the work I have to do, I have no alcohol in the house, and I have class in 8 hours. Stop spoiling my fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I've finished all the work I have to do, I have no alcohol in the house, and I have class in 8 hours. Stop spoiling my fun. I've cued my cold by my lonesome , recently finished an essay over the medieval sacking of Rome and cleaned my small apartment spotless. It's my time to enjoy Cyber Nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I've cued my cold by my lonesome , recently finished an essay over the medieval sacking of Rome and cleaned my small apartment spotless.It's my time to enjoy Cyber Nations.*The early modern period sacking (depends how you define it tbqh). In order to precede a !@#$posting series on negative vs positive rights in this here thread, I invite you to stop (seriously, nobody cares who has the last word on the owf) for everyone's sake. Questions.1. How does your party define !@#$ posting?2. What is grandiose about the stated ideas?3. If words cannot define the political realm, what will?4. Who asserts that "single words or ideas can be the sole bastion of hope and progress in our political realm?"1. mlyp2. The way you speak of lulz, order, and stability is pretentious.3. It is the opinion of the Party that words cannot define anything; things simple are one way or another.4. You do. When you speak of revolution, more important to you, your type revolution. 1. lol k2. The validity of an argument is not normally judged by its "pretentious" quality.3. (ooc: Your party's opinion is obviously wrong.)4. Neither myself nor the Party has stated that "single words or ideas can be the sole bastion of hope and progress in our political realm." (ooc: to quote chairman Mao "If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no significance.") Okay, here we go. 1 is moot so I'll take it from there.2. Pretentious is just scratching the surfce. You seek to apply concepts, theories and opinions without giving proper regard for the intricacies of the world we reside in; building an argument based on generalisations, opinions and conjecture is not just pretentious, but misleading and your constant trumpeting of your opinions as 'fact' is delusional.3. Think less 'words' and more 'labels'. Your "analysis" (read; perspective) is narrow. You approach a systemic world as if everything were divided categorically. Labels are meaningless in themselves, other than as they are perceived and how they shape our actions. It tends itself to a fallacious worldview via the generalisations (and subsequent loss of detail) it encourages. Ergo, labels are a poor basis for any supposedly rational platform."We don't need no stinkin' definitions" is pretty much the Entropic platform anyhow.4. Actions speak louder than words, in this case. Your claims regarding meaningless buzzwords like 'order', 'stability' (et al.) form the crux of your platform, ergo these words and how you choose to define them hold primacy in your dogma.Please do not ingratiate this effort to stem the shitposting tide. I'm not here for silly arguments about meaningless things; you have your own thread; if nobody else wants to talk about you, too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) Okay, here we go. 1 is moot so I'll take it from there. 2. Pretentious is just scratching the surfce. You seek to apply concepts, theories and opinions without giving proper regard for the intricacies of the world we reside in; building an argument based on generalisations, opinions and conjecture is not just pretentious, but misleading and your constant trumpeting of your opinions as 'fact' is delusional. The problem with what you people are saying is that your arguments are riddled with holes in logic and reality. You accuse me of not "giving proper regard for the intricacies of the world we reside in," despite the fact that the Little Red Book includes Vladimirist-Francoist works which do exactly that, with a strong bases on material analysis, and which the global argument is framed around. The Party at least makes an attempt at it which is still an ongoing process. Meanwhile, you guys do the following: 3. Think less 'words' and more 'labels'. Your "analysis" (read; perspective) is narrow. You approach a systemic world as if everything were divided categorically. Labels are meaningless in themselves, other than as they are perceived and how they shape our actions. It tends itself to a fallacious worldview via the generalisations (and subsequent loss of detail) it encourages. Ergo, labels are a poor basis for any supposedly rational platform. "We don't need no stinkin' definitions" is pretty much the Entropic platform anyhow. Dividing things into categories does not mean that it does so automatically. For any sort of materialist approach to be successful, things have to be broken down to be better understood. The only one making generalizations here are you. But, considering your approach is not authentic that is not a surprise. 4. Actions speak louder than words, in this case. Your claims regarding meaningless buzzwords like 'order', 'stability' (et al.) form the crux of your platform, ergo these words and how you choose to define them hold primacy in your dogma. The Party specifically avoids dogmatic practices by explicitly moving forward with a living approach, i.e. the Party constantly changes and evolves to adapt to the situation. This is why the Constitution will be regularly updated after plenary sessions of the Party Congress as long as there is activity, and the Book is an ongoing work in progress, subject to contributions by other Party members. The fact that you consider the Little Red Book to be dogma means you haven't actually read it. I understand the lulz better than lulzist themselves. Edited February 5, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Partisan Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Since you insist, I will be happy to advance the power and glory of the Party. Let's start from the beginning, with analysis of your OP image. Some sort of imp choking prosperity on an orange field. Not hopeful. This is basically lulz science. Lets go ahead and move past the thoughtless use of "theory" and "belief" in the same breath. You mention the "theoretical concept of Entropy." Since you failed to define this theory or source documents that do so, (ooc)I am forced to rely on the world wide web. I have no idea what this stuff means so if you can apply how it relays to CN I'd be happy!(/ooc) You assert that systems inevitably deteriorate but do not provide an argument how. At least you are honest when calling yourselves reactionary! But if so, why bother creating a false ideology? Except, of course, we are in the realm of lulz, the twilight zone of CN. The problem with the lulz fronts is that as harmless as they seem, they can do incredible damage to stability and quality of the world. Although we defeated Mushqaeda, it was organized along the same principles as this "reaction party." In fact, even though Mushqaeda did multiples of the damage this reactionary party can ever do, its very presence encourages others to forget the lessons of Mushqaeda and act in lulz. In a very real way, the Revolutionary Order Party is not just a vanguard of all nations, but is truly a last defense against Mushqaeda-like terrorist uprisings. In case of Mushqaeda, the world organized without a Party, but mistakes were made and not all terrorists were brought to justice. The Party stands ready to counter any lulz fronts and provide shelter to any Partisan fighters who enlist against lulzist uprisings. This begins with Nation Leaders seeking education and knowledge in our Little Red Book. Dear Lord Tywin, While the offer of support by your party has been duly noted and appreciated, I must regretfully inform you that I have long retired from the ideological conflicts that cast their shadows upon this world. Those fighters who remain loyally entrenched by my side have traded in their weapons for spades. Our purpose has shifted from burning those who oppose us, to building a better tomorrow. As we embark on our divine mission, it is unlikely that we will be in need of the shelter offered by your party. Granted that our absence will leave your shelters vacant, we suggest that you consider utilizing them in a different way. It appears that as a result of the ongoing global war, the number of homeless citizens has increased dramatically. Our hope is that you will offer the same hospitality to those who now find themselves wandering the streets, as you did to us. Yours sincerely, - Partisan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 If I wanted to read a long-winded piece of fiction, I would make a start on Tolstoy. Given you have failed to cease advertising your wares to those that do not want it, I see no reason to encourage you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 If I wanted to read a long-winded piece of fiction, I would make a start on Tolstoy. The scoundrel reveals himself for what he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 What? You don't like Tolstoy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 What? Does anyone not like Tolstoy? There. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOLO SWAG Posted February 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 You say you want a revolution. (ooc: to quote chairman Mao "If we have a correct theory but merely prate about it, pigeonhole it and do not put it into practice, then that theory, however good, is of no significance.") But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman MaoYou ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted February 7, 2014 Report Share Posted February 7, 2014 I did not sign this and therefore it isnt valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malkavian Posted February 8, 2014 Report Share Posted February 8, 2014 I did not sign this and therefore it isnt valid. Nothing you pen is valid, Rotaevle. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovidsidios Posted February 9, 2014 Report Share Posted February 9, 2014 (edited) Nothing you pen is valid, Rotaevle. :P Dare we say validity fall within the grasp of any pen? You say you want a revolution. A revolution to end all revolutions. First it started with three emerald rings to rule them all. We made a fourth for ncc, and somehow letterkenny got a ring (though I think he got it from one of the dispensers), we might have had a few stragglers, but they didn't get nothing! Soon those three founding councilors saw the power of their rings pulling them away. When the essence of BASED called the first, his transcendence to glory has manifested in this divinely appointed crusade; you shall not fail. The second, given to the bumbling-negroid, has gone far and exhausted his annoyance. Now his once jockular existence has now become a scraping tone of reason; nails of understanding against the blackboard of ignorance. To the third, what can we say of him? An enigma, a shadow, a traveler between riots and nordic gods, and backdrops of nuclear stairways to heaven. All the while the people of Bob believe they stand on the shoulders of a world, where their very leans and hesitations, shape the future. In reality, you're all moving on a train neither is controlling, and base the impetus of your circumstances to causality rather than to circumstances. Couldn't you simply be lucky? Beginning, end; to, fro; light, dark; existence, apathy. Edited February 9, 2014 by Ovidsidios 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.