Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Chunky Monkey

Lacuna Populi

Recommended Posts

That depends on how you define victory. By Comrade Doppelganger's definition it is simply denying your enemies your destruction, so according to the NPO -- yes, we are winning the war.

I prefer to look to more subtle changes in the broader stage. Public discourse is much more open and people are much less afraid to speak their minds than they have been in a long, long time. Of course this may be due to other factors than Vox -- who could really say? And of course most information is still hoarded greedily by the ruling elite despite some valiant attempts to liberate such knowledge for the greater enlightenment of mankind ... but we are getting there! Slowly but surely.

Vox disagree with NPO in everything except in this definition because serve your cause?

victory

noun [C or U]

when you win a game, competition, election, war, etc.

moral victory

noun [C]

when you prove that your beliefs are right, although you lose an argument.

Pyrrhic victory

noun [C usually singular]

a victory which is not worth winning because the winner has lost so much in winning it.

If Vox really thinks that is winning the last definition serve you guys best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, nobody really.

As such nothing really could be said for Vox making any success, thus some making the logical assumption coming that you made no success at all.

Haha, no.

You see, while nothing can be said with certainty as to the causes of trends in a global community such as this, we can speculate and draw certain conclusions based on observable evidence. Since these changes in behaviour have occurred since your orchestrated massacre of Polar and its sphere of influence last year and since the Order and its allies continue to insist that there is no new political entity moving in the shadows, no divisions in its blocs, no cracks in the façade, it is reasonable to say that it is not due to a polarising political force rising to check the ruling elite's ability to stifle opposition as it has in the past.

Since your hold on power is as secure as it ever was there are only two things that could conceivably have awakened the public to the crimes of your hegemony: the first is the aforementioned purging of Polar and its allies. The second is its direct result, the foundation of Vox Populi and the spread of its ideals to a populance hungry for a departure from the status quo.

So again, no. That is not a logical assumption you were making, it was an overly-simplistic jump to a conclusion based upon nothing but what you desire to see codified as "truth". Let Vladimir handle that, please.

Actually I was reaffirming Doitzel's point.

I had one of those? Someone shoot me already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As such nothing really could be said for Vox making any success, thus some making the logical assumption coming that you made no success at all.

Without comment as to your posting skills or style, let me try to be a little more pleasant.

Vox Populi has had many successes.

☼We elected a senator to the Red team and kept him there as long as we wanted to despite NPO's attempts to remove him by means of personal intimidation ("you dont' get to play anymore"-Gabriel) to counter-mass-messaging Red unaligneds to coordinated voting. (I assume NPO tried to coordinate its vote because that makes sense, but I cant' go beyond that because if it happened it was fruitless)

☼We elected a senator to the Green team. I'm not a stooge so I'll acknowledge that after Cylon deleted we didn't think we could do it again so we didn't try.

☼We have amassed a large following in the hushed and hopeful whispers in kitchens all over Bob.

☼We have extended ourselves beyond our initial goal of "piss off the Coalition for a week or so" to a flourishing political movement and static presence. In an internal warning to his membership not to join Vox, Ragnarok's ChairmanHal warned them that ". . . in fact they are simply going to their characters' deaths. Indeed, several of the "leading" members of Vox Populi have no intentions pf staying their once it looks like the show is over . . ." That was 6 months ago. We are not going anywhere, and the show is not nearly over.

☼We have a spy network that has infiltrated a large number of alliances and their governments despite attempts to shut this intel-gathering effort down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vox disagree with NPO in everything except in this definition because serve your cause?

No. We disagree with the NPO in everything in which they are wrong. They just happened to be a very misguided lot!

If Vox really thinks that is winning the last definition serve you guys best.

Hey, how about instead of quoting an external source that has no relevance here you stop for a second and think for yourself? We define victory as achieving our goals and do not base it in military terms because we are not fighting militarily. The conventional rules, regulations, and terminology do not apply to an unconventional war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you seriously going to sit here and tell me that despite the entire essay demonstrating time and again a significant misunderstanding of basic Francoist theory [see above], the word "perfect," thrown inconspicuously into the middle of an unrelated sentence, reverses all that and somehow demonstrates that you really understood it all along? How does that one work exactly? Does the word have an in depth internal dialogue that the rest of us weren't privy to?

From the wiki

...Francoists have analysed the state of nature here as a state of chaos, with the primary goal of alliances and organisations being to bring this chaos to order and thus allow their members to develop to their full potential freely.

Order is also free of conflict. In this description of Francoism, conflict is never said either, yet it is obviously meant that Francoism will limit conflict within the world. You admit yourself that one of Francoism's key tenant is ending suffering and conflict. If you must, equate suffering to conflict. You are merely splitting hairs over your small logical failure to analyze just one word and you know it.

If Francoism seeks to eradicate suffering, Voxism is still a direct counter to it. The Ends of Francoism seems to justify the means in Francoist thought afterall.

Either way, I still have you beat.

Now onto Francoism itself from the wiki:

As for full potential freely, this equates to stats. If it equated to ideals, I wouldn't have to be ordered around by an Emperor. The building up of nations freely is only insofar as nation growth. It doesn't equate to the mind, otherwise, there would be no radio silence.

Anyway, the end, this is all irrelevant. Firstly because Francoism is whatever you here want it to be, and secondly, because my philosophy can still stand on its own whether it is a counter to Francoism or not.

You have yet to refute any of actual Vox tenants btw. You should probably get on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vox disagree with NPO in everything except in this definition because serve your cause?

If Vox really thinks that is winning the last definition serve you guys best.

If you can't beat em' join em' and use their skewed logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'It' is how the Soviestani people say 'I' if they are seeking to emphasise that which follows it. It developed out of the northern dialect before unification and It'm very sensitive about it if you don't mind.

Thank you for that, I literally lol'd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
☼We elected a senator to the Red team and kept him there as long as we wanted

But what great success you made out of that short time stunt that made any lasting difference in regards to your set goals?

On the second note I guess I will just have to take your word for it,....

☼We elected a senator to the Green team. I'm not a stooge so I'll acknowledge that after Cylon deleted we didn't think we could do it again so we didn't try.

Again, I will have to repeat my first question.

☼We have amassed a large following in the hushed and hopeful whispers in kitchens all over Bob.

If you say so, its not a very tangible point.

☼We have extended ourselves beyond our initial goal of "piss off the Coalition for a week or so" to a flourishing political movement and static presence.

Thats very open for a debate quite actually.

☼We have a spy network that has infiltrated a large number of alliances and their governments despite attempts to shut this intel-gathering effort down.

If you say so.

I do not know, except for the senate thing nothing much tangible.

Just you claiming a lot of various things.

edit: Missed an edit in your post.

So to add in my, what your claiming as success then is just the fact that your still posting your tune on the boards. Ok, thats something I guess, you are determined. Still do not see what success it brought to you in regards to achieving your goals, but ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that Vox Populi, while I believe still committed to their original goals, have certainly left aside their original methods. In the beginning, spying was not really on our radar.

While I can acknowledge that if Vox truly wants to win, then they are entitled to go to more unconventional methods. The question they must constantly ask themselves, however, is if they truly hate the established order, how much are they willing to sacrifice themselves to supplant it?

The longer this "war" goes on, the more I am reminded of the quotation once at the top of the Vox IRC chan. What may have once been an ironic and self depracating sentence is quickly becoming the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's worth noting that Vox Populi, while I believe still committed to their original goals, have certainly left aside their original methods. In the beginning, spying was not really on our radar.

While I can acknowledge that if Vox truly wants to win, then they are entitled to go to more unconventional methods. The question they must constantly ask themselves, however, is if they truly hate the established order, how much are they willing to sacrifice themselves to supplant it?

The longer this "war" goes on, the more I am reminded of the quotation at the top of the Vox IRC chan. What may have once been an ironic and self depracating sentence is quickly becoming the truth.

[21:35] * Topic is 'Vox Populi'

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Branimir

At the end of the day you define success differently than we do. I have lived in the standard world that you live in, so I can understand and acknowledge your successes. You do not fully understand our world, so you cannot acknowledge our successes (your politics aside). At the end of the day, we don't need your acknowledgement of our successes to categorize them as such. I think of those listed, "hushed support" is the most important while you are correct that it is the least tangible. If we have made even 10 people think differently, then we have made a large success in my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care too much about the other two essays, since there isn't anything new or interesting to respond to (the first could maybe develop into something later, but right now it's just a a dictionary entry for a term). But, Mega Aros's article, that one just had me going "wtf?" the whole time. I'm not even going to get into whether or not you "correctly" defined Francoism because I don't really care, because the essay itself is just so strange. Your argument against Francoism is literally that it would end all suffering and make a perfect world. Regardless of whether or not that's at all related to Francoism, how is that a good argument? Then you turn towards some quasi-existential idealism to justify why a "perfect world" is bad and undesirable. You define the goal of "Voxism" (really?) as trying to keep suffering and pleasure in equal quantities. How can you take yourself seriously while writing these things? I feel strange that I even have to point out how absurd all of this is. Later in the thread you make a quip about Vladimir using some "philosophy 101" crap or something, when you just tried to apply some vague form of existentialism to a political philosophy debate. The hell is that?

Your essay is built on an interpretation of Francoism that seems debateable at best and a series of abstract, philosophical premises (suffering is necessary for happiness, happiness gives life meaning, without meaning life is not worth living, therefore suffering is good and should be experienced in equal quantities as pleasure) that belongs in the "philosophy 101" classes, is filled with unsupportable assertions that plenty wouldn't agree with, and has a conclusion that doesn't even make sense in the logic of the argument (even if suffering is good and necessary, why must we strive to have so much of it?).

If you really want a response, then the answer is that suffering may give life some measure of meaning. Even if it does, and even if it is essential to having a meaningful existence, and even if we assume that having a "meaningful" existence is necessary to having a worthwhile existence, none of that makes suffering good. Suffering is bad, it is something be overcome, it is the struggle (by your own argument) that produces good. But suffering cannot be completely overcome, and it is obvious that Francoism will never create a "perfect" world (assuming that that is even its goal or at least result), especially since it's also obvious that most people will never adopt Francoism. So, then, those that do adopt it are, in your argument, struggling against suffering, thus they have a meaningful existence and will continue to so long as they keep up the fight, thus Francoism is good.

I should also point out that you haven't actually elucidated a new philosophy, you've just used a couple of idealistic assumptions to try and disparage another philosophy (Francoism, specifically).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care too much about the other two essays, since there isn't anything new or interesting to respond to (the first could maybe develop into something later, but right now it's just a a dictionary entry for a term).

You have grasped what Vlad could not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... we can speculate and draw certain conclusions based on observable evidence.

Yes, we can always speculate.

But speculation is what it is, not the best base to claim a success on as its debatable.

So again, no. That is not a logical assumption you were making, it was an overly-simplistic jump to a conclusion based upon nothing but what you desire to see codified as "truth". Let Vladimir handle that, please.

It wasn't really a over simplification, if I may say so. As you are founding your assessment of your success on a speculation how deeply you affected the world stage and nothing more tangible then that, in the lack of more tangible things some I am sure make the assumtion about your success which I posted.

I had one of those? Someone shoot me already!

I was surprised too in a way. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day you define success differently than we do.

That does seem clear now indeed.

I will have to agree with you on that.

At the end of the day, we don't need your acknowledgement of our successes to categorize them as such.

That is also true. Nobody does really.

P.S. And they say I only say my opponents have no point, obligatory ^_^

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't care too much about the other two essays, since there isn't anything new or interesting to respond to (the first could maybe develop into something later, but right now it's just a a dictionary entry for a term). But, Mega Aros's article, that one just had me going "wtf?" the whole time. I'm not even going to get into whether or not you "correctly" defined Francoism because I don't really care, because the essay itself is just so strange. Your argument against Francoism is literally that it would end all suffering and make a perfect world. Regardless of whether or not that's at all related to Francoism, how is that a good argument? Then you turn towards some quasi-existential idealism to justify why a "perfect world" is bad and undesirable. You define the goal of "Voxism" (really?) as trying to keep suffering and pleasure in equal quantities. How can you take yourself seriously while writing these things? I feel strange that I even have to point out how absurd all of this is. Later in the thread you make a quip about Vladimir using some "philosophy 101" crap or something, when you just tried to apply some vague form of existentialism to a political philosophy debate. The hell is that?

Your essay is built on an interpretation of Francoism that seems debateable at best and a series of abstract, philosophical premises (suffering is necessary for happiness, happiness gives life meaning, without meaning life is not worth living, therefore suffering is good and should be experienced in equal quantities as pleasure) that belongs in the "philosophy 101" classes, is filled with unsupportable assertions that plenty wouldn't agree with, and has a conclusion that doesn't even make sense in the logic of the argument (even if suffering is good and necessary, why must we strive to have so much of it?).

If you really want a response, then the answer is that suffering may give life some measure of meaning. Even if it does, and even if it is essential to having a meaningful existence, and even if we assume that having a "meaningful" existence is necessary to having a worthwhile existence, none of that makes suffering good. Suffering is bad, it is something be overcome, it is the struggle (by your own argument) that produces good. But suffering cannot be completely overcome, and it is obvious that Francoism will never create a "perfect" world (assuming that that is even its goal or at least result), especially since it's also obvious that most people will never adopt Francoism. So, then, those that do adopt it are, in your argument, struggling against suffering, thus they have a meaningful existence and will continue to so long as they keep up the fight, thus Francoism is good.

I should also point out that you haven't actually elucidated a new philosophy, you've just used a couple of idealistic assumptions to try and disparage another philosophy (Francoism, specifically).

OOC: Oh noes, you caught me. You understood that I wouldn't want to waste too much time writing an imaginary philosophy. The funniest thing though is how you call me out on using basic Existentialist themes, but never call out Vlad for using Hobbes' Social Contract, which is much more "philosophy 101" than existentialism. If I really wanted to go into the deep stuff, it would have just been confusing, and I like to remember that this is only a game.

Secondly, as for striving to have suffering, a quote for Dostoevsky puts it best: "It is not possible to eat me without insisting that I sing praises of my devourer?"- Just because I recognize that suffering is required doesn't mean I will forcibly create it. (Unless this is a game, in which case, I will)

As for unsupportable assertions, they are easily supportable. This is nothing but a beginning. I could easily justify why the mindsets are such, and etc. Just give me some time.

As for a new philosophy, it is obvious that Vox has attempted to cause conflict in the world, against alliance like your own, which are not Francoist. I'd like to see you explain that one.

EDIT: Also every philosophy has unsupportable assertions. That's why all of them are all subjectively wrong at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always ironic to see people who write walls of texts on both sides here drag themselves down to flames and snide comments in response to each others posts. I was actually kind of hoping to read a good debate come of it and was disappointed.

This is just further proof of the supremacy of Manoism and it's profit. All hail Mano!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, this is in an OOC forum, you don't need tell people it's OOC. It's honestly not that hard.

Jeez. Sorry for offending you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, this is in an OOC forum, you don't need tell people it's OOC. It's honestly not that hard.

ho ho ho you really showed him who's the rules expert around here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's always ironic to see people who write walls of texts on both sides here drag themselves down to flames and snide comments in response to each others posts. I was actually kind of hoping to read a good debate come of it and was disappointed.

This is just further proof of the supremacy of Manoism and it's profit. All hail Mano!

It happens, and to be honest, it's what I thought would happen. Regardless, it's still fun for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, this is in an OOC forum, you don't need tell people it's OOC. It's honestly not that hard.

It seems to be pretty hard for you to post something germane to the topic.

@Branimir:

Every kind of success is debatable. There is no absolute success in any situation. To dismiss someone's claim to success because it is debatable is completely ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×