A Truth in Advertising Version of the Introduction to Francoism

[ChairmanHal]

Re FAN: The first war was started by FAN attacking an NPO protectorate. There really isn't too much doubt about the blame for that one. The second war would have probably been justified considering the number of violations (though they were never confirmed by an impartial authority), except for the fact that the terms explicitly said that individual violations were not justification for a second alliance war. I'm not sure what that has to do with Francoism though.

FAN was one a very long line of enabler alliances that presumed to act as NPO's equal and was struck down for its impudence. To reinforce the point, they were kept cornered and no longer a threat. Those doing the original striking down later were similarly struck down themselves (or allowed to be struck down) for essentially the same crime. Barbarian rabble are after all expendable.

Absolutely! Critical analysis! Deep questioning! Methodology! Fantastic! I love all that! Now, where is it?

Try as I might, I can't make a blind man see the sun rise, a deaf man hear an overture, nor enable a man without a sense of taste to enjoy the subtle nuances of a vintage glass of wine. Thus explaining to you the failings of your political philosophy is likewise a futile gesture.

[Mussolandia]

Ah, so ChairmanHal's latest brain fart is saved by its short length? Duly noted.

[Drostan]

See... this is what I was afraid would happen. All this buzz would cause Vladimir to start posting again. If there's anything that the post-Karma world doesn't need it's a resurgence of Vladimir's laboriously half-baked philosophical musings.

Criticism only excites Vlad's ego and further encourages his sado-masochistic relationship with philosophy. Our best bet is to pull the cover over our eyes and wait for the boogeyman to go away again. It takes only one attention whore to get the entire hive buzzing.

EDIT: Also, I would far rather that a brain fart dissipated quickly than haunt my dwelling persistently. Apparently those with a keen olfactory sense can still detect the stench of Francoism on Planet Bob. To quote a famous mustachioed German philosopher: "Luft! Mehr Luft!"

Edited December 21, 2009 by Drostan

[Lonely]

I honestly don't have time to write out a full response to everything you've said, but I'll focus on your final point, and perhaps come back to the rest of it later.

I read 'The Divided Self' and completely disagreed with it. It makes a fundamental error in the opening paragraph. It states that there is a difference between objective self-interest and subjective self-interest, and then provides examples to support this point. For example, “a lemming wanting to run off a cliff” or “a mental patient wanting to bang their head against the wall” are actions apparently clearly not in the objective self-interest of the individuals involved.

I'll simply state that this is your subjective opinion and that a lemming's desire to run off a cliff could very well be in its objective interest. I'll then state that this undermines the rest of your argument, including your essays 'The Slavery of International Rights' and 'The Meaning of Freedom', because it is simply impossible for you to determine what is in someone's objective self-interests, because the conclusions you come to will always be your subjective opinion. Therefore, you cannot align someone's subjective self-interests with their objective self-interests, a concept fundamental to Francoism.

On a personal level, I found that essay absolutely sick. It is quite clear the essay is written to increase the Emperor's power, and place the membership of the alliance under the complete control of the Emperor, while you delude them into the belief that this is somehow freedom. In your essay, you even recognise that this is contrary to human instinct. Can your propaganda be clearer? War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength!

OOC: very enjoyable read.

Edited December 21, 2009 by The Lonely Man

[Thistledown]

[OOC] As part of the unwashed masses with only cursory knowledge of Hobbes, Nazism, or communism, I'd love it if you would explain your contempt instead of merely bashing others. Help further my knowledge, good sir.[/OOC]

I do have a quick question for Vladimir- I'm sure it's been asked, but I've never personally seen it. Presumably- and please, correct me if I'm wrong here- you write essays on Francoism and publish them on the OWF in order to spread knowledge of Francoism among the general CN community, and to gain adherants to it. You are aware, of course, that your essays are known for being extremely long and using language so thick you could chip a tooth on it. In fact, they are prohibitively so- considering that Francoism does not actually affect interactions of leaders directly, it is unlikely that many will simply put in the effort to slog through what reads like a textbook. Your use of language, while using a wonderful vocabulary, also unfortunately makes the essays much harder to comprehend. You complain that we, the general public, do not seem to comprehend your masterpieces. If your target audience either remains largely apathetic to Francoism or have the commonly held belief that Francoism is simply justification for whatever they wish to do, is it the failings of the community, or your own failings in reaching the community? Are the essays on Francoism truly informing, or are they simply exercises in vanity?

[Tygaland]

It's still warmer than Tygaism.

lol

Thankfully we don't have an endless stream of crappy essays on Tygaism (Just the one crappy essay I wrote). So, while it may be colder than Francoism, Tygaism is a short cold blast you can recover quickly from rather than being slowly roasted over the dung fire of Francoism.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Tygaland

[zzzptm]

The New Pacific Order does not discard allies as easily as you would like to claim. FAN betrayed the NPO, the former members of the NAAC government have testified as such. They were hardly friends of the NPO, so there is little reason to doubt they were not being honest. You use examples like IRON additionally. I do not know where you are under the impression we still don't have a good friendship with IRON. We do.

Secondly I would point out the the NPO is not totalitarian to its members at all. It offers its membership a type of community that they can choose to be or not to be in. If I or anyone else wanted to, we could leave the NPO and go to an alliance that fits our ideals better. I simply do not believe in the Cyberverse one can make an argument about the amount of input members have in an alliance is a valid international issue. Because of freedom of movement, democratic choice is always at work. Some elect to have less "freedom" for the sake of other things, their choice should be respected as much as any other members.

OK, so the NPO is completely loyal to its allies and would never think of lying to them or betraying them until it's time to lie to them and betray them. I can agree to that.

For the second point, that's the kind of lie I'd expect from the ruling wolf as regards his personal flock of sheep. Many former members of NPO have gone on at length about the severe restrictions on free speech when such speech does not serve the desires or needs of its ruling class. Let me underline my earlier comment: this second point you make is a lie. Lie is a strong word, which is why I chose it. It is nevertheless a valid, if undiplomatic, description of that second point.

Let me share with you Pacificans a little bit of fun we who are not in the NPO enjoy from time to time:

Q: How can you tell if a Pacifican is lying?

A: He's signing a treaty.

Q: How many Pacificans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: None. They get a meatshield to do that.

Q: What's the first thing you should do after signing an alliance with NPO?

A: Cancel it and get some REAL allies.

Q: What's the difference between NPO and NpO?

A: You can trust Polaris. Also the little p.

Q: How do you kill a Pacifican elephant?

A: With a Pacifican elephant gun.

Q: How do you kill a non-Pacifican elephant?

A: Get it to attack OV with a fabricated CB, then shoot it with a Pacifican elephant gun.

Q: Why does everyone in FAN have nine fingers?

A: They once all shook hands with Pacificans.

Q: How can you tell if a Pacifican is a pathological liar?

A: He's in Foreign Affairs.

I got a million of 'em, and they're all comedic gold. The word of Pacifica is not its bond: It is its cruel joke on whoever believes it.

[Vladimir]

I read 'The Divided Self' and completely disagreed with it. It makes a fundamental error in the opening paragraph. It states that there is a difference between objective self-interest and subjective self-interest, and then provides examples to support this point. For example, “a lemming wanting to run off a cliff” or “a mental patient wanting to bang their head against the wall” are actions apparently clearly not in the objective self-interest of the individuals involved.

I'll simply state that this is your subjective opinion and that a lemming's desire to run off a cliff could very well be in its objective interest. I'll then state that this undermines the rest of your argument, including your essays 'The Slavery of International Rights' and 'The Meaning of Freedom', because it is simply impossible for you to determine what is in someone's objective self-interests, because the conclusions you come to will always be your subjective opinion. Therefore, you cannot align someone's subjective self-interests with their objective self-interests, a concept fundamental to Francoism.

On a personal level, I found that essay absolutely sick. It is quite clear the essay is written to increase the Emperor's power, and place the membership of the alliance under the complete control of the Emperor, while you delude them into the belief that this is somehow freedom. In your essay, you even recognise that this is contrary to human instinct. Can your propaganda be clearer? War is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength!

OOC: very enjoyable read.

For your main argument unfortunately there doesn't seem much to do other than disagree. As teachers suggest to the children of Soviestan that it probably isn't in their self-interest to flunk out of Vladigrad University so that they can play World of Warcraft for an extra 4 hours a day, as doctors at Sacred Vladimir Hospital suggest to manic depressives that jumping off a bridge probably isn't the best solution to their problems, so I suggest that a lemming running off a cliff could probably make better use of its time.

It seems to me that everyone accepts this to a degree. Does not every alliance develop a coercive hierarchy and code of conduct? Does not every alliance demand sacrifice for the greater good of the whole? If we took your rejection of my premise to its logical conclusion then complete anarchy is the only acceptable alternative. Of course, we have this to a degree in the absolute democratic ability to choose your alliance, and so any attempt to paint my position as one of enslavement rings hollow.

Though if you do decide to offer up a full critique I look forward to it.

[OOC] As part of the unwashed masses with only cursory knowledge of Hobbes, Nazism, or communism, I'd love it if you would explain your contempt instead of merely bashing others. Help further my knowledge, good sir.[/OOC]

[OOC]I didn't mean to convey contempt, but rather emphasis the ignorance displayed by ChairmanHal, and thus hopefully encourage others to investigate the various concepts for themselves -- I'd hate to think that people are leaving this thread actually believing such tripe. And any investigation that goes beyond tabloid headlines should be enough to highlight the mis- in the mis-information he seems so keen on peddling.

If you wish to discuss such an investigation on the forum I would suggest that the Boiler Room is a more appropriate venue.[/OOC]

I do have a quick question for Vladimir- I'm sure it's been asked, but I've never personally seen it. Presumably- and please, correct me if I'm wrong here- you write essays on Francoism and publish them on the OWF in order to spread knowledge of Francoism among the general CN community, and to gain adherants to it. You are aware, of course, that your essays are known for being extremely long and using language so thick you could chip a tooth on it. In fact, they are prohibitively so- considering that Francoism does not actually affect interactions of leaders directly, it is unlikely that many will simply put in the effort to slog through what reads like a textbook. Your use of language, while using a wonderful vocabulary, also unfortunately makes the essays much harder to comprehend. You complain that we, the general public, do not seem to comprehend your masterpieces. If your target audience either remains largely apathetic to Francoism or have the commonly held belief that Francoism is simply justification for whatever they wish to do, is it the failings of the community, or your own failings in reaching the community? Are the essays on Francoism truly informing, or are they simply exercises in vanity?

A well articulated attack (often made, but rarely with such style), and one that I will offer a full response to. I will start at the end and move backwards.

The first point I would make is that the style and vocabulary I use are just what comes naturally when I write on such subjects. There is no attempt to make it look more impressive as some accuse. What is produced is therefore the best work in the least amount of time. That is to say, if I were to go back through to 'dumb it down' (for want of a better phrase) I would end up spending more time than I am prepared to, and would end up with something less interesting (not to mention, as I will come to explain, it would be a fruitless -- or even counter-productive -- gesture). Moreover, it would necessarily lengthen the articles as more advanced words are broken down dictionary-style, so as to provide the same meaning in a less sophisticated manner. [Though I would add that compared to actual academic works that deal with similar issues, my own articles are incredibly simple.]

On length, there are two groups. Those who accuse me of being too verbose -- who think that every book should begin and end with the conclusion. And those who complain that my writings are not long enough -- that they don't cover this or that in enough detail; that they don't pre-empt a certain criticism; that they don't fully explain the larger context. These two groups are described below.

Are my writings inappropriate for the target audience? Well, that depends on who you assume my target audience to be. In posting something like The Meaning of Freedom I don't actually expect the aforementioned masses to read it, nor to care about it. They will turn up to attack it because they perceive it as being pro-NPO (and, ironically, from a purely anti-intellectual position of 'too long, too many words, therefore it sucks!'), but as ChairmanHal [and plenty of religious film/book critics] has amply demonstrated, reading is not a prerequisite for attacking. Though, of course, it is not all a one-way street. When another writer comes up with something equally long and complicated that reinforces the prejudices of said masses, they are just as quick to raise it to the level of masterpiece. In this regard they take a purely political position, and I have no illusions that mere logic is going to excite them.

For this group it would not matter whether I wrote as in an academic textbook or in a Dr. Seuss poem -- either way they would have zero interest

This comes with the territory, and is to be expected. You can see that I often actively avoid 'the masses' (those you think I am trying to convince), formerly by using the Academic Subforum (before it was removed) and latterly by using the blog feature -- the lack of public audience there seeming sufficient to keep out the more excitable elements. Likewise you can note numerous responses to the effect of 'if this is too long for you to read, don't read it' (there appears a belief that I am holding a gun to their head). This isn't to say that watching the fevered responses of the masses can't be fun, of course.

I post here for those actually interested in such matters. Ferrous, V1diot, New Reverie (when he feels like it), and many others, who read, understand, and either agree or disagree. I seek to challenge their assumptions and expand their horizons, and in turn I seek to have my assumptions challenged and my horizons expanded by their responses. In this regard I post for a community within the community.

I am aware that this post probably sounds condescending and perhaps even contemptuous, but if so it is once again just the style I am using to get a point across. I do not suggest that the uninterested group is unintelligent or anything of the sort -- I do not seek to divide the world into wandering Neanderthals and the enlightened few -- as I am well aware the the world takes in a vast array of people and perspectives (and indeed, some clearly intelligent folk such as Delta see fit to dismiss Francoism out of hand as I describe (disappointing, but understandable)). My evidently inadequate reductionism should merely be seen as an explanatory device, nothing more.

As an addendum to this, and at the risk of seeming to contradict myself, contrary to your implication Francoism is extremely practical. While the dull like to attack it as a philosophy lacking substance, it has an incredible amount to say about everything from designing and running an alliance, to inter-alliance strategy. This has found plenty of outlets, from the NPO to the GPA (a GPA leader once approached me to discuss my ideas as they relate to internal alliance efficiency).

[WorldConqueror]

OK, so the NPO is completely loyal to its allies and would never think of lying to them or betraying them until it's time to lie to them and betray them. I can agree to that.

For the second point, that's the kind of lie I'd expect from the ruling wolf as regards his personal flock of sheep. Many former members of NPO have gone on at length about the severe restrictions on free speech when such speech does not serve the desires or needs of its ruling class. Let me underline my earlier comment: this second point you make is a lie. Lie is a strong word, which is why I chose it. It is nevertheless a valid, if undiplomatic, description of that second point.

Let me share with you Pacificans a little bit of fun we who are not in the NPO enjoy from time to time:

Q: How can you tell if a Pacifican is lying?

A: He's signing a treaty.

Q: How many Pacificans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: None. They get a meatshield to do that.

Q: What's the first thing you should do after signing an alliance with NPO?

A: Cancel it and get some REAL allies.

Q: What's the difference between NPO and NpO?

A: You can trust Polaris. Also the little p.

Q: How do you kill a Pacifican elephant?

A: With a Pacifican elephant gun.

Q: How do you kill a non-Pacifican elephant?

A: Get it to attack OV with a fabricated CB, then shoot it with a Pacifican elephant gun.

Q: Why does everyone in FAN have nine fingers?

A: They once all shook hands with Pacificans.

Q: How can you tell if a Pacifican is a pathological liar?

A: He's in Foreign Affairs.

I got a million of 'em, and they're all comedic gold. The word of Pacifica is not its bond: It is its cruel joke on whoever believes it.

Don't know where you got that out of the completely justified attack on FAN, an attack which as was pointed out even mpol agrees was justified. Whatever floatsen das boatsen.

A lie eh? So we forcibly make people stay in the NPO? OK..... And comic gold? It seems your jokes are as lacking in humour as the rest of what you spew is devoid of intellectual or factual basis.

But then, can't expect much more from you, can we?

[zzzptm]

Don't know where you got that out of the completely justified attack on FAN, an attack which as was pointed out even mpol agrees was justified. Whatever floatsen das boatsen.

A lie eh? So we forcibly make people stay in the NPO? OK..... And comic gold? It seems your jokes are as lacking in humour as the rest of what you spew is devoid of intellectual or factual basis.

But then, can't expect much more from you, can we?

See what I mean, kids? LIES. Also severe lack of an ability to take a joke. Then again, NPO isn't really the audience for humor on Planeta Roberto.

It's the joke.

Thank you good night be sure to tip your bartender and I can't wait for the comic stylings of whatever treaty NPO signs next, really I can't.

[Vilien]

I think you forgot this old classic.

Q: How do you know when you're going to get rolled by Pacifica?

A: When you're getting close to getting out of terms.

[zzzptm]

While the dull like to attack it as a philosophy lacking substance, it has an incredible amount to say about everything from designing and running an alliance, to inter-alliance strategy.

TRANSLATION: Some guy sold our emperor a bunch of clothes. They said that the clothes were of such a wonderful fabric that only the most sophisticated and intelligent people can see them. They said unwashed rubes will see nothing and that he'll look naked. We all think our emperor looks fantastic. Great lines and, uh, colors. In the fabrics. Wonderful stuff. Seriously. No, we can see the emperor's new clothes. They're right there. On him. Don't press us for specifics because, as FRANCOIST clothes, they change to suit his moods and needs. That's the ticket.

Right...

Say what you want, but my take is that your emperor ain't got no clothes on and your brand of Francoism is to justify whatever you want to get away with. It's a gospel of lies.

At least in Nueva Vida we can tell when our emperor has clothes on or is naked and then schedule our activities accordingly.

Seriously, we need to have a poll... who believes NPO's party line? I'd be interested if any leading nation outside of NPO really does trust them 100%.

Q: How can you tell if a Pacifican's really sorry for what he's done?

A: He's left NPO.

Q: How can you tell if he's really really sorry for what he's done?

A: He didn't leave secure NPO IRC channels on autojoin in order to give them an excuse to roll the alliance he just "joined."

Other alliances want power: NPO wants that, but also to be loved by those it has broken. And how can you tell who NPO plans to bring down? Look at their list of treaty partners. That's a great place to start looking for candidates.

[Locke]

TRANSLATION: Some guy sold our emperor a bunch of clothes. They said that the clothes were of such a wonderful fabric that only the most sophisticated and intelligent people can see them. They said unwashed rubes will see nothing and that he'll look naked. We all think our emperor looks fantastic. Great lines and, uh, colors. In the fabrics. Wonderful stuff. Seriously. No, we can see the emperor's new clothes. They're right there. On him. Don't press us for specifics because, as FRANCOIST clothes, they change to suit his moods and needs. That's the ticket.

Right...

Say what you want, but my take is that your emperor ain't got no clothes on and your brand of Francoism is to justify whatever you want to get away with. It's a gospel of lies.

At least in Nueva Vida we can tell when our emperor has clothes on or is naked and then schedule our activities accordingly.

Seriously, we need to have a poll... who believes NPO's party line? I'd be interested if any leading nation outside of NPO really does trust them 100%.

Q: How can you tell if a Pacifican's really sorry for what he's done?

A: He's left NPO.

Q: How can you tell if he's really really sorry for what he's done?

A: He didn't leave secure NPO IRC channels on autojoin in order to give them an excuse to roll the alliance he just "joined."

Other alliances want power: NPO wants that, but also to be loved by those it has broken. And how can you tell who NPO plans to bring down? Look at their list of treaty partners. That's a great place to start looking for candidates.

Well, someone's clearly not holding a grudge.

[zzzptm]

Well, someone's clearly not holding a grudge.

Actually, I *am* holding a grudge. There's no reason to be sarcastic about that. NPO uses the blather of Francoism to justify all of its perfidy, dishonor, and base power grabs, but if you want to be a cheerleader for that sort of rottenness, go right ahead. When you join your wagon to the Pacific Star, they'll gladly drag you down to hell with them.

We're all in the gutter, but some of y'all are plotting on how to use the muck to smear your enemies.

[Vladimir]

Thank you for proving my point, zzzptm. To Thistledown I offer Exhibit A.

[Nintenderek]

Q: How can you tell if a Pacifican is lying?

A: He's signing a treaty.

Q: How many Pacificans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: None. They get a meatshield to do that.

Q: What's the first thing you should do after signing an alliance with NPO?

A: Cancel it and get some REAL allies.

Q: What's the difference between NPO and NpO?

A: You can trust Polaris. Also the little p.

Q: How do you kill a Pacifican elephant?

A: With a Pacifican elephant gun.

Q: How do you kill a non-Pacifican elephant?

A: Get it to attack OV with a fabricated CB, then shoot it with a Pacifican elephant gun.

Q: Why does everyone in FAN have nine fingers?

A: They once all shook hands with Pacificans.

Q: How can you tell if a Pacifican is a pathological liar?

A: He's in Foreign Affairs.

Okay, these were really freaking hilarious.

[youwish959]

An essay on Francoism...by someone whose never been in an Order nonetheless.

[Lonely]

For your main argument unfortunately there doesn't seem much to do other than disagree. As teachers suggest to the children of Soviestan that it probably isn't in their self-interest to flunk out of Vladigrad University so that they can play World of Warcraft for an extra 4 hours a day, as doctors at Sacred Vladimir Hospital suggest to manic depressives that jumping off a bridge probably isn't the best solution to their problems, so I suggest that a lemming running off a cliff could probably make better use of its time.

Providing me with examples of actions which you are confident are in an individual's objective self-interest prove nothing. You're quite welcome to your viewpoint, but that is all it is- a viewpoint- just like the lemming's viewpoint on running off a cliff, or the children in Vladigrad University who want to spend most of their time playing World of Warcraft (or online internet nation games, haha.) The only thing you've demonstrated is your own confidence in your conclusions.

I don't believe that two conflicting premises can be correct at the same time. Either my premise is correct, your premise is correct, or neither of them are. In this instance, my premise is far stronger and I don't really think you have a leg to stand on. It's that you simply don't want to accept it, because you don't like the idea of complete anarchy, rather than as a conclusion of logical argument- an action for which, ironically, you hammered intellectuals in your essay.

It seems to me that everyone accepts this to a degree. Does not every alliance develop a coercive hierarchy and code of conduct? Does not every alliance demand sacrifice for the greater good of the whole? If we took your rejection of my premise to its logical conclusion then complete anarchy is the only acceptable alternative. Of course, we have this to a degree in the absolute democratic ability to choose your alliance, and so any attempt to paint my position as one of enslavement rings hollow.

I agree, most people do accept your premise, to a degree. Then again, most people accepted the premise that the world was flat, at one time.

Complete anarchy is precisely what I propose.

Please elaborate on how my attempts to portray your position as one of enslavement ring hollow. Sadly, that is precisely what Pacifica has become.

Though if you do decide to offer up a full critique I look forward to it.

Thank you.

[The Mongol-Swedes]

In any orderly system, stability relies on the stratification of responsibility to guide, the rigidity to deflect doubt, and the cement of our common ideals. Though you may drape your governments in different facades, your systems, your governments, your charters, it is all the same. In order to quell anarchy, one must impose order. One must relinquish some rights in exchange for stability. Valhalla and any other alliance does it every day. Though you may argue that on this spectrum, between order and chaos, we go to far, it is amoral to demand the stability and structure we do. I say it is amoral to allow the doubt and chaos one must embrace to avoid it.

Francoism is an eddie of strength and order in turbulent waters.

No, it's community. The LSF has no government, no real guiding principles...hell, we don't even have attention spans. You don't need a weird cult mindset to survive and thrive. You need good people and a reason to stick around in this hell-hole.

Anarchy is alive and well.

[zzzptm]

Thank you for proving my point, zzzptm. To Thistledown I offer Exhibit A.

TRANSLATION: Yes, Francoism requires massive amounts of verbal garbage so that whenever someone tries to approach it intelligently, they drown in a soup of words. For if one were to sum it up in but a word - lies - it would be obvious for what it is, namely, lies. Then the New Pacific Order wouldn't be able to get away with as much rascality as it does!

So thank you for proving my point, Vladimir. To the vast world of Planeta Roberto, I offer an object lesson. Pacifica does not speak plainly, for lies cannot crouch in short phrases. All their words are riddles, which make their promises and assurances bad jokes.

Speaking of bad jokes...

Q: What's the best cure for insomnia?

A: One of Vladimir's speeches.

Q: And what if that doesn't work?

A: Sign a treaty with NPO, and they'll eventually put you down.

... and I'm still cracking up over the one about when NPO's gonna roll you. Great one, Vilien!

[Sigrun Vapneir]

1. Lemming suicide is a myth folks.

2. Contrary to most of the posters here, I always enjoyed Vladimirs essays. Philosopher used to post some really good stuff too. Yes, there are elements here or there that are clearly self-serving tripe, but they had a lot of stuff to say that was worth listening to. (Sadly, in the end, Pacifica seems to have been gulping down the self-serving tripe while clearly paying no attention to the parts they really needed to grasp.) And picking the wheat from the chaff should be stimulating enough that there is no danger of it putting you to sleep.

[Thistledown]

A well articulated attack (often made, but rarely with such style), and one that I will offer a full response to. I will start at the end and move backwards.

The first point I would make is that the style and vocabulary I use are just what comes naturally when I write on such subjects. There is no attempt to make it look more impressive as some accuse. What is produced is therefore the best work in the least amount of time. That is to say, if I were to go back through to 'dumb it down' (for want of a better phrase) I would end up spending more time than I am prepared to, and would end up with something less interesting (not to mention, as I will come to explain, it would be a fruitless -- or even counter-productive -- gesture). Moreover, it would necessarily lengthen the articles as more advanced words are broken down dictionary-style, so as to provide the same meaning in a less sophisticated manner. [Though I would add that compared to actual academic works that deal with similar issues, my own articles are incredibly simple.]

On length, there are two groups. Those who accuse me of being too verbose -- who think that every book should begin and end with the conclusion. And those who complain that my writings are not long enough -- that they don't cover this or that in enough detail; that they don't pre-empt a certain criticism; that they don't fully explain the larger context. These two groups are described below.

Are my writings inappropriate for the target audience? Well, that depends on who you assume my target audience to be. In posting something like The Meaning of Freedom I don't actually expect the aforementioned masses to read it, nor to care about it. They will turn up to attack it because they perceive it as being pro-NPO (and, ironically, from a purely anti-intellectual position of 'too long, too many words, therefore it sucks!'), but as ChairmanHal [and plenty of religious film/book critics] has amply demonstrated, reading is not a prerequisite for attacking. Though, of course, it is not all a one-way street. When another writer comes up with something equally long and complicated that reinforces the prejudices of said masses, they are just as quick to raise it to the level of masterpiece. In this regard they take a purely political position, and I have no illusions that mere logic is going to excite them.

For this group it would not matter whether I wrote as in an academic textbook or in a Dr. Seuss poem -- either way they would have zero interest

This comes with the territory, and is to be expected. You can see that I often actively avoid 'the masses' (those you think I am trying to convince), formerly by using the Academic Subforum (before it was removed) and latterly by using the blog feature -- the lack of public audience there seeming sufficient to keep out the more excitable elements. Likewise you can note numerous responses to the effect of 'if this is too long for you to read, don't read it' (there appears a belief that I am holding a gun to their head). This isn't to say that watching the fevered responses of the masses can't be fun, of course.

I post here for those actually interested in such matters. Ferrous, V1diot, New Reverie (when he feels like it), and many others, who read, understand, and either agree or disagree. I seek to challenge their assumptions and expand their horizons, and in turn I seek to have my assumptions challenged and my horizons expanded by their responses. In this regard I post for a community within the community.

I am aware that this post probably sounds condescending and perhaps even contemptuous, but if so it is once again just the style I am using to get a point across. I do not suggest that the uninterested group is unintelligent or anything of the sort -- I do not seek to divide the world into wandering Neanderthals and the enlightened few -- as I am well aware the the world takes in a vast array of people and perspectives (and indeed, some clearly intelligent folk such as Delta see fit to dismiss Francoism out of hand as I describe (disappointing, but understandable)). My evidently inadequate reductionism should merely be seen as an explanatory device, nothing more.

As an addendum to this, and at the risk of seeming to contradict myself, contrary to your implication Francoism is extremely practical. While the dull like to attack it as a philosophy lacking substance, it has an incredible amount to say about everything from designing and running an alliance, to inter-alliance strategy. This has found plenty of outlets, from the NPO to the GPA (a GPA leader once approached me to discuss my ideas as they relate to internal alliance efficiency).

I have a few questions still- you say that you post for the "community within the community", and that Francoism is a philosophy and a methodology which is very practical. Yet there is, again, a commonly held belief that Francoism does not guide the Order's actions but rather is a reaction to the Order's actions, a justification for whatever the Order stands for at that point in time. This does not appear to be without some merit- many of your essays discuss Francoism in context of certain stances the Order has already taken- for instance, disparaging Vox Populi in Despotic Primitivism, when it is clear that the Order's stance against Vox was probably not because of guiding Francoist principles but rather the fact that Vox was out to destroy you. In other words, you attacked their political ideology because of their political actions, not the other way around. Other essays come to mind- The Morality of War can be seen as an attempt to justify the Order's actions in the WotC/noCB war, The Great Patriotic War and You seems to most to be an attempt to keep the Order "undefeated", and The Slavery of International Rights mentions that a global military hegemony would be terrible- yet later the Order became a hegemonic power. If your pieces are meant as justification and propoganda in the name of Francoism, wouldn't that make them for the community as a whole?

Thank you for proving my point, zzzptm. To Thistledown I offer Exhibit A.

Certainly, there are many who hate anything you write because of their political side- it is the nature of this world. But you seem to attribute this blind judgement to the "other side", when it can of course be found in your own Francoist alliance. Look at TWiP vs. Tabloid Tribune, or even this very thread- the pro- NPO forces come out in defense of the Tabloid Tribune/Francoism en masse, while the anti- NPO members automatically attack it. It is hard to complain when blind allegiance makes up many of your supporters as well as detractors.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Thistledown

[Lonely]

The word of Pacifica is not its bond: It is its cruel joke on whoever believes it.

That is because NPO have no basis for keeping their word or being reliable allies. They have no loyalty to anyone except themselves, and even that's questionable, given the number of ex-Pacificans they've stabbed in the back, including members of my own alliance (like Chron, for example.) If they can't remain loyal to members of their own alliance, perhaps people they've known for years, then it's hardly surprising they aren't loyal to anyone else either. Their sole concern is the welfare of Pacifica, so God help you if you have an MADP with them and you're about to be rolled.

The entire of Francoism is designed to further the interests of the Order at the cost of everything else, and I mean everything.

[TehChron]

That is because NPO have no basis for keeping their word or being reliable allies. They have no loyalty to anyone except themselves, and even that's questionable, given the number of ex-Pacificans they've stabbed in the back, including members of my own alliance (like Chron, for example.) If they can't remain loyal to members of their own alliance, perhaps people they've known for years, then it's hardly surprising they aren't loyal to anyone else either. Their sole concern is the welfare of Pacifica, so God help you if you have an MADP with them and you're about to be rolled.

The entire of Francoism is designed to further the interests of the Order at the cost of everything else, and I mean everything.

Or Anthony, or Ivan, or Doppelganger, it's a long list, actually. But let's leave that for another time.

[Lonely]

I've read through my own posts and realised that I'm somewhat guilty of inconsistency in my own argument. I first implied that two viewpoints are not correct or incorrect, that they were only viewpoints. It doesn't matter that this was implied and not stated outright, it still conflicted with my later statement either one of two opposing viewpoints was correct, or that both of them were incorrect.

I considered editing my posts but I would prefer to simply post a retraction of the statement (or rather, the implication) that two opposing viewpoints are correct, or that both of them are incorrect. It is a useful exercise in humility if nothing else. However, despite this little debacle, my original point remains quite valid.

[OOC] Blame all this on my attempts to roleplay. I don't roleplay much, but what I do roleplay I take quite seriously. I haven't fully decided my character's worldview, I tend to get mixed up. [/OOC]

Apologies.

Edited December 23, 2009 by The Lonely Man