The More You Know!: The Myth of the Ex-Hegemony

[Bob Janova]

[quote]If you use the term 'Supergrievances,' all of those who you don't consider to be 'supergrievences' or aligned to them are the other 'pole.' If no such opposition exists, then supergrievances, your own construction, ceases to exist. Every time you say supergrievances you imply there is another side (or pole) opposing them. [/quote]
That makes literally no sense. If I talk about ice cream, or the GPA, does that imply that there is an opponent of those things? It's not my construction, by the way, it was coined during the TPF war for the coalition centred around SF and C&G and it's a useful shorthand.

Anyway, since you're on this particular line of 'logic', do you agree that the world has never (and in fact can never have) been unipolar, since the core hegemony has always had a name?

[Banksy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 July 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1279761121' post='2383703']
That makes literally no sense. If I talk about ice cream, or the GPA, does that imply that there is an opponent of those things? [/quote]
It doesn't imply that there is an opponent, it implies that there is an opposite. In the Ice cream's case it is anything that is 'not ice cream.' We define objects and ideas by what they are not, rather than what they are. As I was speaking in a CN context, I used 'opposition' instead of opposite.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 July 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1279761121' post='2383703']It's not my construction, by the way, it was coined during the TPF war for the coalition centred around SF and C&G and it's a useful shorthand.[/quote]
You use it, and I assume you believe in it. Who coined the term is not important, you use it so it is your own construction.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 July 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1279761121' post='2383703']Anyway, since you're on this particular line of 'logic', do you agree that the world has never (and in fact can never have) been unipolar, since the core hegemony has always had a name?[/quote]
The world was unipolar just before WUT fell apart and when GATO reigned supreme in early 2006. But this didn't last for long and we soon slipped back into the bipolar world. The hegemony was never truely unipolar, it simply controlled the world with it's statistical advantage. Look at C&G, it formed to oppose the hegemony. And it didn't win, but it fought. There was another pole of power, albeit a weak one, to oppose the hegemony. If you want other examples, look at FAN and Vox. The NpO (WotC). Even GATO, Legion and GPA (who were constructed as enemies, rather than people who actually resisted the hegemony's dominance).

Edited July 22, 2010 by Banksy

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 July 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1279761685' post='2383717']
It doesn't imply that there is an opponent, it implies that there is an opposite. In the Ice cream's case it is anything that is 'not ice cream.' We define objects and ideas by what they are not, rather than what they are. As I was speaking in a CN context, I used 'opposition' instead of opposite.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Would you care to tell me what 'not ice cream' is? Is it some sort of anti-ice cream? Or is it anything that isn't ice cream? If that is what we are going by then I assume ice cream can be defined as something that isn't a tree, or a cloud or a lake, and if you ask me that is a pretty stupid way to define things. Face it, you do not define things by what they are not, but rather by the qualities that they have. Therefore, just as ice cream is defined as being a cold and often flavored dessert, 'SuperGrievances' can be defined as the informal alliance and cooperation between the CnG and SF blocs as well as the associated alliances. Opposites does not always work. It is true for good or bad and black and white, but when we get to objects such as clocks and political coalitions, we cannot simply say that the clock is something that not 'not a clock.' We define it by its attributes. The so called 'SuperGrievances' has its own attributes by which it can be defined. It does not need an opposite in order to exist, just as ice cream and clocks do not require opposites so that they can be defined.[/color]

[Vladimir]

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 July 2010 - 02:21 AM' timestamp='1279761685' post='2383717']The world was unipolar just before WUT fell apart and when GATO reigned supreme in early 2006.[/quote]
There was significant opposition to WUT -- all those ex-Aegis alliances for a start. And GATO never reigned supreme (or reigned at all). The Continuum had far more of the political world associated with it than either WUT or GATO ever did, which is one of the reasons why its power was far more stable.

Every unipolar power has had elements outwith its sphere of influence, both passive and active, and has controlled the world via statistical advantage. To suggest anything else is historical illiteracy. And to suggest that having an element outwith the unipolar power's sphere of influence means that there is no unipolar power is political illiteracy.

[zzzptm]

AZTEC has ties to all kinds of groups through individual member alliances. We were attacked without a CB in the NoCB War, which is why we call it the NoCB War... and we entered Karma, WWE, and Bipolar in defense of allied partners. We have been a defensive arrangement for most of our history.

I suppose if AZTEC could be misunderstood, so could any other bloc (or former bloc... I'm disappointed in the lack of ex-Citadel or ex-USB 2.0 conspiracy theories.).

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='22 July 2010 - 08:15 AM' timestamp='1279746903' post='2383260']
Whatever helps them sleep at night.
[/quote]
TOP was much closer to Gre than IRON prior to Karma. I'd daresay that was the case for a while after Karma too, tbh.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Banksy' date='21 July 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1279751400' post='2383401']
Hmm, you're not really looking at it properly. It's a relatively objective way of looking at the world regardless of who is in 'power,' you're just adding your brand of bias. Read into it how you will, it's just saying that there is no unipolar world.

This is hardly ground breaking analysis.
[/quote]


Lol, you are spinning so hard I am surprised you can still stand straight. If you are trying to convince people that SF/CnG dont hold power in CN you are doing a terrible job. You should drop the logical flaw that if one power exists there necessarily needs to be another power. Not only does that not make any sense (unless you subscribe to some odd religious CN dualism) it also doesnt meet any kind of CN historical analysis.

I think whoever wants to spin this yarn ought to send another poster out to the mound. You are not throwing many strikes atm.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='21 July 2010 - 09:48 PM' timestamp='1279730921' post='2382705']
You realize TOP chose IRON over Gre, correct?
[/quote]

And hasnt everyone else too?

[Banksy]

[quote name='crazy canuck' date='23 July 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1279846384' post='2385068']
Lol, you are spinning so hard I am surprised you can still stand straight. If you are trying to convince people that SF/CnG dont hold power in CN you are doing a terrible job. You should drop the logical flaw that if one power exists there necessarily needs to be another power. Not only does that not make any sense (unless you subscribe to some odd religious CN dualism) it also doesnt meet any kind of CN historical analysis.

I think whoever wants to spin this yarn ought to send another poster out to the mound. You are not throwing many strikes atm.
[/quote]
I am not trying to say that SF/C&G don't hold power. That would be idiotic. Combined in the way the currently appear to be, they have a huge NS advantage over the rest of the world. The only way you would think this is if you are incapable of basic reading comprehension. Power does not need a 'mirror,' all I have said is that the concept of "SG" needs a mirror to define SG. The fact SG is powerful is largely irrelevant for my argument. If it makes you feel better, take it on the flipside, ex-hegemony is defined by "SG." If SG no longer exists, "ex-hegemony" wont either.

What you offer as a counter is a 'subscription' I have, and something that doesn't meet any 'historical' analysis. So, while it's nice that you believe this, you don't actually say why these counter my points. Your objection seems to come from the fact that I happen to be a member of a C&G alliance and therefore you assume all I have said is mindless propaganda. Try reading them again and you will see that I question the viability of a successful SG coalition.



@RV, that's obviously another way of looking at it. My whole point was based on definition. I might come back to this.

@Vladimir: The examples of GATO and WUT are just that, examples. You don't believe that they were ever unipolar powers, if anything, that furthers my point by removing inconsistencies. Your second point about unipolar powers having an opposing force or 'outsider' element is fine, it all comes down to definition. What I have been saying is that unipolar means someone rules, unopposed. People simply get on with their lives, even if they don't like the present set-up. Bipolar has conflict or opposition, regardless of the strength. I believe that the current situation has opposition to the so called "SG" rule, creating a bipolar world, even if it is ineffective. If you don't believe there is any opposition to SG rule, then while I disagree with you, it makes my argument completely and utterly ineffective

[shilo]

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 July 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1279881181' post='2385717']
I am not trying to say that SF/C&G don't hold power. That would be idiotic. Combined in the way the currently appear to be, they have a huge NS advantage over the rest of the world. The only way you would think this is if you are incapable of basic reading comprehension. Power does not need a 'mirror,' all I have said is that the concept of "SG" needs a mirror to define SG. The fact SG is powerful is largely irrelevant for my argument. If it makes you feel better, take it on the flipside, ex-hegemony is defined by "SG." If SG no longer exists, "ex-hegemony" wont either.

What you offer as a counter is a 'subscription' I have, and something that doesn't meet any 'historical' analysis. So, while it's nice that you believe this, you don't actually say why these counter my points. Your objection seems to come from the fact that I happen to be a member of a C&G alliance and therefore you assume all I have said is mindless propaganda. Try reading them again and you will see that I question the viability of a successful SG coalition.



@RV, that's obviously another way of looking at it. My whole point was based on definition. I might come back to this.

@Vladimir: The examples of GATO and WUT are just that, examples. You don't believe that they were ever unipolar powers, if anything, that furthers my point by removing inconsistencies. Your second point about unipolar powers having an opposing force or 'outsider' element is fine, it all comes down to definition. What I have been saying is that unipolar means someone rules, unopposed. People simply get on with their lives, even if they don't like the present set-up. Bipolar has conflict or opposition, regardless of the strength. I believe that the current situation has opposition to the so called "SG" rule, creating a bipolar world, even if it is ineffective. If you don't believe there is any opposition to SG rule, then while I disagree with you, it makes my argument completely and utterly ineffective
[/quote]
That doesn't make any sense really. By your definition, a unipolar world is technically not possible, simply if one nation declares itself to be opposing all other nations. We clearly had episodes where your "some group ruled, the rest went on with their lives" description would fit reality at that time. It's once again your insistence to base a hegemonic power not on strength and on dominance, rather whether they have opposition or not.
By all means, that would mean that tC/1V was a bipolar world simply because MK and a handful others opposed them. While in reality, they were destroyed, isolated and pretty much anyone else tried to live/survive. ODN's history during that time is one big episode of trying to cope with the powers at the time while trying to remain somewhat independent, and not get destroyed in the process.
So no, a unipolar world has nothing to do whether there is someone opposing it, rather based on the sheer dominance of said power cluster alone. This should be evident by the fact that the only way tC for example was ultimately toppled was from within. There was always opposition, just not a relevant one. Only when tC slowly eroded and split, and then joined up with the small opposition, and was strengthened by alliances that cooperated with tC without direct membership (like ODN) could tC be toppled.
Right now, we clearly are in a position where the only power that can oppose Supercomplaints is Supercomplaints. Naturally there are alliances around now as they always were that are either not part of the group or simply oppose it, but not in any position to pose a threat.


WUT served the purpose to first protect NPO, and then take revenge and destroy any opposition. tC and 1V simply cemented what was already on the way. Considering how long this group lasted without actually having a relevant opposition, with all the fun stuff that occurred in the meantime, it's clear that opposition itself doesn't influence whether there is a unipolar or bipolar world. In todays times, I guess we will see how long Supercomplaints can stay entertained by such things like the attack on the red team before turning on itself at some point. The point where an opposition had influence on the state of SC was passed the moment of the polar betrayal. Considering what happened the last time during such a rule, things can become ugly for a long time before they get better, or indeed SC proves to be a coalition of convenience that moves apart quickly as there is no one left to band together for.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 July 2010 - 06:33 AM' timestamp='1279881181' post='2385717']
@RV, that's obviously another way of looking at it. My whole point was based on definition. I might come back to this.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]And your basis of definition is flawed, and by extension any conclusion drawn from that method.[/color]

[Vladimir]

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 July 2010 - 11:33 AM' timestamp='1279881181' post='2385717']@Vladimir: The examples of GATO and WUT are just that, examples. You don't believe that they were ever unipolar powers, if anything, that furthers my point by removing inconsistencies. Your second point about unipolar powers having an opposing force or 'outsider' element is fine, it all comes down to definition. What I have been saying is that unipolar means someone rules, unopposed. People simply get on with their lives, even if they don't like the present set-up. Bipolar has conflict or opposition, regardless of the strength. I believe that the current situation has opposition to the so called "SG" rule, creating a bipolar world, even if it is ineffective. If you don't believe there is any opposition to SG rule, then while I disagree with you, it makes my argument completely and utterly ineffective [/quote]
No. [i]You[/i] are arguing that the current system is not unipolar, and are trying to contrast it against previous examples of unipolarity. [i]I[/i] was merely correcting your factual errors, but would assert that the current hegemony, the Continuum, the Initiative, the Coaluetion, and the NPO were all examples of unipolarity (GATO is just incorrect history on your part).

It only comes down to definition insofar as you are completely redefining the term in order to make it fit the argument that you want to make -- a definition that would make unipolarity a pointless and impossible concept. Unfortunately for you it is just flat out factually incorrect. Unipolarity was academically defined long before you came along.

[crazy canuck]

[quote name='Banksy' date='23 July 2010 - 03:33 AM' timestamp='1279881181' post='2385717']
I am not trying to say that SF/C&G don't hold power. That would be idiotic... all I have said is that the concept of "SG" needs a mirror to define SG. The fact SG is powerful is largely irrelevant for my argument. [/quote]


I see that you have come around to what I have been saying all along. Add to your analysis that in order for SF/CnG to have such a mirror they need to create it and you will have fully understood the point.

Also, now that you have acknowledged that we are playing in a unipolar world in which SF/CnG hold power I dont understand why it is you tried to deny it a while back by saying I had no evidence of such a thing.


Maybe you dont really understand what the word Unipolar means or at least you are using it in a manner not found in the usual definition.

Edited July 23, 2010 by crazy canuck

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

WUT will never fall.
The Continuum will never splinter.
There will never be rifts between SF-C&G...

OOC:
It will happen, if only because everyone else is too weak to mount an opposition and people will want war. Sure, you can enjoy another year of Pax SG, with the occasional curbstomp of a periphary alliance, much like the former power-structures did. Inevitably, however, people will try to do more with the game. Maintaining peace is challenging for a few people, at most. You don't need (and really don't want) countless members in the famed back channels, when you're trying to appease people and make sure peace is on the table.

Breaking the status quo, however, brings more people to the fun. In the end, on internet games, boredom is the greatest enemy.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov