Branimir Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1294096284' post='2562356']"New hegemony" is a myth created entirely by Pacifica and its defeated cohorts, [/quote] Nonsense. Word "hegemony" was not of our design, and that it has been used for the new perceived dominant sphere of alliances, is not of our design either but natural living cycle of a new word that CN learned the past years. A term invented to be used against us in a negative connotation, that you try to escape it now, makes me !@#$@#$ laugh my ass off. Like the goonie leader. Please, blame us for stuff that we actually did. "Hegemony" nonsense, is not of our propagandist designs. Thanks. Also, I almost shed a tear at that post. It touched me in special places, you should do more inspiring pieces. :thumbup: Edited January 3, 2011 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Very fine detective work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [color="#FF0000"]*sigh* Okay, so there is a predominant group of alliances. Why should I care? "Hegemony" was a pejorative political term used to villify Pacifica and her allies when they were in power. Their eager abuse of power and shift in perception is what lead to their downfall. It should come to no surprise to anyone, that the treaty web circa 2008 was just as convoluted, and the old group of predominant alliances included most major alliances. That's how you create a predominant force, is by having more allies than anyone else. So back to my question, because Altergo's writing is lacking, but is obviously meant to bash the predominant alliances in the world, what is so bad about this hegemony as opposed to the old one?[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernando12 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1294100195' post='2562425'] [color="#FF0000"]*sigh* So back to my question, because Altergo's writing is lacking, but is obviously meant to bash the predominant alliances in the world, what is so bad about this hegemony as opposed to the old one?[/color] [/quote] It isn't the old one. When the power switches ask the same question, the answer will be the same...it isn't the old one. If your not in power it's bad because your not in power. You are right that the only way to change things is to line up allies that can take on the alliances in the OP. Until that happens, this group will remain the main power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1294098386' post='2562403'] Word "hegemony" was not of our design, and that it has been used for the new perceived dominant sphere of alliances, is not of our design either but natural living cycle of a new word that CN learned the past years. A term invented to be used against us in a negative connotation, that you try to escape it now, makes me !@#$@#$ laugh my ass off.[/quote] That was actually my point. It was a term fittingly applied to Pacifica, and now being used in shoddy propaganda against the people who first threw it around. The intent of the sophistry is clear: people with no understanding of history are to see that word and come to the conclusion that the "new guys" are just as bad as "old" ones. The problem is that to arrive at this conclusion, one must ignore history -- which is why the only people who fall for it are the ones who didn't live it. [quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1294098386' post='2562403'] Also, I almost shed a tear at that post. It touched me in special places, you should do more inspiring pieces. :thumbup: [/quote] Just don't tell your parents about that. -Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I think it's hilarious that I'm a government member of the alliance second on your list of core members of the New Hegemony. Can I get some extorted tech over here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Peters Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 This group may be a hegemony by definition, but they are not like the old hegemony. No where even close to the old hegemony. So you might want to re-title this to something like alliances in power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Comrade Craig' timestamp='1294101816' post='2562441']That was actually my point. [/quote] No, that was not your point. Your point was to make a snip at NPO, in a completely unfounded way. I dont know why, maybe you are just jealous that NPO is the most successful communist alliance on this digital rock, by leaps and bounds. Our success and history should be your pride, Comrade. We did not created that term, nor do we actively use it. Do not associate it with us in your pamphlet posts in such a way. Edited January 4, 2011 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 So TOP is part of the "hegemony" because of it's ties to MK but NpO isn't because of its ties to SF? The OP is very ill-informed, arbitrarily put together, and frankly silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1294103074' post='2562452'] No, that was not your point. Your point was to make a snip at NPO, in a completely unfounded way. I dont know why, maybe you are just jealous that NPO is the most successful communist alliance on this digital rock, by leaps and bounds. Our success and history should be your pride, Comrade. We did not created that term, nor do we actively use it. Do not associate it with us in your pamphlet posts in such a way. [/quote] It's not "unfounded at all". NPO is a "communist" alliance? I thought you were Francoist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 UR MOMS A HEGEMONY That should settle debate on the matter, unless someone employs a "NO U" gambit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1294103879' post='2562471'].....is very ill-informed, arbitrarily put together, and frankly silly.[/quote] Yeah, that sounds about right how the term is used throughout its history on this digital rock. [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1294104027' post='2562473']It's not "unfounded at all".[/quote] We did not created the myth of "hegemony" and can not be blamed for its life after its creators usage. [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1294103879' post='2562471']NPO is a "communist" alliance? I thought you were Francoist[/quote] NPO is more communist then any other alliance ever was. And yet, it is Francoist. Ill leave it to you to figure it out how exactly, its a subject of another topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 I am disappointed by the lack of inclusion in this. My people will be in touch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote]I think it's hilarious that I'm a government member of the alliance second on your list of core members of the New Hegemony. Can I get some extorted tech over here?[/quote] Wait, does GR actually have an MK treaty? I mean I may have missed the announcement, but otherwise the OP is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Your insistence on using the supergrievances moniker has severely reduced your ability to look at the new shape of the world's power structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashoka the Great Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='JBone' timestamp='1294096068' post='2562348'] Just to clarify, TPF and FEAR are not treaty partners. I'm sure there are many other ways to hum the same melody, just using different words. [/quote] Oh damn. And yes, I'm sure I could have done the same thing with some other alliances. Curse you, CN Wiki and your outdated ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1294109117' post='2562534'] Wait, does GR actually have an MK treaty? I mean I may have missed the announcement, but otherwise the OP is wrong. [/quote] GR does not have a treaty with MK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1294100464' post='2562429'] It isn't the old one. When the power switches ask the same question, the answer will be the same...it isn't the old one. If your not in power it's bad because your not in power. You are right that the only way to change things is to line up allies that can take on the alliances in the OP. Until that happens, this group will remain the main power. [/quote] [color="#FF0000"]The point that you, and everyone else is missing that hopes to challenge the predominant powers is forgetting an important lesson in history. The overthrow of the Hegemony was as much of a self-destruction as it was destroyed from the outside. It self-destructed because the perception of it by the people involved was altered in a negative fashion, due to the power which it constantly abused. Karma was as much an ethical revolution, as it was a shift in political power. As long as the perception of the predominant alliances is positive, or even apathetic, they will remain in power.[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Warlord Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Oh, I missed the memo that R&R is now the new hegemony. Sorry everybody! I guess we'll start forcing alliances to disband tomorrow. Totally our fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Underdog whining was more entertaining when Vox did it. If you're going to waste all of our time alterego, at least make sure we get a laugh out of it. This was just...well...pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1294073070' post='2562003'] CN hadn't learned that word yet in 2007. Sort of like how it learned the word paradigm last year. Was anyone else sick of seeing that word in what seemed like every other post over the course of 2010? [/quote] Yep. For the record, my quick reference list of Planet Bob's "Trying Really Hard to Sound Smart" words and phases: -Draconian -Ad Hominem -Straw Man -Tongue in Cheek -Paradigm -Hegemony Think of it as a field guide of sorts. When you see one of these words above in a pseudo academic or argumentative context, stop reading. Edited January 4, 2011 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madder Red Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Opening this thread was a terrible idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Ashton Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1294103879' post='2562471'] So TOP is part of the "hegemony" because of it's ties to MK but NpO isn't because of its ties to SF? The OP is very ill-informed, arbitrarily put together, and frankly silly. [/quote] Well he needed some leftovers for his next poll: "enemies of the Hegemony" Also, Sparta looks like a cocotte. Sleeping with everybody... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1294138074' post='2562987'] Yep. For the record, my quick reference list of Planet Bob's "Trying Really Hard to Sound Smart" words and phases: -Draconian -Ad Hominem -Straw Man -Tongue in Cheek -Paradigm -Hegemony Think of it as a field guide of sorts. When you see one of these words above in a pseudo academic or argumentative context, stop reading. [/quote] Can we add the [i]sub catagory[/i] of "Trying Really Hard to Sound Cool" words and phrases: -Fellate -Circle Jerk -Sucking the Teat of -Humping the Leg of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Sal Paradise' timestamp='1294114354' post='2562671'] GR does not have a treaty with MK. [/quote] I didn't think so. Another fail from Alterego. 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.