Ghad wrote:...But you somehow have been granted the individual right to revise them? o.o
In a very broad term, we all have the right to revise NS nomenclature... Because, as we both recognize, that's how language works, the meaning changes based on usage and, since last time I checked everyone in here is a part of Nationstates, that means we are all defining and redefining (thus revising) NS nomenclature, just not on an individual level sure, tho that goes both ways...
50 words in, and you've admitted to changing NS nomenclature. In your words, you're "redefining" "meritocracy". No, you're not redefining meritocracy. You are tacking a second definition onto the current one in order to avoid the connotation behind the word. But the fact of the matter is that it's just you, Altino, and a couple others who are doing it. Additionally, you're doing in with intention. That's not how this works. A couple people don't get to wipe years of a words usage in order to make the term more pleasing. That ranges from stupid to Orwellian. So people aren't going to smile and follow the Pied Piper to start redefining words as governments see fit.
As for
me revising words, I have the backing of years of usage of the word.
Ghad wrote:And within the many regions that follow meritocracy, I don't think I've really seen this term used as a euphemism for autocracy or non-democratic governance... I have never seriously seen that being done so the notion that that's the meaning it has sounds like... revision in itself, at best.
"I, who has never even stepped foot in gameplay prior to this moment, have never seen this gameplay term being used this way, so therefore it has never been used this way."
chucklesThis comment (and the quote) below
also goes against your argument that it's fine to revise words. You're now backpedaling to say that you never revised the word at all. I would suggest that you step back and really consider your argument.
Anyways:
search.php?keywords=meritocracy&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=12&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=SearchJust start reading. First thing I see is Altino herself on a podcast on "Meritocracy vs Democracy", which definitely implies meritocracy means autocracy. Next example I see is
TWP linking their Manners of Governance for more information on their meritocracy. I thought meritocracy wasn't a system of government? You can read their Manners of Governance; it says nothing about meritocratic values, thereby implying that meritocracy
is the laws. It must hurt for you to see that. Let's continue.
A 3 time pharaoh of Osiris implying meritocracy as a replacement for democracy. An NPO senator describing how meritocracy can be "a veneer for blatant oligarchy with no real hope for advancement" (if it didn't have basis in fact, they wouldn't have said it!).
"Meritocracy with the next delegate being selected by their predecessor". Etc. I could go on.
True, there are
some scenarios in which "meritocracy" is a word used to mean "selected by merit", but in the political nomenclature treats it synonymously with "autocracy".
Ghad wrote:If an autocracy is in fact involved, it is always by virtue of something else and not directly from meritocracy... Picking the two GCRs: Osiris' autocracy comes from being a "monarchy", TWP's meritocracy comes from being... I guess we can just call it an autocracy for the sake of simplicity, as there is not really a WAD equivalent in terms of the real world. Anyway, both of those had these systems in place before they started rallying behing the idea of meritocracy alongside it, and implementing changes to represent this, so clearly the autocracy was not a product of the meritocracy... And since I haven't seen those regions drop what they had about Pharaoh and Delegate sovereignty respectively, when they started adopting the term meritocracy, I fail to see where the idea that this is just a mask for autocracy has come from?
Even if that vague historical suggestion that "both of those had these systems in place before they started rallying behing the idea of meritocracy" is true, I never claimed that "autocracy was... a product of the meritocracy". In fact, I claimed that meritocracy was a euphemism for autocracy; i.e. a product of autocracy. Therefore, you're supporting my point with historical evidence
.
As for meritocracy being a "mask for autocracy", I did not say that. Autocracies don't hide that their autocracies. But "meritocracy" helps to validate autocracy to those who are against the idea; i.e. a euphemism.
Delegate sovereignty: You bring it up. I thought the word was "delegate supremacy". If it were "delegate sovereignty", that would
also be a euphemism. It says "the delegate can't be controlled by external influences", which sounds good but could also mean "the delegate doesn't have to listen to the region".
Ghad wrote:And to add, if we can't really revise words then we can't still say meritocracy is suddenly equaling autocracy (which from what I've gathered at this point can only be attributed to the people who don't adhere to it calling it that, which is not really how things work but that's another point)... Karma is a meritocracy, no one has called it anything else, no one has challenged this notion and if they did we'd look at them very weirdly questioning why they were saying something so clearly wrong... And it's not an autocracy, it's an oligarchy, and there are differences between those. So if we're not to revise words... Anyway that's kinda just nitpicking really.
Ok so we went to "I'm not revising English" and now we're back to "It's fine that I'm revising English" and then redirecting blame with "
you're revising the word". Ok.
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to tell me that these regions are oligarchies instead of autocracies? If so, ok.
As for "which from what I've gathered at this point can only be attributed to the people who don't adhere to it calling it that", I've linked some posts above of meritocrats describing meritocracy as inherently conflicted with democracy.
Ghad wrote:That's easier to answer than even I expected it to be... The article itself approaches that question of why its defending the spread of meritocracy while also stating that everyone is a meritocrat, fro example under the section titled "Meritocracy Socially Applied"... But it also states multiple times that the title isn't as simple as it seems (it's a title, it's meant to grab your attention, good old clickbait), and that there are cases of people who are not meritocrats. I know it's not a short article, but it's good practice to actually read and make an effort to understand what we criticize before doing so, especially if we're gonna quote it as part of our arguments
It's somewhat condescending to say I didn't read the article when I'm the only one who supported my point with quotes. Also, I'm an admin in NSGE. I sure as hell read the article.
Your citation, "Meritocracy Socially Applied", actually supports my point.
If everyone is a Meritocrat and Meritocracy fits into every government system, why do we push so hard to make it a “thing”? The social application of Meritocracy - the very fact that it is a “thing” - is what makes it so special and effective.
To translate that, the very use of the word encourages people to aspire to its values. I mean, that's an idea worth trying. But she shouldn't have chosen the word meritocracy. You have to create a new definition entirely separate from the word's historical usage.
Ghad wrote:Once again, it seems that only the side opposing meritocracy is attempting to revise the word, while its usage everywhere else seems to correspond to reality but oh well.
Once again, you haven't brought in evidence to support your idea of the word, whereas I've brought in plenty of examples from authoritative sources above. I get it: you're in Karma. You've been exposed to a different usage of the word. In Karma the word means something different. But
this isn't Karma. Ghad wrote:Oh... So you did read it! Or maybe skimmed through it, not sure really because it's clear from reading the whole article that it argues that there are differences in actively gunning for meritocracy instead of simply passively expecting it to happen. Maybe if she's preaching to the choir that only means you yourself are part of the people under the umbrella of the title, but maybe, once again, the article isn't just the title.
See above for an actual response to the actual content in the article.
Also, this is rather ironic, because you realized that I definitely read the article
after you posted that I didn't. You're commenting on my post without having actually completed it. And you say I don't read what I criticize.
Ghad wrote:And also that last point does not at all prove Altino is talking to no one? Besides what I just said, it clearly also says
ideally there?... I don't think I need to point out that saying something is "ideally" like x, means that in practice it's not always like x, right? Which, means that it's recognizing that there are occasions when that does not happen?...
It's not an ideal for people to intend to make the right choices.
Ghad wrote:Yes... Right... So are we gonna pretend everything else included in this commendation would fit into a condemnation? Because I'm pretty sure that's not the case...
sighsSome of the evidence in the commendation belongs in a commendation. Some of it does not. The TWP raiding does not. Founding Karma does. Etc.
Ghad wrote:And in this case the context was that adding feats done in raiding would be a deal breaker in this, or in fact any other, commendation.
You have no idea what the context is. So I'll give you some context:
The context is an experienced serial SC author who's voting for and another who's probably voting against making an easy correction based on years of precedent. Do you remember Commend Crushing Our Enemies? Commending for raiding can very likely wreck this proposal. If the proposal were submitted in its current state, it would be battered by unapproval telegrams and tag:wa telegrams to vote against. Wymondham does not want that.
Ghad wrote:And maybe I know, just as well as everyone else, that condemnations are not in their essence a form of praise, and are in fact not always attributed for this reason, but are instead merely adopted as such by the side receiving them, because of course they would, what else can they do if they can't show the same type of praise for their peers that the other side can by commendations because they automatically get shut down for even mentioning raiding?... Oh but that would be revising the meaning of things and we don't do that around here, right, my bad!
No, it's not revising the meaning of things. Most condemnations throughout SC history have been intended as compliments. A few, and just a few, like Condemn the Pacific, are intended to be scathing. But most of the time, it says "hey you're a pretty good raider" or "you're a good roleplayer". The meaning was crafted to be a compliment.
Ghad wrote:But on the other hand this is kinda exactly why I have a problem with the attitude/approach I talked about above. I think that the part specifically about raiding should be removed. The part about TWPAF in itself however should not. One can recognize that there was a lot of work and effort put into an organization without needing to defend what that organization does, especially since again it's a commendation of Altino, not TWPAF, so I think the parts about how Altino helped build up TWPAF can and should stay as they point towards her work and achievements, they just don't need to be accompanied by "achieved a showcase of over 100 embassies in Doll Guldur as trophies of The West Pacific’s military success;" since again that's more about TWPAF itself firstly, and also about raiding which as we all know is not helpful for a commendation, be that approach right or wrong, doesn't really matter.
But in the end, building the organization is not the same as raiding. Unless we are to go and call everything around raiding evil and raiders evil people by nature.
I take it that TWPAF is entirely raider. So if you work in TWPAF, you're probably working on raiding. In this case, all of the citations in the clause directly lead to raiding. Training officers and future commanders means training raiders.
I suppose the exception is developing the pirate theme. That's fine.