USA: Global IRL troll?

[Lelouche]

Your portrayal is far to extreme to be accurate, I dismiss your results as inadmissible

Your understanding of American Foreign Policy leaves alot to be desired.

[Uawc]

America is not really a troll. Trolls usually incite anger/hatred for the lulz, whereas American imperialism is more systematic and has ultimate goals (ex: wealth, power, territory, etc).

A historian named Howard Zinn passed away last week, but he had a great analysis for the development and history of America. You can find a brief version of his theory here on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg

(I'd recommend watching it, it is fairly accurate and enlightening)

Personally, I think if America was largely aggressive throughout the course of history, maybe we would be more like our peaceful neighbours to the north.

I knew Zinn personally; I can't say that I agreed with his theories or even liked his political stance, but he was a credit to historians worldwide and brave for daring to put forth an alternative viewpoint to the traditional view of American history.

As for the experiment, I (rather dumbly, in hindsight) believed that the person typing the replies was an honest-to-God embarrasment to the Republican party. I'm a Republican, you see, and was horrified to see this stuff on even an Internet forum. I can't say that we are all like that, but there are some people that make you wonder...
Funny thing is, I suppose I should have tried to do that. Probably would've gotten similar results, but it would take away all the fun I've gotten out of NationStates so far.

Again, I apologize to you and other Republicans here. It was not my intention to offend. I based the Amurckan character on that nationalistic douchebag in Borat who talks about hanging gays in a positive manner. Not on the average American, or even the average Republican.

[Uawc]

snip

I really appreciate that video, thanks for the link.

Np, pass it on. More people need to see it.

I agree, and will do.

[Blitzkrenia]

Your portrayal is far to extreme to be accurate, I dismiss your results as inadmissible

Your understanding of American Foreign Policy leaves alot to be desired.

The politics in this site itself is rather extreme. Even Max Barry himself says so.

[Uawc]

Your portrayal is far to extreme to be accurate, I dismiss your results as inadmissible

Your understanding of American Foreign Policy leaves alot to be desired.

The politics in this site itself is rather extreme. Even Max Barry himself says so.

Indeed, I have addressed this point in the first post.

[Antilon]

Your portrayal is far to extreme to be accurate, I dismiss your results as inadmissible

Your understanding of American Foreign Policy leaves alot to be desired.

Could you elaborate? I thought his portrayal of America was somewhat accurate, particularly the conceited nationalistic posts.

[Mephras]

This is basically what you did.

[Allemande]

Funny, I've been imitating America in many ways since '05.

Look at my nation page and discuss.

[Maurepas]

This is basically what you did.

Prettymuch exactly...

[Traxa]

Using NS to simulate anything you plan on taking seriously or to present it as a case for an argument is..just a horrible idea alround.

After reading through most of your posts you come off representing a "red neck hick" moreso than America as a whole. As for the "wars" this is NS, people go to "war" over things so stupid like someone insulting another nation's leader on their national news brief.

You're entire expierment was flawed both in the system you used to test it and your own understanding of American policy as a whole. The posts linked in your spolier, you got those kind of replies because you were acting like a moron. They again don't add anything to your argument that America is a global rl troll.

On a side note, nice video.

[Conserative Morality]

That's an exaggeration of the USA.

[Inner Mundania]

Inner Mundania is a nation I've been playing for well over a year as a NationStates emulation of the United States, answering issues in the way I think most accurate for the United States at this time. (So, for instance, I didn't choose the issue choice that says to exterminate the native tribes, because the US genocide of the Indians was rather a long time ago.)

Throughout its lifetime, Inner Mundania has almost always been an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. Right now it is a Left-Leaning College State, but I expect that to pass quickly. At other times, it has briefly been a Capitalist Paradise and Democratic Socialists (the latter for a few days immediately following Obama's inauguration, though this was nothing but a strange coincidence).

I make no claims for the accuracy of the simulation. Often, no issue choice fits exactly, and I have to decide whether to make a choice that's a little more extreme than reality, or just dismiss. Plus, obviously, different observers of the US reach different conclusions as to the meanings and effects of its policies, and also it is easy to make mistakes about what the government is actually doing, especially when that conflicts with what the government says it is doing, or with what some political personality says it is doing.

Still, it is an honest simulation, done not to make any point, but to find out what NationStates would make of it.

[Lelouche]

Your portrayal is far to extreme to be accurate, I dismiss your results as inadmissible

Your understanding of American Foreign Policy leaves alot to be desired.

Could you elaborate? I thought his portrayal of America was somewhat accurate, particularly the conceited nationalistic posts.

Imagine a boxer steps into the ring and declares that today the crowd will watch as he pulverizes the reigning world champion; to their bemusement, he then produces a straw dummy that looks a little like his supposed opponent, beats the hell out of it, and declares himself the victor. This is the essence of the Strawman Fallacy; a debater constructs a weakened form of an opponent's argument, and in defeating it acts like they have defeated the real argument.

A strawman, therefore, is a caricatured and deliberately crippled version of an opposing viewpoint that the author uses to try and support their own position. A strawman differs from a parody in that in the latter case the viewer is intended to regard the exaggeration and distortion as humorous and thus recognize it is not a valid portrayal of a real point of view; the strawman is exaggerated purely for the purpose of making it easier to defeat or mock.