Lenlyvit wrote:Not everyone on every side is going to go along with others in their sphere, that's a well-known fact. And it's also a well-known fact that some defenders are more than willing to strike back at raiders and imperialists on behalf of native communities.
That didn't address much of anything I said, but it is at least noteworthy that if not even your own faction fully supports this, the chance of this passing is lowered significantly.
HumanSanity wrote:While I agree with much of your criticism of this proposal, as documented in my above post, I am putting this opposition so clearly on the record because I don't want Len's haphazard execution of this inevitably doomed proposal to be used as a propaganda point for raiders more generally and an opportunity for them to distort messaging about defending and its purpose.
I don't think this can reasonably be called 'defending', but the amusing hypocrisy displayed by self-proclaimed 'defenders' is plain for all to see.
Defending is about the fundamental idea that nations should have the ability to communicate, engage, and build in whatever manner they choose, regardless of if that manner is something that others find good or valid or respectable (barring those who cause proactive harm to the world around them by doing so--e.g. fascists).
That might be your motivation for defending, but the Grey Wardens have outright said they don't care for what you define as 'natives' and only seek to play against raiders. Your touching rant about what defending should be is by no means a universal standard applied to the entire faction. As you can see here, defenders are more than happy to take away the sovereignty of regions they do not like.
To the extent defenders are perceived as "crusad[ing] on behalf of people who aren't [around]", this generally occurs in the context of Liberation proposals, where defenders are the ones who have built up the institutional capacity and resources to argue on behalf of these common ideals.
Meaning what, that they argue on behalf of regions not theirs in order to score propaganda points against those they dislike?
In this kind of context, and as defenders advance their general rhetorical talking points, defenders aren't arguing for vengeance,
But they certainly are doing so here, and purely out of spite, rather than the thin, hypocritical shield that they argue is "justice".
rather they're arguing for the basic right of self defense for native communities, in line with native's wishes through constant communication and outreach.
Outreach such as in Asia, where they only remembered to even bother asking the natives after they drafted a liberation and started arguing on Asia's behalf?
Raider arguments to the contrary are based in a willful effort to distort information and communications despite the best effort of defenders to make private conversations transparent and perform their roles as honest intermediaries between natives and the more established GP international community that ultimately holds the fate of these regions in its hands.
"Defenders are good, morally right, and their cause is just so if you oppose them you're a raider propagandist!"
- Defenders.
There is a distinction between speaking for those who have not spoken that they should have the basic right to exist in the manner of their choosing and attempting to speak for those who have not spoken that they have the right to endless vengeance.
True, one is a lazy effort to disguise the fact defenders want to raid out of spite and the other is a lazy effort to disguise the fact defenders want to beat raiders to score points.
Len hasn't done that, which is why your generic "do the natives ever speak?" talking point applies only to this proposal for an offensive Liberation and not to ordinary proposals for a defensive Liberation.
I disagree, but I am also not entirely certain it is particularly important at the current moment.
I see the factual inaccuracies in the proposal have not been fixed and the only thing you seem to have done is edit grammar and spelling, meaning it is not just a spiteful, petty crusade, it is also outright wrong. One would really think you'd at least try to maintain an illusion of truth, or at least not reveal that your rhetoric about justice is a thin veil to disguise the fact you want to raid. I would welcome you to the raider side, but we are usually far more honest about our intentions.
