UTEP's Daily Issue: 1 Infinite Loop Returns!

[Kazmr]

Independents can be aggressive, yes, but that does not make aggression a characteristic of the concept.

The same could be said of every philosophy

[Anumia]

Most, yes, and that's rather my point. Pointing at some aggressive Independents as indicative of an aggressive philosophy is like pointing at an angry pacifist and claiming anger is a core component of Pacifism.

[Common-Sense Politics]

Most, yes, and that's rather my point. Pointing at some aggressive Independents as indicative of an aggressive philosophy is like pointing at an angry pacifist and claiming anger is a core component of Pacifism.

Thanks for saying something 'cause I was about to get -extremely aggressive- by virtue of my political beliefs.

[Anumia]

Most, yes, and that's rather my point. Pointing at some aggressive Independents as indicative of an aggressive philosophy is like pointing at an angry pacifist and claiming anger is a core component of Pacifism.

Thanks for saying something 'cause I was about to get -extremely aggressive- by virtue of my political beliefs.

Now we just need Cerian, and we'll have a party.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Independence has a language that seeks to paint all criticism of it as anti-patriotic and extremist. It's hard to argue against an ideology that says it stands for doing whatever is in the regional interests. To argue against that is necessarily to argue against regional interests. That's how every alignment debate goes down. Opponents of Independence are opponents of the regional interests.

So yeah Anumia, extremism is a characteristic of the Independence ideology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mallorea and Riva]

Independence has a language that seeks to paint all criticism of it as anti-patriotic and extremist. It's hard to argue against an ideology that says it stands for doing whatever is in the regional interests. To argue against that is necessarily to argue against regional interests. That's how every alignment debate goes down. Opponents of Independence are opponents of the regional interests.

So yeah Anumia, extremism is a characteristic of the Independence ideology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't it possible that opponents of independence are in fact opponents of the regional interests? If Independents are correct in their initial calculation of what is in the region's best interests then it all follows very logically that any other position would indeed be anti-patriotic or extremist in the sense that it is based upon a series of values independent from what can be clearly shown to be related to the region.

[Unibot III]

Independence has a language that seeks to paint all criticism of it as anti-patriotic and extremist. It's hard to argue against an ideology that says it stands for doing whatever is in the regional interests. To argue against that is necessarily to argue against regional interests. That's how every alignment debate goes down. Opponents of Independence are opponents of the regional interests.

So yeah Anumia, extremism is a characteristic of the Independence ideology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Isn't it possible that opponents of independence are in fact opponents of the regional interests? If Independents are correct in their initial calculation of what is in the region's best interests then it all follows very logically that any other position would indeed be anti-patriotic or extremist in the sense that it is based upon a series of values independent from what can be clearly shown to be related to the region.

I don't think it's clear what a region's interests -are-.

"Regional interests" is a thought terminating cliché -- citizens regularly disagree over what is best for a region. Ultimately, Independence is a trojan horse for blatant realism -- a package of ideas that presuppose what is best for a region (and usually serve to benefit other independent regions and the elites who profess it).

[Cerian Quilor]

And there's something wrong with blatant realism? Did I miss a memo?

[Old Federalia]

Don't forget, you can subscribe to The Daily Issue to receive a daily telegram with the Issue in it!

TEP Delegate Election Debate!

IRC--The candidates in TEP's current Delegate election were subjected to a debate moderated by your's truly, Old Federalia/People United Together. The incumbent Bachtendekuppen, former runner-up, Arbiter and Admin Hobbes, and new Police Commissioner Prussia met on #tepdebate for a 2-hour long debate with questions concerning such matters as their vision for TEP a year after this next term, and the R/D alignment they think TEP should have, along with individual questions aimed at their performances in TEP from the past four months. At the end, there is a commentary from the moderator that critiques the challengers but favors the current delegate.

OF's prediction of the election's results: Landslide in favor of Bachtendekuppen.

Link to debate transcript: http://theeastpacific.com/topic/5182156/
Govindia's unofficial election poll: http://theeastpacific.com/topic/5182155/

[Anumia]

Independence has a language that seeks to paint all criticism of it as anti-patriotic and extremist. It's hard to argue against an ideology that says it stands for doing whatever is in the regional interests. To argue against that is necessarily to argue against regional interests. That's how every alignment debate goes down. Opponents of Independence are opponents of the regional interests.

So yeah Anumia, extremism is a characteristic of the Independence ideology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well now we have changed from "aggression" to "extremism". Secondly, anyone promoting an ideology is going to seek to set it apart, and establish sole legitimacy, for that ideal. Again, this is not something that is a special characteristic of Independence.

[Cormacville]

I don't think independence is actually an ideology, and that's somewhat the problem with this debate. If independence means doing what is in a region's interests, then if interests change obviously so should what you're doing. Independence doesn't dictate a specific set of things a region's military should do -- it doesn't say that regions should only defend other regions, it doesn't say that regions should never defend or liberate in observance of raider unity, etc. -- it simply says that regions and their military forces should do whatever is in their interests. That isn't an ideology.

The problem with a lot of regions calling themselves independent is that they don't take the time to actually figure out their regional interests, and when they do try it just devolves into yet another debate about the merits of defender and raider ideology. So instead of figuring out their actual interests and acting on them, they try to strike some artificial balance between raiding and defending. That isn't independence.

[Kazmr]

I don't think independence is actually an ideology, and that's somewhat the problem with this debate. If independence means doing what is in a region's interests, then if interests change obviously so should what you're doing. Independence doesn't dictate a specific set of things a region's military should do -- it doesn't say that regions should only defend other regions, it doesn't say that regions should never defend or liberate in observance of raider unity, etc. -- it simply says that regions and their military forces should do whatever is in their interests. That isn't an ideology.

The problem with a lot of regions calling themselves independent is that they don't take the time to actually figure out their regional interests, and when they do try it just devolves into yet another debate about the merits of defender and raider ideology. So instead of figuring out their actual interests and acting on them, they try to strike some artificial balance between raiding and defending. That isn't independence.

I think that if the word 'independence' were actually used as the definition implies, perhaps it wouldn't be an ideology. In practice, however, Independence (if you'll notice it is very frequently spelled with a capitol I, perhaps implying some sort of formality there) certainly fits the bill for a political ideology. Your latter definition is probably far more common than any other use of the word, or at the very least an attempt by the Independents to moderate those those who would advocate too strongly for either side in the interests of allowing the region to do 'what is in its best interests'.

I'd flesh out my argument a bit more, but its late and I have a midterm tomorrow

[Anumia]

The concept in a nutshell is: do what you want, and don't let military alignment define you. You can be friends with raiders and defenders both, instead of being constrained to one side of the spectrum, and the military should be a tool of foreign affairs, rather than foreign affairs following the military.

Cormac is right with his latter paragraph; regions need to know themselves.

Good luck with your midterm

[Glen-Rhodes]

@Cormac, Anumia:

That is just meaningless. It's a truism that regions will do what is in their interests. ("Interests" meaning whatever the hell members of the region want to do.) That's not Independence. It's the basic state of regional existence, if you're not subjugated by foreign forces. Independence, however, dictates that regions can't choose raiding or defending and still remain Independent. That is an ideology. Independence is a set of ideals and doctrines, adopted by a group of people, that serves as a model for how regions should act. That is an ideology.

Whether or not Independence is an ideology isn't a debateable question. Independents just like to portray themselves as the only reasonable people in the room, and the way to do that in NationStates is to pretend that you aren't beholden to any rigid ideologies.

[Unibot III]

I don't think independence is actually an ideology, and that's somewhat the problem with this debate. If independence means doing what is in a region's interests, then if interests change obviously so should what you're doing. Independence doesn't dictate a specific set of things a region's military should do -- it doesn't say that regions should only defend other regions, it doesn't say that regions should never defend or liberate in observance of raider unity, etc. -- it simply says that regions and their military forces should do whatever is in their interests. That isn't an ideology.

The problem with a lot of regions calling themselves independent is that they don't take the time to actually figure out their regional interests, and when they do try it just devolves into yet another debate about the merits of defender and raider ideology. So instead of figuring out their actual interests and acting on them, they try to strike some artificial balance between raiding and defending. That isn't independence.

“A truth of life is that the people decrying ideology and posing as non-ideological are both ideological and dangerous because they fail to recognise their own first premises”
— EUROSOVIETS

I quoted this in Paradise Found, because I thought it was the most astute and relevant observation I had seen in NationStates. Throughout the ages, since well before any of us starting playing, the most ideological and dangerous players have been posing as non-ideological, as "free" of the preexisting ideologies.

What gives these dangerous ideologies their power is their discursive prowess to squirm away from being defined, identified, criticized or otherwise conceptualized.

[Tano]

I just love how people that usually couldn't give a shit about TEP are now trying to decide it's ideology for itself.

While we appreciate your absolute concern for us, things have simmered down and we're now the same old quiet region with respectable behavior that we've always been. So go find some other drama to entertain yourself with, mmkay?

[Old Federalia]

“A truth of life is that the people decrying ideology and posing as non-ideological are both ideological and dangerous because they fail to recognise their own first premises”
— EUROSOVIETS

I quoted this in Paradise Found, because I thought it was the most astute and relevant observation I had seen in NationStates. Throughout the ages, since well before any of us starting playing, the most ideological and dangerous players have been posing as non-ideological, as "free" of the preexisting ideologies.

What gives these dangerous ideologies their power is their discursive prowess to squirm away from being defined, identified, criticized or otherwise conceptualized.

That is very true. "Free"-thinkers have always been identified as "dangerous." They have the "discursive prowess" to participate in civil discourse, and thereafter change their opinions.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I hope that comment destroys what little credibility you have left.

[Unibot III]

“A truth of life is that the people decrying ideology and posing as non-ideological are both ideological and dangerous because they fail to recognise their own first premises”
— EUROSOVIETS

I quoted this in Paradise Found, because I thought it was the most astute and relevant observation I had seen in NationStates. Throughout the ages, since well before any of us starting playing, the most ideological and dangerous players have been posing as non-ideological, as "free" of the preexisting ideologies.

What gives these dangerous ideologies their power is their discursive prowess to squirm away from being defined, identified, criticized or otherwise conceptualized.

That is very true. "Free"-thinkers have always been identified as "dangerous." They have the "discursive prowess" to participate in civil discourse, and thereafter change their opinions.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I hope that comment destroys what little credibility you have left.

Hmm? I'm talking about players who present their set of ideas as not a set of ideas but as some sort of "non-ideological" status quo.

[Ambroscus Koth]

Throughout the ages, since well before any of us starting playing, the most ideological and dangerous players have been posing as non-ideological, as "free" of the preexisting ideologies.

Are you implying that I (as a self-proclaimed free-thinker) am somehow less dangerous and more ideological than you (a hardcore moralist who has written his ideologies in multiple tl;dr essays)?

Because that's saying something.

[Old Federalia]

Hmm? I'm talking about players who present their set of ideas as not a set of ideas but as some sort of "non-ideological" status quo.

Yes, I know. You want to draw a circle around ideas and declare what they mean and don't mean via venn diagrams and charts. "Free"-thinkers refuse to play by your or anyone else's rules.

For example, your R/D grid allows you to tell people that their beliefs and values fit within a 40x40 square. On one side, you proclaim defending is morally superior to raiding, but on the other, you say cosmopolitanism is just a different view point than regionalism. Therefore, your grid is contradictory and exploitative. Either the choice between cosmopolitanism and regionalism is a moral dilemma like your view of R/D, or defending and raiding are different viewpoints that should respect each other like your view of cosmopolitanism and regionalism.

Let me remind everyone that you said, "What gives these dangerous ideologies their power is their discursive prowess to squirm away from being defined, identified, criticized or otherwise conceptualized."

That is 100% true.

[Unibot III]

Hmm? I'm talking about players who present their set of ideas as not a set of ideas but as some sort of "non-ideological" status quo.

Yes, I know. You want to draw a circle around ideas and declare what they mean and don't mean via venn diagrams and charts. "Free"-thinkers refuse to play by your or anyone else's rules.

For example, your R/D grid allows you to tell people that their beliefs and values fit within a 40x40 square. On one side, you proclaim defending is morally superior to raiding, but on the other, you say cosmopolitanism is just a different view point than regionalism. Therefore, your grid is contradictory and exploitative. Either the choice between cosmopolitanism and regionalism is a moral dilemma like your view of R/D, or defending and raiding are different viewpoints that should respect each other like your view of cosmopolitanism and regionalism.

Let me remind everyone that you said, "What gives these dangerous ideologies their power is their discursive prowess to squirm away from being defined, identified, criticized or otherwise conceptualized."

That is 100% true.

"Free thinkers" is a rhetorical term. These aren't people challenging authority, so much as authority itself - power often obscures itself as a backdrop of non-ideology.

As for your point about defenderism and invaderism versus cosmopolitanism and regionalism -- I believe players have argued consistently that regionalist laws are wrong or cosmopolitanism is wrong .. over and over again. So I do think there is a ethical dimension to that debate as well.

[Old Federalia]

"Free thinkers" is a rhetorical term. These aren't people challenging authority, so much as authority itself - power often obscures itself as a backdrop of non-ideology.

Yes, that is true. It has been said that "Knowledge is Power." Spreading knowledge to everyone equally would destroy authority entirely. Everyone would be a member of the "Ruling Elite."

[Unibot III]

"Free thinkers" is a rhetorical term. These aren't people challenging authority, so much as authority itself - power often obscures itself as a backdrop of non-ideology.

Yes, that is true. It has been said that "Knowledge is Power." Spreading knowledge to everyone equally would destroy authority entirely. Everyone would be a member of the "Ruling Elite."

I disagree that knowledge is power. Power generally wants nothing to do with the truth, besides trying to own it.

[Bachtendekuppen]

Yes, that is true. It has been said that "Knowledge is Power." Spreading knowledge to everyone equally would destroy authority entirely. Everyone would be a member of the "Ruling Elite."

I disagree that knowledge is power. Power generally wants nothing to do with the truth, besides trying to own it.

Knowledge is power in the sense that it empowers the individual. I guess that's what Old Federalia means. Knowledge is also not the same as the absolute truth, yet can still empower.

[Old Federalia]

Yes, that is true. It has been said that "Knowledge is Power." Spreading knowledge to everyone equally would destroy authority entirely. Everyone would be a member of the "Ruling Elite."

I disagree that knowledge is power. Power generally wants nothing to do with the truth, besides trying to own it.

But Unibot, you must believe that "The Pen is Mightier than the Sword." Why else do you dedicate yourself to writing miles long manuscripts such as "Paradise Lost?" If you are able to recruit one defender, you both gain a soldier and deprive raiders of a soldier, (ie: A penny saved is a penny earned.)

So, I ask you, why does power try to own the truth? Does it want to keep it from the masses, or use it to manipulate them?