[PASSED] Liberate Confederation Of Corrupt Dictators

[ShrewLlamaLand]

I have a friend who played Hearts of Iron 4 as the Germans. Should I be worried about his real life politics?

Absolutely. He's playing a Nazi nation in a video game.

According to this thread, it can only mean one thing: he's a Nazi in real life, and by extension is responsible for the death of millions of Jews in the Holocaust. I'd suggest you go over to his house and break the locks on all of his doors as a "liberation" of sorts, so that at some point in the future there's a very, very slight chance that "raiders" will break in. That'll teach him a lesson.

[Otira]

Is it more in CCD's favor to vote for the legislation? Don't some regions wear these things like badges of honor?

I have a friend who played Hearts of Iron 4 as the Germans. Should I be worried about his real life politics?

Only if he doesn't fervently embrace National Socialism and urge you to read Mein Kampf, of course.

[Caracasus]

I have a friend who played Hearts of Iron 4 as the Germans. Should I be worried about his real life politics?

Nah.

However if they found a subforum on the game forums that dedicates itself to spreading fascism throughout that forum and then starts making friends with actual fascists then yeah, you might wanna start worrying.

[Caracasus]

I am the only issues moderator.

Like the pope, there can only be one.

Although given its not the first time someone has sort of mistaken the issue editor thing for potential moderating thing, I'm gonna stick a disclaimer in my signature.

[Forestavia]

contrary to its mission of maintaining interregional peace and goodwill

Just curious: where exactly did you see this mission statement? I'm pretty sure that's never been the SC's mission, since they very first thing they started doing was condemnations.

The SC is whatever the WA members want it to be. If they choose to vote for ideological warfare, then it's about ideological warfare.

I don't know if you want to call it a "mission statement" or a "motto" but it's right at the top of the page.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=sc
"Spreading interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary."
"The Security Council recognizes and responds to individual nations and regions, with the aim of ensuring global harmony."

This body continues to engage in ideological warfare that runs counter to these ideas. Instead of promoting peace and goodwill and global harmony we are harassing regions we don't like on an international stage. We are in violation of our own ideals.

[North Saitama]

So using the SC for ideological warfare is now "the maintenance of interregional peace and goodwill"?

Tell me, if a fascist region keeps to itself, and maintains civil and non-aggressive interactions with other regions (if they even interact with other regions), how are they even a threat to interregional peace and goodwill? On the other side of the coin, how is forcefully applying a liberation to a region, regardless of ideology, and compromising their own ability to defend themselves conductive to interregional peace and goodwill?

And you can say "because they are Fascist" all you want, and give me every ideological justification in the world. It doesn't change that you are still committing ideological warfare against a region, for reasons that are purely ideological, and not based on any actual actions.

1: There are lots of reasons people vote for this proposal. My reasons are ideological, that doesn't necessarily mean the resolution is. As far as I know Lord Dominator didn't have any ideological dislike in mind when writing this, Dominator just wants to raid more. (Welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken OP!)

2: The mere existence of Fascism is a threat to interregional peace and goodwill. There is no circumstance under which this is not so. A peaceful Fascist region such as you posit is an impossibility. Fascism makes no secret that it is based on militarism, war and conquest. Peace is literally an impossibility with Fascism, because the ideology itself is bound up with a desire for war and conquest. The mere existence of this ideology is a threat to peace and goodwill, a cancer that must be cut out, lest it infect the rest of us. The Security Council has no business standing by and permitting such threats to fester and grow. It has made clear it's position to smash this threat, and smash it again if necessary, until the threat is cut out entirely. Only a fool or an apologist would posit the possibility of peace with an ideology that is literally based on war and conquest.

1. That just makes it even less worthy.

2. You don’t seem to get the difference between abstract advocacy, versus a threat. No threat of any imminent lawless action IC or OOC exists with Fascist regions, just the mere advocacy. There is no specific threat of concrete action.

[Caracasus]

1: There are lots of reasons people vote for this proposal. My reasons are ideological, that doesn't necessarily mean the resolution is. As far as I know Lord Dominator didn't have any ideological dislike in mind when writing this, Dominator just wants to raid more. (Welcome to correct me if I'm mistaken OP!)

2: The mere existence of Fascism is a threat to interregional peace and goodwill. There is no circumstance under which this is not so. A peaceful Fascist region such as you posit is an impossibility. Fascism makes no secret that it is based on militarism, war and conquest. Peace is literally an impossibility with Fascism, because the ideology itself is bound up with a desire for war and conquest. The mere existence of this ideology is a threat to peace and goodwill, a cancer that must be cut out, lest it infect the rest of us. The Security Council has no business standing by and permitting such threats to fester and grow. It has made clear it's position to smash this threat, and smash it again if necessary, until the threat is cut out entirely. Only a fool or an apologist would posit the possibility of peace with an ideology that is literally based on war and conquest.

1. That just makes it even less worthy.

2. You don’t seem to get the difference between abstract advocacy, versus a threat. No threat of any imminent lawless action IC or OOC exists with Fascist regions, just the mere advocacy. There is no specific threat of concrete action.

Quick question here. There really aren't many contenders when it comes to abbhorent ideologies that compete with fascism, but I think those upheld by ISIS come close enough for the purposes of this hypothetical.

Let's say that there was a group of 300 or so nations that broadly mimicked ISIS and were very active and vocal in supporting and providing a haven for those following that ideology.

Now let's suppose that this somehow came to vote as a liberation, with a view to stopping them or at least removing them at some point in the future. The leaders of this region, when it looks like they might be liberated tell us that they are just roleplaying, but beyond that do and have done nothing else to make that distinction.

Would you be defending that hypothetical region's right to exist? Would you be claiming that actually it's the Security council at fault here, that we should let them be?

[Forestavia]

Deleted.

[Forestavia]

What is wrong with my post? (fixed it)

1. I do find fascism abhorrent.

And yet you can't help but make principled stands to defend it.

That's why I'm fighting so hard against this so-called "liberation". I am definitely not an apologist for authoritarian ideology. And as a member of the WA, I don't want my world government acting fascist.

Standing up to fascism does not make you a fascist. I have no problem repeating this point btw.

2. Garbage argument? I think you missed the point. The one about fighting authoritarianism with authoritarianism. It IS a moral equivalency. The Security Council is acting like an authoritarian region.

Oh look! You acknowledged the above point. With your only counter being, essentially, "no you."
Sorry, there is no moral equivalency.

Someone who says "let's kill the gays, Jews, blacks, and all other deviants or non-Aryans" is NOT morally equivalent to the person who says "I will do whatever is necessary to stop you from killing those people."

3. I've defended many regions on this issue. Communism is abhorrent. I defended them. Feminism is abhorrent. I defended them. Give me some credit. This issue of fake liberating regions against their will is very near and dear to my heart. I have stood up for everyone even if I disagree with them. The proof is in that link in my signature. There is no moral vacuum.

Oh but there is a moral vacuum. You don't get to build a reputation off of standing up for morally abhorrent ideologies and then claim that you're the the moral one.

4. Condemnations are badges of dishonor. Look up the definition in the dictionary. The only badge of honor is the Commendation.

You're either very naive of the way dishonourable nations and regions have co-opted Condemnations or you're being wilfully obtuse.

5. Oh, my goodness no! The Security Council can't be trusted with the power it already has. Why would we add MORE teeth to Condemnations? This body has shown time and time again that it cannot handle the little bit of power that it already has.

People wanted something with actual teeth to deal with fascists. Condemnations were not providing that. So they turned to offensive liberations.
You can either try to convince the SC that Condemnations are still the preferable option, which you will not do unless they are changed to have consequences behind them, or you can stop whining about the players of the game adopting to a changing meta.

Have a heart and leave the fascists alone.

Again, fascism considers me sub-human scum worthy of nothing but death. Why should I just leave them alone?

Oh, man. Where do I even begin?
1. Yes, that is correct. I find fascism abhorrent and yet I make principled stands to defend it in this particular situation. What's wrong with that? Do you want to know why I take this position? Because the authoritarianism of the Security Council scares me way more than the authoritarianism of one region. Also, I don't like the hypocrisy of fighting authoritarianism with authoritarianism.

2. "Standing up to fascism does not make you a fascist". Going back to my venn diagram example (my flag), I'm going to rephrase your sentence.
Standing up to fascism does not NECESSARILY make you a fascist. Don't forget that it is possible to fight fire with fire, fascism with fascism, authoritarianism with authoritarianism. The WA Security Council is smack dab in that red shaded area of that diagram. You can call it a garbage argument all you want.

3. "Someone who says "let's kill the gays, Jews, blacks, and all other deviants or non-Aryans" is NOT morally equivalent to the person who says "I will do whatever is necessary to stop you from killing those people."

^Let's take a look at this. What are we doing in this chamber? We are looking at deviant, ideologically controversial and unpopular regions and we are targeting them. We are saying, as a world government, "Let's kill the authoritarians in that region over there." We're doing it with subtlety because the effects are not immediate. We will lie in waiting for months or years until their region goes founderless. Then we'll move in. Then we'll invade and kill and scatter their community to the winds. We will be responsible for the genocide of a vibrant community. This is morally equivalent.

4. If regions like the idea of having a Condemnation attached to their region, then so be it. It doesn't change the definition of the word condemnation. If they like their evilness too much we could always repeal it.

5. I will not stop whining. I will not stop defending those who need a voice. I will crawl out of my hole every time one of these shameful preemptive offensive neoliberations come across my desk because they are nothing more than warzone creations that take the SC away from its true purpose and mission in the world.

6. Human scum? Why should you leave them alone? Well, Prydania it's simple. You leave the fascists alone for the same reason you don't go into the woods and poke a mother bear with a stick. Because now that the WA has made such a polarizing big deal out of this situation, you can bet your bottom dollar that the authoritarians, fascists, dictators, and totalitarians are going to respond militarily towards those in this chamber who are voting in favor of this resolution. I would expect an R/D response to regions associated with this resolution. Why would I expect that? You can't keep poking the wild animal with a stick and expect it to leave you alone. And that, my friend, is the reason why you should leave the fascists alone. We are creating war and chaos in our world instead of peace.

[San Macalin]

Oh, man. Where do I even begin?
1. Yes, that is correct. I find fascism abhorrent and yet I make principled stands to defend it in this particular situation. What's wrong with that? Do you want to know why I take this position? Because the authoritarianism of the Security Council scares me way more than the authoritarianism of one region. Also, I don't like the hypocrisy of fighting authoritarianism with authoritarianism.

Why should it? You've said yourself that you aren't fash.

2. "Standing up to fascism does not make you a fascist". Going back to my venn diagram example (my flag), I'm going to rephrase your sentence.
Standing up to fascism does not NECESSARILY make you a fascist. Don't forget that it is possible to fight fire with fire, fascism with fascism, authoritarianism with authoritarianism. The WA Security Council is smack dab in that red shaded area of that diagram. You can call it a garbage argument all you want.

Authoritarianism =/= fascism.

Then we'll invade and kill and scatter their community to the winds. We will be responsible for the genocide of a vibrant community. This is morally equivalent.

You must have pretty low standards of what constitutes a "vibrant community." I personally don't include Wehraboos in that category.

4. If regions like the idea of having a Condemnation attached to their region, then so be it. It doesn't change the definition of the word condemnation. If they like their evilness too much we could always repeal it.

5. I will not stop whining. I will not stop defending those who need a voice. I will crawl out of my hole every time one of these shameful preemptive offensive neoliberations come across my desk because they are nothing more than warzone creations that take the SC away from its true purpose and mission in the world.

Fash don't "need a voice." How about advocating for the people they'd be happy killing off instead?

6. Human scum? Why should you leave them alone? Well, Prydania it's simple. You leave the fascists alone for the same reason you don't go into the woods and poke a mother bear with a stick. Because now that the WA has made such a polarizing big deal out of this situation, you can bet your bottom dollar that the authoritarians, fascists, dictators, and totalitarians are going to respond militarily towards those in this chamber who are voting in favor of this resolution. I would expect an R/D response to regions associated with this resolution. Why would I expect that? You can't keep poking the wild animal with a stick and expect it to leave you alone. And that, my friend, is the reason why you should leave the fascists alone. We are creating war and chaos in our world instead of peace.

Because that always works.

[Armaros]

What is wrong with my post? (fixed it)

6. Human scum? Why should you leave them alone? Well, Prydania it's simple. You leave the fascists alone for the same reason you don't go into the woods and poke a mother bear with a stick. Because now that the WA has made such a polarizing big deal out of this situation, you can bet your bottom dollar that the authoritarians, fascists, dictators, and totalitarians are going to respond militarily towards those in this chamber who are voting in favor of this resolution. I would expect an R/D response to regions associated with this resolution. Why would I expect that? You can't keep poking the wild animal with a stick and expect it to leave you alone. And that, my friend, is the reason why you should leave the fascists alone. We are creating war and chaos in our world instead of peace.

There aren't that many fascists on ns. let alone militarily capable fascists. I doubt we have to worry about that.

[Forestavia]

Because that always works.

Okay, let me address appeasement. We, here in the WA Security Council better keep a close watch on all disturbing ideologies including CCD. Fascist. Communist. Domination Feminist. Authoritarian. It serves the best interests of the world to monitor and keep a very close eye on all of these dangerous ideologies. Appeasement doesn't work.

My point is that we are acting too soon and we are acting too early. This is not a response. This is a preemptive strike and the timing is off. We are making things worse by acting too soon. Remember when we liberated Boston from KAISERRIECH? THAT was a damn good liberation! Because we responded when we needed to. We responded to the spread of KR. We shouldn't be attacking or undermining KR. We should be responding to their attempts to expand in the world. I voted for that liberation because it was actually a real liberation.

That is the difference. So if the Confederation of Corrupt Dictators stays in its place, there is no need for us to target them. They are in their own region. They don't need to be liberated from themselves. BUT if they move, then we should move to stop the spread of fascism. Same with The Red Fleet. If they move, we should move. But as long as the communists and fascists and authoritarians behave themselves and stay in their own regions, then this body has no business whatsoever sticking its nose in their internal affairs.

[North Saitama]

1. That just makes it even less worthy.

2. You don’t seem to get the difference between abstract advocacy, versus a threat. No threat of any imminent lawless action IC or OOC exists with Fascist regions, just the mere advocacy. There is no specific threat of concrete action.

Quick question here. There really aren't many contenders when it comes to abbhorent ideologies that compete with fascism, but I think those upheld by ISIS come close enough for the purposes of this hypothetical.

Let's say that there was a group of 300 or so nations that broadly mimicked ISIS and were very active and vocal in supporting and providing a haven for those following that ideology.

Now let's suppose that this somehow came to vote as a liberation, with a view to stopping them or at least removing them at some point in the future. The leaders of this region, when it looks like they might be liberated tell us that they are just roleplaying, but beyond that do and have done nothing else to make that distinction.

Would you be defending that hypothetical region's right to exist? Would you be claiming that actually it's the Security council at fault here, that we should let them be?

Gee-wiz! An overused false-equivalence.

Yes, as long as they keep to themselves, no, if they are actually planning IRL acts on NS (which becomes more of a moderation issue, not WA). To counter your example, should we target pro-Soviet regions?

[Fahrus]

While I'm opposed to fascism or any other totalitarian ideology, I think Liberation resolutions should only be used to liberate regions that have been raided. It's an abuse of power if it's used to render a region defenseless and open to raids because you don't like their opinions.

[Caracasus]

Quick question here. There really aren't many contenders when it comes to abbhorent ideologies that compete with fascism, but I think those upheld by ISIS come close enough for the purposes of this hypothetical.

Let's say that there was a group of 300 or so nations that broadly mimicked ISIS and were very active and vocal in supporting and providing a haven for those following that ideology.

Now let's suppose that this somehow came to vote as a liberation, with a view to stopping them or at least removing them at some point in the future. The leaders of this region, when it looks like they might be liberated tell us that they are just roleplaying, but beyond that do and have done nothing else to make that distinction.

Would you be defending that hypothetical region's right to exist? Would you be claiming that actually it's the Security council at fault here, that we should let them be?

Gee-wiz! An overused false-equivalence.

Yes, as long as they keep to themselves, no, if they are actually planning IRL acts on NS (which becomes more of a moderation issue, not WA). To counter your example, should we target pro-Soviet regions?

No worries, honestly wondering where your defense of the abhorrent ended. Honestly it is very hard to pin down an ideology as abhorrent as fascism. Perhaps that is why you found the analogy overused.

You are right however. Fascism is probably more dangerous and worse than whatever the hell it is ISIS decided it supported.

Clearly not, no. While the USSR indeed committed its fair share of atrocities, that particular version of Marxist Leninism is not in the same league in terms of ideology or practise as fascism.

As I said before, the line in the sand for these offensive liberations is and remains fascism.

[North Saitama]

Gee-wiz! An overused false-equivalence.

Yes, as long as they keep to themselves, no, if they are actually planning IRL acts on NS (which becomes more of a moderation issue, not WA). To counter your example, should we target pro-Soviet regions?

No worries, honestly wondering where your defense of the abhorrent ended. Honestly it is very hard to pin down an ideology as abhorrent as fascism. Perhaps that is why you found the analogy overused.

You are right however. Fascism is probably more dangerous and worse than whatever the hell it is ISIS decided it supported.

Clearly not, no. While the USSR indeed committed its fair share of atrocities, that particular version of Marxist Leninism is not in the same league in terms of ideology or practise as fascism.

As I said before, the line in the sand for these offensive liberations is and remains fascism.

Obviously, the point is lost on you. As abhorrent as Fascism is, all you are doing is punishing abstract thought. And I will make my own line in the sand: if you either do something bad, or threaten imminent action that is bad, then I stop defending you. If you keep to yourself, it is not my business to act, just disagree.

I can see that you have no further argument. As much as you feed me abstract ideological justifications, you cannot give me an objective and concrete reason. That just says that you are okay with denying justice to ideologies you disagree with.

[Caracasus]

No worries, honestly wondering where your defense of the abhorrent ended. Honestly it is very hard to pin down an ideology as abhorrent as fascism. Perhaps that is why you found the analogy overused.

You are right however. Fascism is probably more dangerous and worse than whatever the hell it is ISIS decided it supported.

Clearly not, no. While the USSR indeed committed its fair share of atrocities, that particular version of Marxist Leninism is not in the same league in terms of ideology or practise as fascism.

As I said before, the line in the sand for these offensive liberations is and remains fascism.

Obviously, the point is lost on you. As abhorrent as Fascism is, all you are doing is punishing abstract thought. And I will make my own line in the sand: if you either do something bad, or threaten imminent action that is bad, then I stop defending you. If you keep to yourself, it is not my business to act, just disagree.

I can see that you have no further argument. As much as you feed me abstract ideological justifications, you cannot give me an objective and concrete reason. That just says that you are okay with denying justice to ideologies you disagree with.

Hey, you would be OK with a region of apparent or real ISIS supporters recruiting via TG on this site. Forgive me if I don't entirely see eye to eye with you on this.

[Otira]

While I'm opposed to fascism or any other totalitarian ideology, I think Liberation resolutions should only be used to liberate regions that have been raided. It's an abuse of power if it's used to render a region defenseless and open to raids because you don't like their opinions.

Plus this resolution is actually building support for the CCD, and this would-be liberation is rather toothless.

[Perunia]

Eh, it's a game at the end of the day.

Whatever my political beliefs may or may not be, you can't extrapolate my real world views from a game. I welcome debate and discussion, but don't think that in real life I'm some skin-head neo-nazi. I'm just having some fun.

[Otira]

Eh, it's a game at the end of the day.

Whatever my political beliefs may or may not be, you can't extrapolate my real world views from a game. I welcome debate and discussion, but don't think that in real life I'm some skin-head neo-nazi. I'm just having some fun.

Nazis, neo or otherwise, are a thing from the past. My nation is more concerned with alt-right hackers who post dank frog memes. Therein lies the true threat to the world.

[Kuriko]

Eh, it's a game at the end of the day.

Whatever my political beliefs may or may not be, you can't extrapolate my real world views from a game. I welcome debate and discussion, but don't think that in real life I'm some skin-head neo-nazi. I'm just having some fun.

Nazis, neo or otherwise, are a thing from the past. My nation is more concerned with alt-right hackers who post dank frog memes. Therein lies the true threat to the world.

If you think they're a thing of the past, and not a real threat of today, you should probably take a look around IRL friend.

[Otira]

Nazis, neo or otherwise, are a thing from the past. My nation is more concerned with alt-right hackers who post dank frog memes. Therein lies the true threat to the world.

If you think they're a thing of the past, and not a real threat of today, you should probably take a look around IRL friend.

I've seen more harm coming from Juche and Communist nations than handfuls of Nazi larpers. But I understand your concern.

[Prydania]

They want me, and others like me, dead.

So no.

Yeah, you better watch out! Internet natzhee death squads are coming to get you! Oy vey goys this' like annudah shoah!

ROFL...I love this. The "I'm not a fascist, but let me defend fascism" sort that resorts to anti-Semitism when pressured.

And that's why I have less and less patience and tolerance for the "principled stands in defence of fascism" crowd.

[RiderSyl]

ROFL...I love this. The "I'm not a fascist, but let me defend fascism" sort that resorts to anti-Semitism when pressured.

And that's why I have less and less patience and tolerance for the "principled stands in defence of fascism" crowd.

Standing in defense of fascism for any reason is pretty sketchy.

[Kurnugia]

Snip

Honestly, you are a piece of pure comedy. Playing the definition game is the most hillarious part.

4. Condemnations are badges of dishonor. Look up the definition in the dictionary. The only badge of honor is the Commendation.

Wait let me play this too:

feminism noun
fem·i·nism | \ ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm \
Definition of Feminism
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

3. I've defended many regions on this issue. Communism is abhorrent. I defended them. Feminism is abhorrent.

There you go people! Forestavia finds the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes and the advocating of women's right and interest abhorrent.