Shireroth

Speaking of which... I do really need to clean up nafticon.org's subdomains... There are so many superfluous ones...

- The legally unauthorized invasion and takeover of Samudra, one of its own provinces, by neighboring provinces, for no other reason than absolutist control by the Antican central government. The closest historical parallel I believe is the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 by the neighboring Eastern Bloc nations.

Absolutism is not intrinsic to Marxism. Imperialism and hegemonic attitudes can be found in all examples of political systems. Granted Stalin's Russia can be regarded as 'imperialist', but the comparison is just skin-deep. Talk about an oversimplification.

All this relies upon your own perception of Antican politics, and what about the socio-economics of Stalism? Could you call Antica, in any way, shape or form, a Marxist state economically? You've completely ignored many of the key tenets of Marxism in your attempts to define Antica as 'Stalinist' - I'd imagine you're just using the term 'Stalinist' as a shorthand for 'imperialist', rather than actually referring to its ideological definition.

I often feel that the application of socio-economic terms and thus, many political ideologies to micronationalism is flawed.
Antica is an excellent example of a micronation that has tried to move away from replicating macronational political concerns and ideologies into its political debates, and instead develop its own unique system based on the practical demands of micronationalism. This is increasingly happening in Ashkenatza, thanks to the Ben Mavet constitution and the reforms of Wajnstein and Henzelli.

This whole analogy is just laughable though CJ...seriously.

Militarism (along with personality cultism, brutal industrialization and ideological militarism to further the revolution) are all concepts found in Stalinism, but they themselves do not equate to Stalinism. They aren't mutually exclusive.

This is like Matt Kovac with Fascism - it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

Go and join Ocia.

Aster wrote:This is like Matt Kovac with Fascism - it's like banging your head against a brick wall.

Don't you mean Facsism?

What do you mean? Face-sism? The correct spelling is Fascism.

Kovac had a habit of misspelling Fascism as "Facsism" which some of us made fun of at one point. We said that it was a typo for Factism, the belief in the validity of facts, which made sense that Kovac would be fight vehemently against it.

Malliki wrote:You are, as usual, absolutely right. It's rude to edit other people's posts without making it clear that they're edited, regardless of the forum or the importance of the post involved.

*blinks* Oh, okay. Glad we agree on this one.

@ chrimigules: I should've known.

@ Scott: Yes, Shireroth is much more peaceful when everyone agrees. Hooray for everyone!

Scott, stop editing posts in this thread.

Why? It's not like they're Kaiserial decrees or anything important like that

Cause you wouldn't like it if I edited your posts, no matter if they were important or not. You're just being an ass.

Scott, I didn't equate a bullshit poll with Imperial decrees. You did.

Erik: I thiiiink you might be sort of kind of totally missing the point here, but the point's already been made so I'll stop now.

meh. probably. This is the most time I've spent in Shireroth in one go in like 2 weeks.

Erik Mortis wrote:Cause you wouldn't like it if I edited your posts, no matter if they were important or not. You're just being an ass.

Oh, Erik. Your cover fire is appreciated, but please don't shoot the message . Vasroe made it very clear he didn't like it when I edited his poll! If the concern was simply about whether the poster whose messages had been edited disapproved, you'd have to be hating on me as much as you were hating on Scott.

But that's not the point, of course. Scott, Vasroe doesn't need you to go around annoying people to defend him. Try dropping the "defend the defenseless" deontology and being a consequentialist for a moment: Eventually you're probably going to have some kind of a reasonable idea that he hates and then he'll hate *you* too for it. So, you're not going to gain his friendship out of this. And it should be obvious that you're not making his life, or anyone's, better.

(btw, I *have* actually gotten burned by editing messages before - I recall a time when I did something to fix the Wikipedia links in a paper posted by... Hypatia, I think? She *really* didn't appreciate the idea that someone had been dicking around with a lengthy paper where she had no ability to see if something had been subtly changed. I appreciated her concern and apologised profusely.)

Fake edit: Awww, Scott already said he'd stop . Oh well. I'll just click on this button anyway!!!

AWWW, C'MON GUYS, WHO COULD HATE SCOTT? HE'S JUST SO LOVABLY PETULANT!

Ari Rahikkala wrote:

Erik Mortis wrote:Cause you wouldn't like it if I edited your posts, no matter if they were important or not. You're just being an ass.

Oh, Erik. Your cover fire is appreciated, but please don't shoot the message . Vasroe made it very clear he didn't like it when I edited his poll! If the concern was simply about whether the poster whose messages had been edited disapproved, you'd have to be hating on me as much as you were hating on Scott.

But that's not the point, of course. Scott, Vasroe doesn't need you to go around annoying people to defend him. Try dropping the "defend the defenseless" deontology and being a consequentialist for a moment: Eventually you're probably going to have some kind of a reasonable idea that he hates and then he'll hate *you* too for it. So, you're not going to gain his friendship out of this. And it should be obvious that you're not making his life, or anyone's, better.

(btw, I *have* actually gotten burned by editing messages before - I recall a time when I did something to fix the Wikipedia links in a paper posted by... Hypatia, I think? She *really* didn't appreciate the idea that someone had been dicking around with a lengthy paper where she had no ability to see if something had been subtly changed. I appreciated her concern and apologised profusely.)

Fake edit: Awww, Scott already said he'd stop . Oh well. I'll just click on this button anyway!!!

There is no need to be so patronizing, Ari. If Scott is defending me that is, firstly, because I am right and, secondly, because he's not an Antican lackey. Shireroth has these threads critical of Antica open every so often (more often when their are tensions between the two nations) and in my case it is easy to generate them/

Aster, my use of the terms Marxist and Stalinist to describe Antica were in reference to its political aspects only, and not their economy. Ostensibly, their economic system is laissez-faire and capitalist.

Well, it's pretty hard to describe something as being Marxist if you ignore the economy...

Yeah, Fascism would be a better word.

I'm not defending anyone - it just freaks me out to have people editing posts without marking them as edited.

Well... You didn't either.

Ah, that. Well. I cite aesthetic concerns

Scott, kind of uncool that you protested editing posts without notice by editing posts without notice.

It's kinda hypocrite-like.

Maybe Antica has some fascist aspects, Aryeztur; in fact the fascist symbolism is found in Antican symbols such as the fasces on its first flag and the Seal of the Assembly. However it does not seem strictly to be fascist. Like in communist nations, its citizens are more on the left side of the spectrum in terms of their real life political and socioeconomic views (which carry over into their micro-national views as well, except for economic matters). Also, like communist nations, Antica loves celebrating its Revolution, which overthrew the Dinarchy. I shall have to ponder this more. Antica may lie somewhere in-between, though I stand by my earlier points describing its similarities with forms of communism.

America loves celebrating its Revolution, which overthrew the King of England. Does that make the USA communist?

CJ Miller wrote:America loves celebrating its Revolution, which overthrew the King of England. Does that make the USA communist?

The Revolution is an intrinsic part of politics and daily life in Communism, more so than just mere celebration or a single holiday. The citizens are forced to live and breath the spirit of Revolution constantly--sometimes a distorted view of it, and at peril of their lives if they refuse to support that distorted view. Conversely, America's society does not revolve around its Revolution to the extraordinary extent that Communist societies do, extravagant American fireworks displays on the Fourth of July notwithstanding.

The 4th of July is more of a "Yeah we're awesome" type holiday than a "We really showed those bastards way back when" thing.

Scott, kind of uncool that you protested editing posts without notice by editing posts without notice.

That was kind of the point.

There's a story of a boxer back during Vietnam who was a conscientious objector. A bunch of guys started harassing him about it. He told them he just didn't believe violence would change people's minds. The guys told him he was an idiot and unpatriotic. So the boxer took them all on and beat them all up. "Now do you agree violence doesn't solve problems?" he asked. "Hell no!" said the guys he'd just beaten up. "Exactly my point," said the boxer.

The 4th of July is more of a "Yeah we're awesome" type holiday than a "We really showed those bastards way back when" thing.

Yeah, especially when "those bastards" have been our best buddies for so long. The our revolution was a family squabble compared to the French & Russian Revolutions.

So go hug a Brit and a Canadian at your earliest opportunity!

Scott of Hyperborea wrote:

Scott, kind of uncool that you protested editing posts without notice by editing posts without notice.

That was kind of the point.

(story)

No, look. This isn't the thing you can use a humorous antidote to justify. It's just hypocrisy and people get really uncomfortable about hypocrisy, especially when people start trying to justify it. I mean, okay, it's just Shrine of Controversy and things in here aren't supposed to be serious, but if you really truly believe you're in the right on this one then... well... I don't really know what actually. I guess I'll just be of the opinion that you do bad or foolish things and then are too egotistical to admit that you're doing bad or foolish things because you know enough general history and politics to always find an example that justifies your bad or foolish position.