Jump to content
Réjs

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

Recommended Posts

"If communists manage to take over all of PnW."

Yeah...."if"

The hegemony has already come my friends, and we have lost. Beware the Red Pacifican, for they walk among us - but in the service of Him.

vJnAxlZ.png

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 10:38 AM, NewOttomans said:

TRF calling themselves commies? Ha! NPO and BK with their command economy are the real commies!

Well the proletariats aren't going to be exploited all by themselves now are they?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Internationalist said:

If somehow the Communists managed to take over all of P&W, they'd probably explode into at least 15 ideological sub-groups. Without opposition, there would be no reason for the left-unity which holds 'em together. Leftists are great at sectarian infighting, believe me.

This honestly seems like a sarcastic response where you're denying the obvious just to make IG communism look good.

I don't deny that leftists are fine at sectarian infighting, but it's because of priorities such as whether feminism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, environmentalism, relativism, postmodernism, empiricism, or elitism should come first. Intersectionality doesn't really work out since it results in discrimination olympics...

...but communists fighting fellow communists doesn't have value in PnW. In real life, there was concern over how strongly communism should impose centralized bureaucracy, but in PnW, communism can only be simulated through centralized bureaucracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not even communist. Revolution is our theme. Not sure what the problem here is. We are united under common goals and ready to go.

Y'all are just criticizing for the hell of it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Starbuck said:

We're not even communist. Revolution is our theme. Not sure what the problem here is. We are united under common goals and ready to go.

Y'all are just criticizing for the hell of it.

AnarchoCommuNazism = TRF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starbuck said:

We're not even communist. Revolution is our theme. Not sure what the problem here is. We are united under common goals and ready to go.

Y'all are just criticizing for the hell of it.

 

'Revolution' is commonly associated with far-left ideology. Then, once you consider:

  1. The flag of TRF is black and red; colors used by anarcho-communists.
  2. SGM rebranded to TRF following a merge with The Communist International. TCI being very blatantly communist. Furthermore, lots of TRF's gov is TCI gov.
  3. The alliance description of TRF states that the alliance is "...a highly selective, international, tight-knit collective of leftists..."

So sure, you can say TRF is not communist, but I would like to see how you make that argument.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thalmor said:

'Revolution' is commonly associated with far-left ideology. Then, once you consider:

  1. The flag of TRF is black and red; colors used by anarcho-communists.
  2. SGM rebranded to TRF following a merge with The Communist International. TCI being very blatantly communist. Furthermore, lots of TRF's gov is TCI gov.
  3. The alliance description of TRF states that the alliance is "...a highly selective, international, tight-knit collective of leftists..."

So sure, you can say TRF is not communist, but I would like to see how you make that argument.

First, why does it matter? Plenty of people criticized KT's theme. I'm sure you didn't appreciate or care because you wanted a crusader theme. Why turn around and criticize other people's themes?

Black was SGM's color and red was TCI's. Are you trying to say SGM was anarchist? For your second point, are you saying TCI had more influence on the creation of TRF than SGM? Should we not have integrated them into our government because of some aversion to communism you might have? As for the last point, it says what we are right there. You're trying to find some hidden meanings that aren't there.

You are building your narrative. So be it. But we know what we are and you can complain about it if you want. We are what it says on our alliance page, thanks for quoting it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Starbuck said:

First, why does it matter? Plenty of people criticized KT's theme. I'm sure you didn't appreciate or care because you wanted a crusader theme. Why turn around and criticize other people's themes?

Black was SGM's color and red was TCI's. Are you trying to say SGM was anarchist? For your second point, are you saying TCI had more influence on the creation of TRF than SGM? Should we not have integrated them into our government because of some aversion to communism you might have? As for the last point, it says what we are right there. You're trying to find some hidden meanings that aren't there.

You are building your narrative. So be it. But we know what we are and you can complain about it if you want. We are what it says on our alliance page, thanks for quoting it.

I'm not saying any of those things. I was just pointing observable facts to debunk your claim that TRF is not communist. Not sure why you're so defensive.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thalmor said:

I'm not saying any of those things. I was just pointing observable facts to debunk your claim that TRF is not communist. Not sure why you're so defensive.

Probably because they are communist.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Starbuck said:

First, why does it matter? Plenty of people criticized KT's theme. I'm sure you didn't appreciate or care because you wanted a crusader theme. Why turn around and criticize other people's themes?

Black was SGM's color and red was TCI's. Are you trying to say SGM was anarchist? For your second point, are you saying TCI had more influence on the creation of TRF than SGM? Should we not have integrated them into our government because of some aversion to communism you might have? As for the last point, it says what we are right there. You're trying to find some hidden meanings that aren't there.

You are building your narrative. So be it. But we know what we are and you can complain about it if you want. We are what it says on our alliance page, thanks for quoting it.

Remember the last time some people built a "narrative" and you folks denied the SGM AA flag was a Black Panther flag?  I believe it was "It's not a panther, it's literally a cat".

 

 

And you wonder why some people find your claims questionable.

Sidenote:  The thread linked is actually a good read.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kosmokenny said:

Eat shit, nazi

No u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you one of the original nazis, or have they brought more of you here like I said they were going to do and nobody wanted to listen?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kosmokenny said:

Are you one of the original nazis, or have they brought more of you here like I said they were going to do and nobody wanted to listen?

Nazi? Where?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kosmokenny said:

Are you one of the original nazis, or have they brought more of you here like I said they were going to do and nobody wanted to listen?

He's a clone from our secret lunar base Neu Berlin.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

This honestly seems like a sarcastic response where you're denying the obvious just to make IG communism look good.

I don't deny that leftists are fine at sectarian infighting, but it's because of priorities such as whether feminism, multiculturalism, egalitarianism, environmentalism, relativism, postmodernism, empiricism, or elitism should come first. Intersectionality doesn't really work out since it results in discrimination olympics...

...but communists fighting fellow communists doesn't have value in PnW. In real life, there was concern over how strongly communism should impose centralized bureaucracy, but in PnW, communism can only be simulated through centralized bureaucracy.

You've spewed bullshit about how communists are supposedly incapable of competing with each other and just "circle-jerk" in the past. I corrected you back then and there's no more basis in reality for your claims now.

You're right that part of the infighting is priorities, but that's not all there is and to claim so is reductionist. There are many more fundamental political differences between leftists and communists, particularly pertaining to strategy, governance and economics.

It doesn't make sense in any way that communists as a group are less capable of competing against each other (in a game, for fun) than fascists, ancaps or any other political grouping. You're making a whole bunch of assumptions about communists in-game based on your opinion of RL communism works, despite the fact that you yourself said that there's no way to actually engage in communism in the game, which is contradictory. It's like you're under this illusion that most of the wars declared in this game are a result of people embracing ideas like imperialism when the reality is that most people are just fricking bored and want to do something relatively fun. Finally, the fact that you think communism can only be simulated through centralized bureaucracy means that you don't even grasp what communism is in its totality and that no one should take your opinion on it seriously.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-04-21 at 2:40 PM, Dubayoo said:

As far as I can tell, communist alliances are stigmatized because they won't fight each other. This is unlike capitalist and fascist alliances which will due to their competitive nature. If communist alliances one day took over PnW, the game would come to a standstill. They're deliberately targeted to prevent that standstill from happening. If communists win, the game dies. If non-communists win, the game continues.

You are literally just pulling this out of your ass. There are several leftists in positions of power in several alliances, which often fight each. BK has a surprisingly large left contingent, and there are other examples out there, but lets refer to the only time in history your theory faced a real test and failed.

Charming Friends was attacked by Socialist Workers Front for attacking Nord-Reich or whatever the frick that dogwhistle nonsense was. Literally the only time more than one socialist alliance of note existed, and it fought the other. Now SWF was a mess and CF, while being dear to my heart, was never top tier, but the fact remains that this happened. And equating ingame mechanics with themes is nonsense. I've talked to several capitalist in favour of an in game command economy.

You keep just making shit up about the game, bringing in your personal biases and ignoring history or even current affairs. Everyone has their blind spots, but you just keep plowing through the truth like an ice breaker. You've literally been doing this since you started "playing". Not once have I seen a post from you that's been grounded in reality in any single way. So I just have to ask, why? What's the purpose of constantly coming to a game you openly hate just to say things that are wrong?

Edited by durmij
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, durmij said:

You are literally just pulling this out of your ass. There are several leftists in positions of power in several alliances, which often fight each. BK has a surprisingly large left contingent, and there are other examples out there, but lets refer to the only time in history your theory faced a real test and failed.

Charming Friends was attacked by Socialist Workers Front for attacking Nord-Reich or whatever the frick that dogwhistle nonsense was. Literally the only time more than one socialist alliance of note existed, and it fought the other. Now SWF was a mess and CF, while being dear to my heart, was never top tier, but the fact remains that this happened. And equating ingame mechanics with themes is nonsense. I've talked to several capitalist in favour of an in game command economy.

You keep just making shit up about the game, bringing in your personal biases and ignoring history or even current affairs. Everyone has their blind spots, but you just keep plowing through the truth like an ice breaker. You've literally been doing this since you started "playing". Not once have I seen a post from you that's been grounded in reality in any single way. So I just have to ask, why? What's the purpose of constantly coming to a game you openly hate just to say things that are wrong?

This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.  I'll just leave it at this:

Your personal political beliefs are irrelevant as an alliance leader.

A minor example of one socialist alliance attacking another doesn't prove the rule.

Your example is actually an extension of something from another game: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Antifa-Nordreich_War

In fact, CF was protected by Syndicate for a while, so it doesn't even really count as a controlled experiment.

There have been many more socialist alliances besides those two. Claiming they the only ones that have existed in the game is a flat out lie.

I haven't brought up any personal biases here. In fact, I'm not even debating whether or not socialism is justified in this thread since I'm looking at it from a IC perspective only.

If anyone has a personal bias here, it's you since you like the ideology and don't separate your OOC preference versus IC gameplay.

If anyone doesn't, it's me. Heck, I played in Arrgh for a while despite not approving of OOC piracy, and I criticized TKR members just as much for taking OOC ideology too seriously in how they play the game which is the exact opposite of IC socialism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dubayoo said:

This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start.  I'll just leave it at this:

Your personal political beliefs are irrelevant as an alliance leader.

A minor example of one socialist alliance attacking another doesn't prove the rule.

Your example is actually an extension of something from another game: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Antifa-Nordreich_War

In fact, CF was protected by Syndicate for a while, so it doesn't even really count as a controlled experiment.

There have been many more socialist alliances besides those two. Claiming they the only ones that have existed in the game is a flat out lie.

I haven't brought up any personal biases here. In fact, I'm not even debating whether or not socialism is justified in this thread since I'm looking at it from a IC perspective only.

If anyone has a personal bias here, it's you since you like the ideology and don't separate your OOC preference versus IC gameplay.

If anyone doesn't, it's me. Heck, I played in Arrgh for a while despite not approving of OOC piracy, and I criticized TKR members just as much for taking OOC ideology too seriously in how they play the game which is the exact opposite of IC socialism.

  • The personal is not determinant, but it is relevant.
  • It's literally the only example. My "rule" can't be proved with one sample, but your ultimatum is incompatible with the reality you ignore.
  • http://politicsandwar.wikia.com/wiki/Charming_War We're talking about this game. Though I messed up the name, so that's on me.
  • How on earth is CF having protection negate their internal structure, organizing or FA history?
  • I said "of note". As in, breaking the top 40 and having an FA presence. Socialists and fascist themed alliances pop up all the time as micros, but we don't care because micros are shit.
  • You don't bring up your personal biases, they are exhibited through your actions and words. That's literally the concept of biases.
  • You literally have no grounding for your sweeping IC generalizations, so the source has to be your OOC views.
  • This last one is beyond belief. It's a game. Nuke bloc doesn't need to clarify that they are against RL nuclear apocalypse. Your "defense" over not having biases because you're against armed conflict and theft IRL but do it in game is one of the most fricking redonkulous things I've ever seen.
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did anyone else notice how a mod closed shifty's topic saying he warned them already in the topic, but in reality that was in this topic that he warned in?

Edited by ukunaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>inb4 another "but y no nazi alliance" thread

Loving this. Good luck. ^_^

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2018 at 10:56 PM, durmij said:
  • The personal is not determinant, but it is relevant.
  • It's literally the only example. My "rule" can't be proved with one sample, but your ultimatum is incompatible with the reality you ignore.
  • http://politicsandwar.wikia.com/wiki/Charming_War We're talking about this game. Though I messed up the name, so that's on me.
  • How on earth is CF having protection negate their internal structure, organizing or FA history?
  • I said "of note". As in, breaking the top 40 and having an FA presence. Socialists and fascist themed alliances pop up all the time as micros, but we don't care because micros are shit.
  • You don't bring up your personal biases, they are exhibited through your actions and words. That's literally the concept of biases.
  • You literally have no grounding for your sweeping IC generalizations, so the source has to be your OOC views.
  • This last one is beyond belief. It's a game. Nuke bloc doesn't need to clarify that they are against RL nuclear apocalypse. Your "defense" over not having biases because you're against armed conflict and theft IRL but do it in game is one of the most fricking redonkulous things I've ever seen.

- It's not relevant. The question is how an alliance is run, not what the leader believes in. We're not talking about OOC beliefs here.
- Indeed, it's the only example. You're just repeating yourself over and over while grasping for straws.
- You're ignoring how the players in the alliances were motivated by intergame politics which invalidates your example.
- CF's protection suggests it's not a purely socialist situation.
- Now, you're cherry-picking in choosing when to pay attention to smaller alliances.
- Claiming I'm personally biased is ridiculous. I deliberately RP things I don't believe in just for the fun of it. The point is there's no fun to RPing communism in this game unlike how piracy can be fun. Heck, the HoI4 crowd knows this because of how I play communist countries in MP games for fun.
- Of course Nuke bloc doesn't need to. Its strategy is viable. Communism is not.

The bottomline is you're just defending communists who are carrying on a childish temper tantrum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

- It's not relevant. The question is how an alliance is run, not what the leader believes in. We're not talking about OOC beliefs here.
- Indeed, it's the only example. You're just repeating yourself over and over while grasping for straws.
- You're ignoring how the players in the alliances were motivated by intergame politics which invalidates your example.
- CF's protection suggests it's not a purely socialist situation.
- Now, you're cherry-picking in choosing when to pay attention to smaller alliances.
- Claiming I'm personally biased is ridiculous. I deliberately RP things I don't believe in just for the fun of it. The point is there's no fun to RPing communism in this game unlike how piracy can be fun. Heck, the HoI4 crowd knows this because of how I play communist countries in MP games for fun.
- Of course Nuke bloc doesn't need to. Its strategy is viable. Communism is not.

The bottomline is you're just defending communists who are carrying on a childish temper tantrum. 

  • So are you attacking OOC beliefs or 100% taxes ingame? Because I know several capitalists in favour of 100% taxes in game and we, the Red Menace, run low taxes, loan circles and protectionism.
  • I only need one example to undercut your extraordinary unfounded claim. You stated that socialists always band together, I found a prime example of them doing the opposite.
  • You were the one who claimed OOC politics would stagnant in game politics. It doesn't invalidate my example, it literally is my example.
  • How? You keep adding qualifiers for socialism in game, some of them are contradictory. CF had 100% taxes and 100% bank access. If we're talking mechanics, they are literally peak "communism."
  • Restricting our samples to viable alliances that actually participate in the meta game (or real game as some prefer) of FA is not cherry picking. And it's not cherry picking when to pay attention to micros if I say "never pay attention to micros" because that statement excludes micros always, not when convenient. Defining our field of view as only including the relevant is absolutely necessary.
  • RPing things you don't like is not the same as not having biases. It's literally completely unrelated and the fact that you keep using it is a defense is beyond absurd.
  • Why are we back to ingame viability? The original point was about real world values. This point is literally unrelated to what you were attempting to address. You also fail to prove or attempt to prove that "communism" is unviable." You just state it as a matter of fact.

You keep moving the goalposts. You refuse to or are unable to define socialism as either in game mechanics or out of game values and move between definitions as it suits you. You keep talking past my points, it's almost like you're responding to keywords and arguing against points I'm not even making. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read a thing I've said, skimming through just enough to belch out another ill-conceived point.

The bottomline is you're incapable of arguing well and in good faith, so this will be my last response to you. I look forward to reading your next 6 "I'm leaving this game because I'm better than you all and have better uses of my time" posts.

Edited by durmij
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, durmij said:
  • I look forward to reading your next 6 "I'm leaving this game because I'm better than you all and have better uses of my time" posts.

Gonna post this here too cause no one will see it otherwise

b2xhbrX.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, durmij said:
  • So are you attacking OOC beliefs or 100% taxes ingame? Because I know several capitalists in favour of 100% taxes in game and we, the Red Menace, run low taxes, loan circles and protectionism.
  • I only need one example to undercut your extraordinary unfounded claim. You stated that socialists always band together, I found a prime example of them doing the opposite.
  • You were the one who claimed OOC politics would stagnant in game politics. It doesn't invalidate my example, it literally is my example.
  • How? You keep adding qualifiers for socialism in game, some of them are contradictory. CF had 100% taxes and 100% bank access. If we're talking mechanics, they are literally peak "communism."
  • Restricting our samples to viable alliances that actually participate in the meta game (or real game as some prefer) of FA is not cherry picking. And it's not cherry picking when to pay attention to micros if I say "never pay attention to micros" because that statement excludes micros always, not when convenient. Defining our field of view as only including the relevant is absolutely necessary.
  • RPing things you don't like is not the same as not having biases. It's literally completely unrelated and the fact that you keep using it is a defense is beyond absurd.
  • Why are we back to ingame viability? The original point was about real world values. This point is literally unrelated to what you were attempting to address. You also fail to prove or attempt to prove that "communism" is unviable." You just state it as a matter of fact.

You keep moving the goalposts. You refuse to or are unable to define socialism as either in game mechanics or out of game values and move between definitions as it suits you. You keep talking past my points, it's almost like you're responding to keywords and arguing against points I'm not even making. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't read a thing I've said, skimming through just enough to belch out another ill-conceived point.

The bottomline is you're incapable of arguing well and in good faith, so this will be my last response to you. I look forward to reading your next 6 "I'm leaving this game because I'm better than you all and have better uses of my time" posts.

The goalposts were simple: how does communism work in this game to maintain a competitive spirit?

You still haven't answered the question. Your departure from the thread is a cop out for the failure to do so.

Don't tell me I've failed to prove it's unviable either. Burden of proof is on the affirmative, and that applies for any strategic ideology in this game or anything at all in anything for that matter. Don't think you get special treatment either just because your SI is communist.

Edited by Dubayoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.