TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes

Users who are viewing this thread

alas! the glory days of this place are long since past, and we are left with but the dregs.
well, that and various discords, where most of it moved.

your edit ruined the joke smh
.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I lack morals, but I'm puzzled how this could be a substantive story. It's not related to actually important stuff like funneling public money into your friends' pockets or screwing over the poor with a new budget. I realize it affects voter sentiment as a part of a series of Boris scandals making him look like a liar and a hypocrite, so he's becoming vulnerable to Labour attacks and becoming an election liability for the Tories. But it's not about doing his job badly, which should be the focus
Media attempts to convince the remaining hardcore doubters that Boris lied about Brexit, party-gate and other stuff. Plus irritation with abuse of power - cavalier assumption that one law applies to the ruling elite and another to the rest of us plebs. The latter issue compounded by those who obeyed lock down rules which forbade them to attend funerals or visit dying relatives while political hacks carried on getting drunk and disorderly in "business" meetings. It is about doing the job badly - they're representing themselves rather than the public and taking the piss at the same time.

A competent leader would put some effort into lying with conviction and covering their tracks.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I lack morals...
Maybe you do, because the case is very much about morals, but more than that. It also doesn't make Johnson look like a liar and a hypocrite. It literally makes him a liar and a hypocrite. Traits you don't want in a leader. It's also about breaking rules, which politicians, par excellence, are expected to follow like everyone else.
It's a legal issue which you willfully ignore. Johnson and others were fined for breaching regulations, on several occasions. Breaking your own regulations is very much doing your job badly.
 
It's worth mentioning that this has been the most openly corrupt government in living memory. They transparently siphon billions out of the economy using gangster corporations like G4S. I don't personally care about the parties themselves that much, neither do most people, and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that OberGruppenFuhrer Herr Stormer got caught doing more or less the same thing. But this is the most concrete manifestation of the corrupt mafia mentality the Tories have propagated over the last 12 years, where they see their job as a stipend they can use to embezzle government money.
 
How is our favorite Texan @eddiemccandless handling this?
I moved. I also recently had an argument with my mother in law, who is otherwise a lovely lady, about the fact that I expressed a preference for not living next to someone who owns an AK-47 style weapon. It was a passing remark on my side but she took it very personally (she supposedly has family who owns those and took it as an insult to them).

The US is a ****ing mess. I don't see this going anywhere good but we'll see.
 
Is there any point to pretending elections are a part of a democracy if the people in a constituency can't recall, and dismiss, their representative whenever they want? I'm at the point where I really don't care which corrupt party apparatchik steals from me, and choosing which one gets to steal from me and lie to me isn't actually a choice at all. Little better than being shackled to some crackpot dictator.
 
I moved. I also recently had an argument with my mother in law, who is otherwise a lovely lady, about the fact that I expressed a preference for not living next to someone who owns an AK-47 style weapon. It was a passing remark on my side but she took it very personally (she supposedly has family who owns those and took it as an insult to them).

The US is a ****ing mess. I don't see this going anywhere good but we'll see.
I advise buying a large gun to defend yourself from the mother-in-law.
 
Is there any point to pretending elections are a part of a democracy if the people in a constituency can't recall, and dismiss, their representative whenever they want? I'm at the point where I really don't care which corrupt party apparatchik steals from me, and choosing which one gets to steal from me and lie to me isn't actually a choice at all. Little better than being shackled to some crackpot dictator.
The institutional ineffectiveness of peacetime democracies protects the electorate from the idiots they voted for. Nothing similar constrains crackpot dictators from ruining their people's lives.
 
Is there any point to pretending elections are a part of a democracy if the people in a constituency can't recall, and dismiss, their representative whenever they want? I'm at the point where I really don't care which corrupt party apparatchik steals from me, and choosing which one gets to steal from me and lie to me isn't actually a choice at all. Little better than being shackled to some crackpot dictator.
You see why someone might read this and think to themselves "little fascist but np" right?
 
The institutional ineffectiveness of peacetime democracies protects the electorate from the idiots they voted for. Nothing similar constrains crackpot dictators from ruining their people's lives.
Well I did say "little better". But given the rather extreme responses to otherwise ordinary protests over the past few years, in so-called "democracies", and the complete inability for populations to hold their politicians accountable when it matters most; I'd say that line is rather blurred of late. Even if it does win by default.

You see why someone might read this and think to themselves "little fascist but np" right?
I'm past caring about such labels anymore. Everyone all over the increasingly degenerating political spectrum is complaining about fascists in their soup now, so it's basically become a meaningless word. But if we're talking about a hypothetical person, then I'd ask this intellectually-challenged individual how my complaint at populations having an insufficient control over their often corrupt and unaccountable elected officials warrants accusations of 2022's most worn out buzzword.
 
I'm past caring about such labels anymore. Everyone all over the increasingly degenerating political spectrum is complaining about fascists in their soup now, so it's basically become a meaningless word. But if we're talking about a hypothetical person, then I'd ask this intellectually-challenged individual how my complaint at populations having an insufficient control over their often corrupt and unaccountable elected officials warrants accusations of 2022's most worn out buzzword.
You are openly advocating for a dictatorship over democracy. If you'd prefer I can call you authoritarian instead. Would that be less hurtful?

In all honesty, what annoys me is not even that antidemocratic sentiment. It's the hypocrisy that you have in pushing that forward. If you are going to be a fascist, at least own it. I would have a lot more respect for you that way. Instead you and others like you choose to carefully weight your words to dodge criticism.

Since someone else was asking at some point elsewhere, that's the difference between alt right and classical Nazis or fascists by the way. Alt-right puts make up on and pretends to be a respectable person. We can all see through that at this point, and I am frankly done with trying to pretend that I believe the pretense.
 
It doesn't imply that as long as you have an open mind, otherwise....
I am sorry but where's the nuance? He is not saying that a specific version of governance from a certain country is flawed because of this or that reason. He is saying that all democracy sucks and is little better than a bad dictatorship. Which, again, means that a good dictatorship would be great.

Forgive me if I come off a little strong but I am getting real tired of people who are clearly going for one thing trying to hide behind semantics. Let's call things what they are and at least have some honesty in the conversation.
 
I am sorry but where's the nuance? He is not saying that a specific version of governance from a certain country is flawed because of this or that reason. He is saying that all democracy sucks and is little better than a bad dictatorship. Which, again, means that a good dictatorship would be great.

Forgive me if I come off a little strong but I am getting real tired of people who are clearly going for one thing trying to hide behind semantics. Let's call things what they are and at least have some honesty in the conversation.
People moan about all sorts of stuff (including democracy) without necessarily having any hidden agenda or a constructive alternative. That exaggerated comparison to a crackpot dictatorship smacks of overly dramatic self-indulgence rather than any promotion of totalitarianism IMO.
 
You are openly advocating for a dictatorship over democracy.
Thanks for the dumbest take I've read around here dude. I am not going to dignify you by even reading the rest of your post. Have a nice day.


People moan about all sorts of stuff (including democracy) without necessarily having any hidden agenda or a constructive alternative. That exaggerated comparison to a crackpot dictatorship smacks of overly dramatic self-indulgence rather than any promotion of totalitarianism IMO.
Democracy emerged due to the capacity of a popular assembly being a practicality as a result of Greece's Polis system. When democracies began to emerge in Europe after the medieval period, the impracticality of operating such an assembly was in many ways restricted by the vast geography of the polities, not to mention the sheer population size and unwillingness of aristocratic elites to give up their power. Representative democracy was a compromise (yes all this is an oversimplification, but I CBFed writing an essay on it right now).

Saying this system as it is now, be it in Britain or the United states (or basically anywhere in the West, except maybe Switzerland to a lesser extent) is basically obsolete isn't much of an "overly dramatic self-indulgence", I don't think. As cliche as this argument is, high literacy rates and technology have enabled us to, at the very least, partially reform systems of politics in western countries to make elected representatives more accountable and controllable by the constituencies they claim to represent.

The move towards a form direct democracy through what is labelled "e-democracy", is an emergent political current that is popping up all over the political spectrum for the last 10 years. My opinion is that beginning this transition by removing fixed term limits and granting each constituency the ability to recall and dismiss their representatives whenever they want is a good start. And I can't think of a single reason why anyone would be opposed to greater voter control of politics that doesn't stem from rank elitism.
 
Last edited:
Being able to vote politicians out at fixed intervals is sensible and democratic- being able to vote them out 'whenever they want' doesn't sound feasilble or desirable to me. How do you decide it is time to hold a vote? Does it need to be a big deal on Twitter or Facebook, is that how it goes? Or does there have to be some sort of official censure of a politician's behaviour first? I don't see how it would be feasible to make such judgements, and it would encourage opponents to sling mud at the incumbent even more in the hope of triggering a vote. It would be expensive and disruptive, even more energy and time having to be spent on accusing and defending rather than actually governing. It makes sense to have a decent period of time for someone to be in power once elected.
 
I am sorry but where's the nuance? He is not saying that a specific version of governance from a certain country is flawed because of this or that reason. He is saying that all democracy sucks and is little better than a bad dictatorship. Which, again, means that a good dictatorship would be great.

Forgive me if I come off a little strong but I am getting real tired of people who are clearly going for one thing trying to hide behind semantics. Let's call things what they are and at least have some honesty in the conversation.

Without "good dictatorships" as you put it, all of Africa and Asia would currently be under the thumb of american financial institutions, and countries like Ethiopia, China, Singapore and Vietnam would be desolate wastelands. It is the height of Anglo-American chauvinism to dogmatically demand every country on earth be a liberal democracy, when Europe itself was almost completely undemocratic barely even 100 years ago. This is the same colonial mindset of the 1800s.

Sundeki saying that the (i assume) American system is barely different from a one-party dictatorship is hardly controversial, the anti-establishment in America has been saying that since the 70s. I don't get how this makes him a fascist or an authoritarian.
 
Back
Top Bottom