Guns of Infinity



My question is is there any type of Enlightenment and literature floating around in Tierra? And obviously the Nobles and the lower class will be reading two different types of literature. Example a decade prior to the French Revolution many of the lower class non nobility or reading pirated copies of philosophy and satirical porn that criticized the first and second estate. So are people reading any exciting things of that nature? To be one of the spices to stir Revolution.


That was never really on the table.

In the sense of works unreservedly supporting popular rule and the like? Not really. In the sense of political philosophy trying to define political morality and rights? Yeah, there’s a long tradition of that.


I’m guilty of not blobbing in my games. Sometimes I just want to get a few provinces, develop them, and y’know, sell mercenaries to the highest bidder. Like in my Switzerland game.

I don’t know a thing about Eurovision, but I wish more people voted for Romania’s song.

Or maybe the UK could win and then they’d have to host a party celebrating Europe. That’d be pretty ironic.


Well I did like that bit of yodeling better then I do most ballads that do manage to win. However Eurovision for me is mostly about indeed celebrating Europe, since the Union lacks a more formal holiday of its own and getting pleasantly drunk.
I’ve kind of resigned myself to the fact that ballads win more often than not. Besides if it were up to me Sweden, Austria and Israel would all have ended up higher, but then I do get accused of paying more attention to the boys than to their songs on occasion. :wink:

I wouldn’t put is past May to simply pull a Bibi (Netanyahu) out of her bag of tricks in that case and simply abolish the BBC, if that had or were to happen. :sweat_smile:


Yah they didn’t have the manpower or resources to realistically stay as long as they wind up doing as is, that’s fair.


You dont think it’s even a little odd that the media company that brought you Doctor Who is owned and operated by the U.K. Government and that it is 77% funded by a tax on watching any live TV?


Medieval feudal capitalism, hum? It got to be Switzerland, obviously :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

Isn’t that how most male and female singers get to be famous? Nothing unnatural with that :grin:.

They brought Doctor Who. They can do whatever they like :yum:


Ok…well I would not be comfortable with NPR purchasing “The Walking Dead” and then funding that programming with taxes, but I’m clearly an ultra-capitalist…


Walking Dead I wouldn’t support. Supernatural? Hell yes. :grin: The same way I don’t mind paradox games being supported with EU money. And no, you are not an ultra-capitalist for it, just someone who can keep rationality in the face of stuff they like and all the wrong that can be done to support it, much unlike me :grin:


Not in the least, especially not after seeing the sort of environment that your fully privatised news and media networks have wrought in the pursuit of captive, uncritical audiences.


For news I think a government can certainly pose as an alternative in a competitive market. Dr. Who and other entertainment programming on the other hand…

And in fairness it wasn’t in pursuit of captive on critical audiences that we got Fox News…it was profit.


In order to guarantee free journalism in an healthy democracy we need public tv channels. If we want to help promoting culture, having a channel that produces shows isn’t a bad idea, even if not an absolute necessity. This being said, those channels need to be managed and regulated in a way that doesn’t deviate from their objective and necessity, making sure that the tax-payers’ money is being put to good use. If we can support cultural subsidizing of everything, tv shows aren’t that different.


I don’t mind. It’s not like all of our governments don’t subsidise attempts to create works of national cultural identity or anything, and Doctor Who has certainly pulled more than its weight in both adding to the British cultural canon, and serving as an ambassador for the “brand”.

Ultimately, the distinction matters little. Having an audience that will eat up everything you produce creates a reliable, long-term audience, and Fox isn’t the only network guilty of trying to engineer one.


I think you are giving Fox and MSNBC entirely too much credit, but that is certainly a matter of opinion.

Doctor Who is dangerously close to the tail wagging the dog imo. An entertainment program that successful doesn’t just highlight a culture it defines it.


And what’s wrong with that? How is it different from theatre or games which also receive state funding to help give a voice to people who want to help contribute to and flavour the cultural richness of a society?

For that matter, it’s not like your own Department of Defence doesn’t blow millions of dollars a year on backing film projects the Pentagon considers sufficiently complimentary.


It’s different to provide a grant and say “I support the arts in general” and to own a major media company and define its programming. More importantly the government is incentivized to provide programming like Dr. Who because it gets people to pay their TV tax. They spend over 100M a year on TV tax enforcement. I’m not British so I certainly won’t lecture, but I wouldn’t support that in the US.

The Pentagon is reimbursed for the expenses incured on film and TV projects that approach the US government for support. That’s apples and oranges.


Considering that grants are decided on a case-by-case basis by a board that is either made up of public servants, or appointed by public servants, I’m really not seeing the difference. Either way, tax dollars are going towards programmes that are considered of “sufficient artistic merit to be supported by public money” or “culturally significant”, as determined by agents of the state.

Besides, isn’t PBS partially funded by tax dollars?


NPR and PBS are partially funded by tax dollars and I don’t agree with a lot of their programming too, but in fairness they are strictly of an educational or news media nature. I do believe government has an important role in both arenas as long as they permit and encourage competition. In particular, they need to cover stories that will not otherwise be covered due to unprofitability like broadcasting an entire 3 hr confirmation hearing.

Dr. Who fits neither of those categories and is a major entertainment franchise. More importantly the tax that supports this programming is directly linked to how it is collected. That is problematic in a number of ways particularly in the media arena.

Basically “Sesame Street” Good “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me” Bad


The line between “entertainment” and “education” isn’t exactly a firm one. Mister Rogers’ Neighbourhood and The Magic School Bus are still plenty entertaining - even for some adults. Likewise, Doctor Who was originally envisioned as an edutainment show to teach science and history, and even the new series still does the latter on a pretty regular basis.

Personally, I find the provision of entertainment (especially if considered culturally significant) to be a public good, and I see no reason why a publicly funded service should avoid providing that service to help justify its own existence in the eyes of the people that pay for it.

Of course, if you disagree with that approach and vote against it, that’s fine - but then again, I don’t exactly like a long list of things my taxes pay for either.


Bread and circuses, eh? I don’t see anything inherently wrong with that. I could say more but Cata has basically already said everything I was gonna in the post above.
As far as taxes on watching live TV goes, that is no longer being done on behalf of our public broadcasters, with the tradeoff that they also broadcast commercials, has been that way for decades now. Of course we’re Dutch and I don’t expect that model to be widely adopted. They also broadcast a wide variety of foreign and domestic entertainment programmes, but again I don’t have any real objections to that, in large part because of this:

Particularly when it comes to culture and entertainment, our government also subsidizes, theater, opera and numerous festivals, in addition to musea. Yet unlike our public broadcaster they are often still not very affordable in part because theater and opera owners still get to “cultivate an ambiance of exclusivity”, that basically meant no people like me when I was growing up can afford that or are even allowed in ever. So those taxes go to funding entertainment for the well-off sections of the population exclusively.
Of course much like you and Cata I don’t like a lot of things my taxes help pay for either, chief among them giving huge tax breaks to super-profitable megacorps and no strings attached bailouts to big finance. Particularly the no strings attached part.