@Drazen I have to say first that I think you are really cool; but I do object to “fetishes of heathen witchcraft” mostly due to the fact that I AM a witch, and those are my deities. It’s a little upsetting to see that on the CoG forums, especially coming from someone I admire.
“There is nothing inherently Liberal in the left-wing.”
Well, of course not; the “left-wing” is strictly a figment of illogical thought and method of sorting–since done so in a manner that pertains to humans, it is a method also of stereotyping.
“Undoubtedly, [Hitler] used religion to his advantage, and tried to build a pseudo-religion around his party and his Volk…”
I must contest that pseudo-religion does not exist; for the same reason a Roman Catholic cannot call a Protestant a follower of a “pseudo-religion,” one cannot contest that what Hitler followed (which is strongly perceived as Roman Catholic) was a “pseudo-religion.” The notion you may have been trying to implement might have been cult–indeed, I believe the statement “. . . tried to build a *cult* around his party and his Volk . . .” is plausible–but the point is regardless. A religion is a large a cult; a cult is a small religion.
“There had already been nine crusades.” (@FortunesFaded also)
I simply didn’t know this. Thank you for telling me.
“I find it prudent to speak of the wing purely in economic terms, to which social stereotypes are fond of adhering.”
Well, if you speak of a “wing” in strictly economic terms, does that not defeat the point of saying “x-wing” over, perhaps, “socialist?” If the term “wing” is used strictly for the point of distinguishing economic belief, wouldn’t it simply be more effective to outright state the economic belief therein?
Might I interject in saying that all religions popular now with be religions of heathens in the future, and all heathen religions of now still heathen religions of the future? Perhaps one can simply express it best as this: all religious people of religion X view all religious people of religion Y as heathens, and all religious people of religion Y view all religious people of religion X as heathens–thus everyone is a heathen (including the disbelievers). So one is forced to conclude that there are no true heathens, for the same reason as this: “Since it is obviously impossible that not all [religions] can be right, the most plausible conclusion is that they are all wrong.”-paraphrased, Christopher Hitchens.
Good point. Tragic really isn’t it? Many people take meaning in their lives from their religion, but in the end it is incredibly fragile. The problem I had with the comment was just that “heathen” considered a derogatory term.
Also: Ehmigerd I’m being spoken to! Live fulfilled.
Very sorry for the left/right presumptions, I was exploiting it so I could be broad in my explanation.
I am instead focusing on the secular/devout, progressive/conservative variables that will only affect their counterpart. This should allow you to mix and match them however you like such as, creating a nation that is socially progressive,religious,socialist and authoritarian or whatever combination you can think of.
I think you’re right when it comes to keeping magic out of it. I found it to hard to try and interweave the two. Religion will still play a large part but it will remain just that. A religion- there will be a complete absence of the supernatural and I hope to allow players to exploit the religious to gain influence.
Thanks for all the support and suggestions guys, a brief demo will be available to second I’ve finished it.
@Hikari_no_Anrui I feel you on the ‘heathen’ front. Definitely does have a derogatory connotation.
@UnicornJesus Realistic political Choicescript game in the works? Can’t wait!
@Hikari_no_Anrui Terribly sorry for any offence; I was being facetiously hellfire-ry. Don’t take me seriously, there, and don’t take it personally.
@adjppm1227 “the “left-wing” is strictly a figment of illogical thought and method of sorting–since done so in a manner that pertains to humans, it is a method also of stereotyping.”
Naturally, which is why I called that fairly fluid form of categorisation a caricature. But even as a fluid caricature, we can identify certain features and draw out certain attributes; Economic collectivisation would be among them, political liberalism would not.
“I must contest that pseudo-religion does not exist [etc.]”
Oh I wasn’t talking about his supposed Roman Catholicism; I was talking about the weird ceremonial fanaticism which he built around the Nazi party and his ethno-nationalist theories, as epitomised by the conduct at the rallies. I call this a pseudo-religion, for whilst it is somewhat religious in form, and appears to seek to emulate liturgy, it is in no way religious in substance.
(Also: "for the same reason a Roman Catholic cannot call a Protestant a follower of a “pseudo-religion” - I have numerous Roman Catholic friends who would disagree with you there. Also, anecdotally, I had a very pleasant conversation with a Greek Orthodox chap, who claimed the Episcopal See of St Peter was vacant, due to Catholicism being a heresy, - I have to say, I liked his spirit.)
“Well, if you speak of a “wing” in strictly economic terms [etc.]”
No, because like good and evil, there is a scale at play; the ‘left’ and ‘right’ wings are simply ends of those scale. The reason we wouldn’t call the left socialist is because certain political positions lean towards collectivisation, without constituting full socialism (Fascism, for example), whilst some go even further than that (Communism, arguably); Likewise, we wouldn’t call the right capitalist, because ideologies on that scale, - libertarianism, distributivism, and corporatism, - all vary in intensity, and whilst they may be broadly assigned to a wing, cannot be subsumed under the generic ideology of that wing.
And for the love of God: “Since it is obviously impossible that not all [religions] can be right, the most plausible conclusion is that they are all wrong.” - This should be given to students studying critical thinking, as an example of pure balderdash.
And once again, @Hikari_no_Anrui “Many people take meaning in their lives from their religion, but in the end it is incredibly fragile.” - That rather depends on what grounds their religion. For example, the Christian Platonist tradition has a robust, rational ground to its religion, with the articles of faith supplementing the foundation, rather than supporting it. Fragility can be overcome with a robustness of metaphysics.
@darkstar2101 What von Clausewitz said about war being politics through other means is true vice versa, too.
“. . . economic collectivisation would be among [certain features of the “left-wing”], political liberalism would not.”
Now this is an unfair statement, for the precise reason’s I have stated. You might as well claim that all blonds must have blue eyes, and all brunettes that of brown.
“I call this a pseudo-religion, for whilst it is somewhat religious in form, and appears to seek to emulate liturgy, it is in no way religious in substance.”
Thus we return to the cult; I must reiterate that all cults are simply small religions; in being small religions, they are essentially the foundations of religion. I have, alas, never known the brick-and-mortar on which a house stands to be painted with the elegance of the Sistine (did I spell that correctly?) Chapel.
Moreover, if you think that the worship of a material being and its thoughts is below the mental irrationality of religion (you seem to believe such when you say . . . “I was talking about the weird ceremonial fanaticism which he built around the Nazi party and his ethno-nationalist theories, as epitomised by the conduct at the rallies.”) then I must implore you to look into ancient Egyptian religion in which the pharaoh was indeed the child of a god; even now, in a world of modern states, we will see that Kim Jong-Un is subject to the radicalization and fanaticism that pursues the leader of a cult, in the same way that Jim Jones was pursued by his cultist members. And again I reiterate; a cult is simply a small religion. “Pseudo-religion” cannot exist because one cannot falsify fiction with existing fiction; for this precise reason, one cannot say ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’ is “pseudo-fantasy” because they hold ‘The Lord of Rings’ in greater esteem.
“[The above quote on the plausibility of all religions being incorrect] should be given to students studying critical thinking, as an example of pure balderdash.”
Assuming that the word “balderdash” means to be illogical and eccentric to thought, I must contend that all religions are–essentially–making the same claim; that they hold the correct deity(ies), that said deity(ies) were creation deity(ies), that there is an afterlife, and that their deity(ies) have the capability to reward and punish; ironically, no religions hold any empirical or logical evidence for their deity(ies)–that is why we, as humans, are constantly changing them out.
This is best expressed in the quote by Thomas Jefferson, which follows as: “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
@adjppm1227 “Now this is an unfair statement, for the precise reason’s I have stated.”
I disagree. If you reject the terms as having any attributes, such as those given by myself, then you seem to be stating that the words have no meaning; I cannot accept that. Even if you think the terms are broad and vague, they still have properties. If I was to call someone a hippie, it wouldn’t be clear exactly what I was saying, true, but one can safely surmise it is not someone who is in favour of industrial development, temperance, social etiquette, or bathing.
“Thus we return to the cult; I must reiterate that all cults are simply small religions”
Properly speaking, I wouldn’t call it a cult, either, - although that term has been watered down, in the past few centuries. At present, we would call any ceremonially devoted movement a cult; I maintain that cults actually must pertain to the divine. Which the aspects surrounding the Nazi party did not really do.
“ancient Egyptian religion in which the pharaoh was indeed the child of a god”
Making it a religion proper, - or a large cult proper, - since nobody said the divine couldn’t be instantiated materially, so long as it isn’t grounded thus.
“we will see that Kim Jong-Un is subject to the radicalization and fanaticism that pursues the leader of a cult”
Whereas here we have a pseudo-religion, or a pseudo-cult, because the divine is lacking, with the form having been appropriated.
“no religions hold any empirical or logical evidence for their deity(ies)”
Obviously there is no empirical argument for their most foundational claims. But no LOGICAL evidence? None? Dear sir, there is plenty.
I think this is my favourite: http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/godasfir.htm
May I suggest a religion thread, so as not to entirely hijack UnicornJesus’ WiP one?
I think @Havenstone is probably right in saying we men of debate will most plausibly consume this thread with talk of religion. If you’d like, one of us could create a religion thread and from there I’ll counter the above arguments with my own.
-in truthful regard,
Welcome aboard and glad to hear about this. I just really, really, really hope you carry through here. From what I understand, CoG’s forums tend to have a really poor track record of carrying through political simulators, even if it’s something I’m badly looking foreward to!
Offhand, your overall concepts sound good, though I would have to say that Extreme Left Wing governments can and also do engage in genocide (and even various others do). But random question: what if someone- say- wanted to rule with an iron fist by bringing (or at least drawing) power from the people (ala populist dictatorships like the Medici or what have you)?
Still, if there’s any way I can help, don’t hesitate. I’m looking foreward to what you come up with!
"Can you name any right-wing genocides? Because this is something that bothers me, the public misuse of the term “Right wing.” "
The long and short of it is that Yes, I can. Numerous ones.
In order to eliminate any ambiguities about whether a given thing was a genocide (since while the Colombian devastation that accompanied Europe’s exploration of the Americas did feature genocide and was done mostly by right of center governments- especially Absolute Monarchies like Spain and Portugal- it was primarily done by coincidental disease) or Right-Wing (the eternal issue over where “Fascism” falls), I’ll try and limit myself to the indisputable ones:
A: More or less everything Imperial Germany did in its’ colonial history, Ever. But most notably the Herero and Naquama genocides of Southwestern Africa/Namibia, where we have it basically spelled out.
B: The Ottoman Turkish campaign to exterminate everybody non-Muslim and most Non-Turkish in the Empire from around the 1870’s to their final defeat in WWI, including the Armenians, Greeks, Chaldeans, and plenty of others.
C: The Imperial German plan to “cleanse” a “Polish Border Strip” of Poles and repopulate it with Germans.
D: The Royal Jordanian Government’s decision to react to a power struggle with the PLO by butchering more or less all the Palestinian Refugee camps on its’ territory.
E: The Qing Court’s decision to utterly annihilate the Dzunghers. outside of the norms of their own military conduct.
F: The Tsarist Russian scourging (I can’t name it any better) of the Circassians throughout the Caucasus.
G: The Tokugawa Shogunate basically going “F* it” and aiming to exterminate all indigenous and non-Dutch foreign Christians.
H: The (Royal) Serb-Montinegrin occupation of Albania and Bosnia around the 1910’s, where they made themselves so utterly despised that it caused an international scandal.
I: The Tsarist Russian and Bulgarian obliteration of most of the East Balkan Muslims and Turks in 1878.
J: The Sun King’s practice towards French Protestants.
K: Most of the reign of Charles V/I (if i had to fill out every single thing for the Habsburgs, this would take aeons).
I: The Islamist/Secular Military Dictatorship of Pakistan’s attempts to crack Bengali opposition in the leadup to Bangladeshi independence.
And believe me, I could go on and on and on, but those are just the ones that come to my mind right off the bat. So let’s just get that out of the way. Regardless of my personal opinions of how the Right-Wing label has been misused (which are at least somewhat similar to your own), there have been several right-wing genocides by anybody’s definition. So we can move on.
@Storm Basically he asked @FairyGodfeather something about ethintisity, and when he didn’t answer he took that FairyGodfeather was ignoring him. He proceeded to act like a child, calling FairyGodfeather names and basically attacking him. This is poor behavior to begin with, but FairyGodfeather is a moderator as well, so I’m not sure how he expected this to play out. The thread in question is http://www.choiceofgames.com/forum/discussion/2948/how-much-customisation#Item_36
Bugger. Well, at the very least, maybe that can serve as a reference for anybody else wondering about that.
Thanks for telling me.
Thanks for the clarification.
Truth be told, Drazen and @FairyGodfeather are two of the people on here that I’m probably closest to. Seeing this is pretty hard.
Sorry about the clutter. Carry on! Onwards and upwards!
Just to clarify (and sorry for being off topic). Drazen received a three month ban. He is not banned from the forum forever. He is welcome to return after three months as long as he can act according to the rules.
Jason’s words to him were, as can be seen on another thread: “You are banned from the forums for the next three months. Your continual harassment of the moderators is inappropriate and unacceptable.” Note the plural, moderators, there. It wasn’t just one isolated incident. It’s just for three months, not forever.
Anyway please return to your thread and let’s not drag it off topic anymore.
Sorry for bringing this up.
Back on topic. What type of government(s) will there be?