Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nicoletta Mithra]

'Space Catholics'

I think that you understood something fundamentally the wrong way, there. Also, I don't know where you get the impression that most Amarr RPers play something akin to 'Pauline Christianity' (or rather the caricature of it you seem to have in mind here) or 'fire and brimstone bully pulpit'-type of characters.

The Amarr community I am part of has those types of fanatics, but they are far, very far from being the majority. Luckily, I think.

[purple]

Why Gallente and not Caldari?

Eve PF was designed in a way that on the surface each of the races appears a certain way if you don't dig too deeply - but once in weeds things are much different than they appear a first brush.   From a cursory glance the Caldari appear to be wage slaves to a fascist corporate state while the Federation seems fairly Utopian.     This made for a lot of RP conflicts (content) because of players either looking at their enemy faction only in passing - or deliberately having their character accept at face value the picture on the cereal box.  (Those guys are the best ones to RP with)

TonyG gave the factions only a brief review before he shat out TEA and the FW arcs and caused much damage to the beautiful subtly of Eve fiction.   Falcon et al have done a lot of good work to repair damage but seemed to have still missed much of the original subtleties.  Ether that or they've realized that the average eve player is now much more stupid than they used to be and are marketing to their new audience.     A lot of key, but seemingly minor things have been retconned away. 

Concerning fascism:  according to the wiki page, what qualities make a nation fascist is not clearly agreed upon in academic circles so  that makes it hard for me to be certain that a fictional entity clearly meets the definition.   

However, it is clear that two important criteria are the primacy of the state and imperialism.       While they choose to show a solid face to the outside, the State is a confederacy of independent nations:  the Megacorps.   Authority is not centralized.     Another fascist prerequisite , that is an offshoot of a centralized authority is, is a planned economy.   The Caldari economy most definitely is not a planned one.   It's organic and hyper-capitalistic.

Also, of the four nations the Caldari are the least imperialistic.     While it frequently takes aggressive actions with foreign powers the state's military was designed on a strictly defensive doctrine.   These aggressive actions are to both test the Caldari's military against potential invaders and to remind those potential conquerors that a siege on the Caldari would be very painful.

It may or may not be true that the Gallente pushed the Caldari to the brink of extinction but it doesn't matter because the Caldari THINK they did.   This is vital to understanding the Caldari, and the Patriot faction in particular.     Priority number one is ensuring they are never in a position where they could be destroyed ever again.  The Caldari are terrified that the Gallente, and to a lesser degree the other two empires, are going to try again to murder them (either physically or as a distinct culture) and therefore they MUST be the strongest.   The MUST have the most advanced technology, the best trained soldiers and the strongest economy in order to support that.    That's why they took the idea of the megacorp from the Gallente - they credit the Megacorp model and hyper-capitalism with the Gallente's initial superiority in military, technological and economic might.

The Strategy though, wasn't to be a super offensive force capable of conquering other empires but of being a super defensive force.   They are like the those guys in Starcraft or Age of Empires who turtle up behind walls and turrets and only expand one they've exhausted all the raw materials within their defensive perimeter.    They only expanded into Pure Blind and Black Rise because they needed the raw materials and because both areas were un-populated by others at the time.    Unlike the Federation and the Amarr they also have no imperialistic drive to force Caldari culture on the rest of humanity - but on rather on limiting the rest of humanities contamination of the Caldari.

The history of the federation is also the history Caldari and in reading it you learn both that it could easily be argued that the Federation is more imperialistic (militant and otherwise) than even the Amarrians and why the Caldari just want to be left alone.

[purple]

EDIT: Whoops, I missed this one. I suppose Purple was right. The Caldari state is a Corporatocracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

A corporatocracy that is corporatist.  (Run by businesses and values the group over the individual)

[purple]

The Corporation (as a legal entity), is in itself a Totalitarian institution. When we belong to a corporation, we do not get to vote for the board of directors, or choose the CEO. We are told when to show up for work, when to leave, what to do, how much we will be paid, etc. It is a rigid hierarchy where the only options are either compliance or punishment/ dismissal.

This is false.   You get votes called shares.  But instead of just being given an equal vote, that you don't deserve, as people with higher IQs and greater ambition you have to earn it.   

Even if you don't contribute much to society and as a result your networth is low, you can pool what you have with others who are like minded and still have a greater influence than you would over the local city council.

You can also vote with your feet and consumer dollar too.  If a CEO's choices are so unpopular they can't keep quality employees and have such a bad reputation for how they treat employees that people boycott them - they will be fired.

[BloodBird]

Oh no, I guess us dirty nasty gays will just have to stop roleplaying Caldari, right? Should we swallow a bullet too?

I stopped caring what EVE lore said about homosexuality a long time ago. If you think Katrina should be ostracized for it, don't try to fuckin' roleplay with me.

Real simple isn't it?

You know what, nevermind.

I've not read the whole topic yet, so I may be to late and this is pointed out, but here goes:

If the Caldari states says gays are bad, gays in the State will have to deal, somehow. One of those ways may be to not reveal their gay factor until they become, say, capsuleers.

Kat may or may not have done so, that's rather irrelevant to my point.

In the Federation, being pro-slavery is a MAJOR no-no. Anyone that has some sort of secret slave den or whatever better not share that shit until they can do so without consequence - "I'm a capsuleer now, fuck off with you miss. police-girl, I can't be touched."

Capsuleers are one of the groups exempt from the rules, base-liners can't touch you when you are a capsuleer.

But other capsuleers can. IF any Pro-State RP'ers want to give Kat shit for being lez when the State clearly disagrees with that, that will be on them. It will be the same as Pro-Amarr players giving Sani's shit or Pro-Fed players giving slave runners flak. It's IC consequences for IC stances and choices, and while you are surely in your right to not want to RP with some topics or whatever, you do not get to say what people can and can't RP with in any setting where that topic they want to bring out exists in the setting.

FFS Kat this is RP 101. AFAIK no-one has asked you to stop RP'ing a gay person in the State, that's like asking an Amarrian player to stop RP'ing a freaking atheist non-conformist or whatever. They can't deny you that, but you can't demand that others tailor how they RP to work around you because you declare that Kat's lesbian status is taboo.

IC decisions and stances can get IC responses, everyone has to deal with that, and so do you. Even if that IC response is to blatantly block any contact with the other party, that would be a simple fix.

[BloodBird]

It was said not about Caldari, but about the State.
For example, Gurista are Caldari too and are not limited by State laws, morals and traditions. One don't even have to be Gurista. Many Caldari just run from the State because they can't cope with strict State customs with exhausting competitions, and can establish their own societies or work for Nulsec Empires (or who would run all these stations, outposts, planetary colonies, capsuleer ships), where almost anything is possible.

That, or they leave for the Fed and settle on the Fed-loyal Caldari worlds or on Caldari Prime itself. The funny thing is since the G/C war and up until the Empyrian war IIRC the Fed never denied Caldari people the right to live on CP, they just denied the STATE ownership of the planet. Any Caldari who are unhappy with the State are likely to be welcomed with open arms, and in Fed space they likely don't give two shits if your gay or bi or whatever. Now it's even easier: just move to the Ishukone owned side of CP and then move over the border - assuming ofc that's allowed.

[BloodBird]

My bad, guys. I've been working pretty much constant shifts and this morning I was pretty ill because I didn't get much sleep the night before.

Noted. And now suddenly I feel like a ginormous prick :/

[Katrina Oniseki]

lol. It's cool mang.

[BloodBird]

of the four nations the Caldari are the least imperialistic.

Black Rise says hi. So does the State invasion of Federation space in Placid and elsewhere, annexing and assuming control over these areas for long enough to auction off the "development rights" of these areas to the various groups that make up the Caldari "Empire", sometimes this would be described as the Caldari coming in and presenting a "better" way of doing things to the Federal citizens they had now claimed control over. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism for some details and read the biased stain of a chronicle called The Ever Turning Wheels for your example.

So, gaining a whole new region and enforcing imperialist control over annexed territory. Compare that to the Minmatar Republic, IMHO the least imperialist of the Big-5.

[Jikahr]

'Space Catholics'

I think that you understood something fundamentally the wrong way, there.

I am getting a bit off topic here.

I put the word 'Space Catholics' in the single quotation marks to indicate that this is how the Amarrian religion is stereotypically envisioned by the EVE community as a whole, although not roleplayers in particular. I meant it in an ironic sense, not a descriptive one.

I understand that the Amarrian religion is completely different from any conception that we may have of the Catholic church, both past and present, although there are obvious similarities and comparisons. I thought I explained my position on that in great detail on another thread. I recall that both of us were contributing to that discussion.

Why did you call out that one quote in particular? It seems like it is taken out of context.

Also, I don't know where you get the impression that most Amarr RPers play something akin to 'Pauline Christianity' (or rather the caricature of it you seem to have in mind here) or 'fire and brimstone bully pulpit'-type of characters.

Where did I get that impression?

1st Praetorian Guard.

Odelya? Naupilius? Also 1PG.

As you have pointed out though, it is my impression. My perspective. My crudely rendered sketch of the world of EVE that I perceive. It is based on my own personal real life experiences, preferences, prejudices, and expectations.   

I can't say that 'most' Amarrian roleplayers play something akin to (quote) 'Pauline Christianity', since I haven't met 'most' roleplayers. I have only interacted with a small select group. Even in that instance though, the roleplay was limited (often by necessity) to one line emotes about God and slaves and scriptures. Certainly, there were a few Praetorians who roleplayed atypical Amarrians such as closet Atheists and such. We weren't all cookie cutter one dimensional characters.

However, when comparing characters such as the quiet, cerebral priest who is a respected Academic against the foaming at the mouth serpent handling fanatical freak, it tends to be the screamers and jumpers that stand out.

The Amarr community I am part of has those types of fanatics, but they are far, very far from being the majority. Luckily, I think.

I don't know what Amarr community you are part of. 1PG was with CVA in Providence for a while. The CVA claims to be a roleplay community, but I personally didn't see much of it. Again, perhaps this is out of necessity. It's difficult to roleplay if you are in the middle of combat, for example.

It's about preferences and perspectives. You and I seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum here. I personally prefer over the top fanatics, but apparently you do not. I fail to see your issue with the fanatics, since they give contrast to the more 'vanilla flavoured' moderates who, in my opinion, are more like lazy and/or timid roleplayers than bold, creative ones.

To be honest, I think it is the moderate, liberal Amarrian characters that are contributing the most to the stereotype of the Amarrian religion as being like 'Space Christianity'. Amarrians opposed to slavery, for example. Certainly, we need discordant voices and a spectrum of personalities, but please don't try to make the Amarr into God fearing Gallentians.

Some Amarrian players seem to bring their own perspectives and attitudes from real life and try to implement them in EVE. (e.g. "I am a devout Christian in real life who thinks living in a Theocratic state would be just awesome, and I am glad to have such a community in EVE.")

I have heard such discussions in the newbie chat, as well as the Caldari NPC corp chat.

"Why are there so few Amarrian characters? 'Most players think of Amarr roleplayers as born again Christians, that's why.'"

I have also heard people say that they chose Caldari because they 'love Capitalism'. To them it seems, the existence of something like Jita on a computer server is proof that 'capitalism works'. In reality, I would say that the four factions are like a funhouse mirror. There are four types to choose from, but what you see in the mirror is a distorted reflection of yourself.

When you say 'most' roleplayers, take into consideration that 'most' players of EVE are about 14, of average intelligence, and a superficial understanding of the 'window dressing' prime fiction which for them is really just an excuse to blow up spaceships.

[purple]

Why does nearly every discussions I have here have at least one point in the conversation go something like:

Me:   I feel like the common concept that 'X is Y because of fact Z' could be argued as false because facts Q, R,S, and T all prove fact Z is either false or commonly misunderstood and therefore conclusions drawn from it must be reconsidered.    Would any of you rational chaps like to have a discussion on the merits Q,R,S,T and Z?

RPGuy :   X is Y because of fact Z.

TonyG gave the factions only a brief review before he shat out TEA and the FW arcs and caused much damage to the beautiful subtly of Eve fiction.   

They are like the those guys in Starcraft or Age of Empires who turtle up behind walls and turrets and only expand one they've exhausted all the raw materials within their defensive
perimeter.    They only expanded into Pure Blind and Black Rise because they needed the raw materials and because both areas were un-populated by others at the time.    Unlike the Federation and the Amarr they also have no imperialistic drive to force Caldari culture on the rest of humanity - but on rather on limiting the rest of humanities contamination of the Caldari.

  But what about Black Rise and the TEA/FW arcs shat out by TonyG?  Hmm?  You clearly didn't not consider that!

[Jikahr]

Concerning fascism:  according to the wiki page, what qualities make a nation fascist is not clearly agreed upon in academic circles so  that makes it hard for me to be certain that a fictional entity clearly meets the definition.

The man who invented the telephone would describe it as an electrical means to convey auditory signals across long distances by wire.

The man who invented Fascism described it as a fusion of state and corporate powers.

Academics are not in clear agreement about the definition of Fascism for a variety of reasons. For one, they get paid by the word, and love arguing with other academics. Secondly, whereas you could proudly wear a Fascist uniform and openly call yourself a Fascist at one time, the word itself has become a pejorative. Thirdly, as I stated before, the demogogues who run the Fascist state often find that their theories don't work out in the real world, and switch their policies and procedures to adjust and maintain power.     

However, it is clear that two important criteria are the primacy of the state and imperialism.       While they choose to show a solid face to the outside, the State is a confederacy of independent nations:  the Megacorps.   Authority is not centralized.

Nor is authority centralized in an inverted totalitarian society. 

Another fascist prerequisite , that is an offshoot of a centralized authority is, is a planned economy.   The Caldari economy most definitely is not a planned one.   It's organic and hyper-capitalistic.

I have no idea where you got the 'planned economy' from. The wikipedia site describes it as a mixed economy.

There is a popular misconception that Nazism was socialist, because they had the word 'socialist' in their name. In actual fact, Nazism was actually hyper-Capitalist. The Nazi state was not run by Hitler, but by large corporations such as I.G. Farben, Siemens, and Bayer. The perpetual war was conducted in order to make corporate profits, and concentration camp inmates were used as slave labour to increase corporate profits.

Yes, American corporations also invested money into the Nazi party as well, such as Ford motors, Coca-cola, and IBM. It was Ford trucks that helped the Nazis to mobilize their forces so quickly, and an IBM punch card machine that helped to categorize prisoners in the concentration camps. When the machine at Auschwitz broke down, they had to call in a technician from Texas to fix it.

Are you familiar with General Smedley Butler and the Business plot? In 1933, Wall Street industrialists planned to overthrow the United States government by force and implement a Fascist dictatorship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXGUgFXoRu4

Have you heard of the word 'privatization'? It was originally a German word, and a Nazi invention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-taliano/privatization-_b_5223528.html

Also, of the four nations the Caldari are the least imperialistic.  While it frequently takes aggressive actions with foreign powers the state's military was designed on a strictly defensive doctrine.   These aggressive actions are to both test the Caldari's military against potential invaders and to remind those potential conquerors that a siege on the Caldari would be very painful.

I don't see where Imperialism is a defining characteristic of Fascism. It does not say so in any of the definitions of Fascism that I have come across.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

However, using Imperialism as a standard, would you say that Victorian England or the United States are more Fascist than Italy or Germany?

Consider that the United States, and Canada as well, is territory that was conquered or stolen from the Indigenous inhabitants, who were often put into concentration camps that we would call 'Reservations'. The North American continent is a lot of territory conquered. By comparison, the land taken by Nazi Germany is miniscule in comparison.

Also, EVERY Empire in history has used 'self defense' as an excuse to invade their neighbour. The Ancient Romans did it, the Nazis did it, England and the United States do it. As Goering said, nobody really wants a war, so you have to convince the people that they are being attacked.

http://www.rense.com/general21/wara.htm

[Jikahr]

The Corporation (as a legal entity), is in itself a Totalitarian institution. When we belong to a corporation, we do not get to vote for the board of directors, or choose the CEO. We are told when to show up for work, when to leave, what to do, how much we will be paid, etc. It is a rigid hierarchy where the only options are either compliance or punishment/ dismissal.

This is false.   You get votes called shares.  But instead of just being given an equal vote, that you don't deserve, as people with higher IQs and greater ambition you have to earn it.   

Even if you don't contribute much to society and as a result your networth is low, you can pool what you have with others who are like minded and still have a greater influence than you would over the local city council.

You can also vote with your feet and consumer dollar too.  If a CEO's choices are so unpopular they can't keep quality employees and have such a bad reputation for how they treat employees that people boycott them - they will be fired.

So you are saying that because shareholders who are fortunate enough to have the money to be able to purchase stock are able to vote, that somehow means the Corporation is not a Totalitarian institution?

I remember the CEO of OPC saying the same thing in Robocop. He was the villain.

The Nazis were elected into power. There were elections in the Soviet Union. The Ancient Spartans used voting in their system. Votes do not equal democracy, or negate the reality of a totalitarian institution.

I am not talking about the larger society which the Corporation resides within. I am referring to the Corporate structure itself. Independently, the corporate structure is a rigid hierarchy. If you are an employee within the corporation, then no you don't have a choice, unless you work in a PARECON structure, where the highest authority is the General Assembly.

Sure, you can vote with your feet and your dollar. You can also vote with a bullet.

Sure CEOs can be fired, but then what happens? They get replaced by a new CEO? Employees can look for a new place of employment, but their new job won't be much different from their old job. The guy on the bottom of the totem pole still doesn't have any say in how the corporation is run, unless he strikes or belongs to a Union...which is resorting to coercion.

It seems we are getting into discussing real world ideologies and differences here, which have little to do with the world of EVE. In the interests of remaining on topic, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[purple]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
A mixed economy is a mix of socialism (planned economy)  and with privately owned companies.    To me, having a planned economy where many of the actors in the economy aren't state owned but allowed to remain private as long as they serve a function of the plan adequately cannot actually be described as mixed socialism  and capitalism.   Just socialism.    Capitalism does not exist without total freedom of choice.   Am I really the owner of my company if my company must meet the government's expectations on production using the governments provided plan for reaching those expectations?  Especially since if don't comply I'll be jailed and government officials will replace me?   Nationalized by any other name is still nationalized.

Also, I've seen plenty of arguments that while the Nazi left the 'ownership' of many companies in the hands of private citizens instead of nationalizing them they were expected to strictly adhere to their part in the planned economy.       Just because they had large 'private' (on paper) companies producing mass quantities of war material didn't make them capitalist.

[purple]

So you are saying that because shareholders who are fortunate enough to have the money to be able to purchase stock are able to vote, that somehow means the Corporation is not a Totalitarian institution?

I remember the CEO of OPC saying the same thing in Robocop. He was the villain.

Yes I am saying that.   Yes, California has leaned socialist since the 80s and even farther back - and yes many Hollywood directors like to put pro-socialist propaganda into their movies.   I'm also saying luck has little to do with your wealth.    Most people who inherit great wealth from their parents or grand parents do nothing but squander it away until it's gone.    Those that maintain it or enlarge the families wealth do so because they inherited the traits that allowed their parents to earn it in the first place.   Outside of people being born into wealth and the lottery money doesn't just come at you because of luck. People give you money because you provide them with something of value.    Those who come into wealth via luck, and don't provide value to society tend to disperse (spend) that wealth back among the people who do.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/25/luxury/family-wealth/
http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/family-wealth-heir-children/2014/06/25/id/579236/

Nearly 60% of the time a family's money is exhausted by the children of the person who created the wealth, according to Roy Williams, president of wealth consultancy The Williams Group. In 90% of the cases it's gone by the time the grandchildren die. "The people who created the wealth were often obsessive," said Russ Prince, president of the wealth research and consulting firm Prince and Associates. "But their kids were not hungry."