"But she's a moderate Horde!"

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

"But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by The Cid » Fri Oct 05, 2012 7:25 pm

WoW in an attack ad.

It's stupid, but at least it's an opportunity to have a little fun with how idiotic political campaign ads are. What scares me is that it might actually sway undecided voters. ("I don't know if I can vote for someone who went Horde!" "I don't agree with Ms. Lachowitz' stances politically, but I do prefer Orcs...")
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

ampersand
Redshirt
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by ampersand » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:30 pm

I always thought the goblins sort of looked like Ross Perot.

User avatar
Arres
Redshirt
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 4:38 am
Location: Pomona, Ca

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by Arres » Sat Oct 06, 2012 12:20 am

It's just so....declasse. I'm not sure if they're going for the "people who play video games are bad" angle, or "Fantasy games (a la D&D) are bad", or just "Look what she said out of context it sounds TERRIBLE". It's just a disastrous campaign. I know I would make it a point TO vote for her as punishment.
Image
Sheldon wrote:For the record, I am waaaay an adult. Like, super-way.
The Ponynati said:You cannot escape us. You cannot stop us. Soon all the world will bow down to the power of ponies.
The Cid wrote:...the text message is the preferred method of communication for prepubescent girls. Bunch of grown men sending digital paper airplanes to each other. Give me a break.

User avatar
The Cid
Redshirt
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by The Cid » Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:44 pm

The article seems to suggest that they're going for "WoW (or MMO) players live out a secret fantasy life." Which, I don't know, means witches or something?

At first I thought it was a funny and semi-fake "attack" ad designed to get people to laugh at the absurdity of the way these things are done. The part about how her character engages in "backstabbing" almost suggests that--I mean, come on--but it looks pretty straight-up and serious.
Arres wrote:I know I would make it a point TO vote for her as punishment.
I feel like that's what is most likely to happen. Not so much as a punishment for a stupid ad, but because there are people who base their vote on the candidate that reminds them of themselves. You know, the "I'm voting for blank because I would enjoy having a beer with them" thing. Some people are going to vote for her because they, too, play WoW.

I do wonder if there's one person who is going to vote against her because they play WoW, but hate either the Horde or rogues for some nerd ragey reason.
ampersand wrote:I always thought the goblins sort of looked like Ross Perot.
You can make a gnome look like Ronald Reagan if you're determined enough.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by collegestudent22 » Sun Oct 07, 2012 5:19 am

The Cid wrote:
Arres wrote:I know I would make it a point TO vote for her as punishment.
I feel like that's what is most likely to happen.[...] Some people are going to vote for her because they, too, play WoW.
Combine these two statements, and you should be able to realize why "representative" democracy is so horribly, horribly flawed.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Arres
Redshirt
Posts: 2064
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 4:38 am
Location: Pomona, Ca

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by Arres » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:48 pm

But still better than all of the alternatives. Including your hippy commune everyone gets along because they want to or you'll sue them in a court that doesn't exist without permission and if they don't like that they can just jolly well stay on their own land they don't own because property rights don't exist except in a might makes right sort of way fairy tale wonderland.
Image
Sheldon wrote:For the record, I am waaaay an adult. Like, super-way.
The Ponynati said:You cannot escape us. You cannot stop us. Soon all the world will bow down to the power of ponies.
The Cid wrote:...the text message is the preferred method of communication for prepubescent girls. Bunch of grown men sending digital paper airplanes to each other. Give me a break.

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by collegestudent22 » Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:58 pm

Arres wrote:But still better than all of the alternatives.
Actually, no. If we must have a State, an old-fashioned European monarchy would be better. At least the monarch would view the country as his private property, and thus not seek to bleed it dry as quickly as possible before the next guy gets in. Having the incentive to encourage prosperity, as opposed to the war of all against all (the "Civil Cold War", as Cid puts it) that democracy necessarily engenders. Taxes are forced to remain relatively low, to prevent a revolt of the people, and wars are waged in the name of the King instead of some all-powerful ideology like Democracy or Freedom or Communism, making them more subdued as opposed to the Total War of the last century or so.
Including your hippy commune everyone gets along because they want to or you'll sue them in a court that doesn't exist without permission and if they don't like that they can just jolly well stay on their own land they don't own because property rights don't exist except in a might makes right sort of way fairy tale wonderland.
Well, I mean, if you want to go that route, I could point out the anatomy of the State - a democratic State is merely a system where you have rights, until we vote them away (or the courts decide you don't have them), and the Jews committed suicide in Nazi Germany because "we are the government" under democracy. Oh, and the inherent contradiction in having an expropriating property "protector", one that charges rent (as "property tax") eliminating any actual private property, that enslaves the people with heavy taxation and compulsory force and calls it "freedom". Except I would actually have a philosophical and historical basis for my claims, as opposed to a critique that has been answered multiple times, by many people, and rejected as thoroughly incorrect, and has existed in American history already. You could at least answer the arguments proposed, instead of mocking it as a "fairy tale wonderland", when it is most certainly not that.

I don't see how you can accept an organization that can lock you in a cage for not following its edicts as "defending liberty", and not recognize it as the slavery it truly is. Did you know that the Supreme Court might rule to start locking people in cages for reselling products they bought without permission? Or that the US has the highest percentage of citizens in jail in the entire world - including states recognized as totalitarian antheaps?
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
JermCool
Redshirt
Posts: 4324
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 2:33 pm
Real Name: Jeremy
Gender: Male
Location: Las Vegas, NV

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by JermCool » Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:43 pm

I can think of two good WoW-related reasons not to vote for her: 1) She's a rogue, and therefore a sneaky, back-stabbing bitch (I can say that since that's what I play and am completely unelectable). 2) She's Horde scum.

Frankly, she's a giant tosser with her reference to "tea-baggers". Because she plays WoW shouldn't be a reason one way or another - although HOW she plays WoW speaks volumes IMO.
Insert Banner Here
"The internet is bullcrap! And everyone on it is retarded!" - Muspar
"All threads should degenerate into the bumming of JermCool." - Rorschach

User avatar
spikegirl7
Redshirt
Posts: 1970
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Real Name: Natalie
Gender: Female
Location: SW city, MO

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by spikegirl7 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:35 am

At least the monarch would view the country as his private property, and thus not seek to bleed it dry as quickly as possible before the next guy gets in.
Nero, anyone? And no, Nero wasn't crazy before you bring up that argument. He was just power hungry. Monarchies are despicable because they condemn most of the population to a life of servility (we are talking literal factual slavery). In a representative democracy you are free from that at least.

As to the representative I think it's hilarious. I have to stop getting pissed about all the silliness at some point and take a step back. When I do this just becomes VERY funny.
'What is morality?'
'Judgment to distinguish right and wrong, vision to see the truth, courage to act upon it, dedication to that which is good, integrity to stand by the good at any price.'

User avatar
collegestudent22
Redshirt
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: "But she's a moderate Horde!"

Post by collegestudent22 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:26 am

spikegirl7 wrote:
At least the monarch would view the country as his private property, and thus not seek to bleed it dry as quickly as possible before the next guy gets in.
Nero, anyone? And no, Nero wasn't crazy before you bring up that argument. He was just power hungry.
Nearly all rulers are power hungry. Under democracy we can point to such tyrants as Hitler and FDR. It is under democracy that nations have gone to war, not for land expansions, but in the name of ideology.

Also, the reported tyrannies of Nero are both historically questionable, and more directly, not his sole actions, even if true. Nero focused much of his attention on diplomacy, trade, and enhancing the cultural life of the Empire. He ordered theaters built and promoted athletic games. During his reign, the redoubtable general Corbulo conducted a successful war and negotiated peace with the Parthian Empire. He did not, as current democracies have with their nations, bleed Rome dry.

Most directly, Nero's tyrannies were individual exercises of power. Executing individuals of the court he was paranoid about, persecuting the Christian minority, and so forth. Their effect on the mass of people was thus less than otherwise would be. I want to be clear I am not arguing that monarchy is perfect or even desirable. Just that it is marginally less bad than democracy. (Also, Nero was not a monarch, but a hereditary emperor, the result of a democratic republic falling into tyranny.)
Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more or less than a hereditary monopoly "owner" — the prince or king — being replaced by temporary and interchangeable — monopoly "caretakers" — presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he "owns" the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on "his" territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.

Nor is it an advantage of democracy that free entry into every state position exists (whereas under monarchy entry is restricted by the king's discretion). To the contrary, only competition in the production of goods is a good thing. Competition in the production of bads is not good; in fact, it is sheer evil. Kings, coming into their position by virtue of birth, might be harmless dilettantes or decent men (and if they are "madmen," they will be quickly restrained or if need be, killed, by close relatives concerned with the possessions of the dynasty). In sharp contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government.

In particular, democracy is seen as promoting an increase in the social rate of time preference (present-orientation) or the "infantilization" of society. It results in continually increased taxes, paper money and paper money inflation, an unending flood of legislation, and a steadily growing "public" debt. By the same token, democracy leads to lower savings, increased legal uncertainty, moral relativism, lawlessness, and crime. Further, democracy is a tool for wealth and income confiscation and redistribution. It involves the legislative "taking" of the property of some — the haves of something — and the "giving" of it to others — the have-nots of things. And since it is presumably something valuable that is being redistributed — of which the haves have too much and the have-nots too little — any such redistribution implies that the incentive to be of value or produce something valuable is systematically reduced. In other words, the proportion of not-so-good people and not-so-good personal traits, habits, and forms of conduct and appearance will increase, and life in society will become increasingly unpleasant.

Last but not least, democracy is described as resulting in a radical change in the conduct of war. Because they can externalize the costs of their own aggression onto others (via taxes), both kings and presidents will be more than 'normally' aggressive and warlike. However, a king's motive for war is typically an ownership-inheritance dispute. The objective of his war is tangible and territorial: to gain control over some piece of real estate and its inhabitants. And to reach this objective it is in his interest to distinguish between combatants (his enemies and targets of attack) and non-combatants and their property (to be left out of the war and undamaged). Democracy has transformed the limited wars of kings into total wars. The motive for war has become ideological — democracy, liberty, civilization, humanity. The objectives are intangible and elusive: the ideological "conversion" of the losers preceded by their "unconditional" surrender (which, because one can never be certain about the sincerity of conversion, may require such means as the mass murder of civilians). And the distinction between combatants and non-combatants becomes fuzzy and ultimately disappears under democracy, and mass war involvement — the draft and popular war rallies — as well as "collateral damage" become part of war strategy.
Monarchies are despicable because they condemn most of the population to a life of servility (we are talking literal factual slavery). In a representative democracy you are free from that at least.
How am I free from that? Slavery was literally consonant with representative democracy until the mid-19th century. Even beyond that, how is it not slavery for the government to take 50% of what I earn just for existing, print up money to devalue what little they leave me with, and force me to do certain things and not do other things under the threat of violence and imprisonment? "Do what I say or I will lock you in a cage" does not sound like being a free man to me.

Further, you overestimate the amount of "literal factual slavery" under monarchy. The vast majority under old European monarchies were not slaves, they were poor, but free, individuals. Perhaps you are confusing it with feudalism and serfdom? Certainly, there were very few, if any, Englishmen (or Europeans of any nation) as slaves in England during the height of the British monarchy. Similar situations existed in France, Prussia, Austria, and so forth.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests