ForestBoard

Jutsa wrote:

Oh jeez! I didn't even notice! I forget, were they the ones with the crazy civil war thing going on in their nation where a lot of us provided support for one side or another, or was that someone else? (Either way I do remember them; shocking they're gone but I suppose everyone's "poofed" lately.)

no but like admin poofed, their name is in bold.

Santichushari wrote:

No! I’ll miss them! I wonder why they got deleted. We may never know. Now, I feel worse. I liked having them around here.

It will remain a mystery

The most serene republicans wrote:

Wait, mine specifically, MSR? I am confused

yeah, just look on the oceanic map

Middle Barael wrote:

Sorry, I understand how what I wrote might have been confusing. Considering that the RP is already in its late stages, being basically in the climax right now, we will not accept new players. I was merely inviting those who have already been participating to return to writing and posting.

aaaaaah, okay
so just UoF it is.

Kepler-0085 wrote:

It will remain a mystery

Yes. It will remain a mystery. 😔 Maybe someone’s asked on the forums. I’ll go check them. There’s nothing on the forums. From what I know, they didn’t spam the RMB or harass other players or break any other rules. I feel like the most confused person on Earth. And saddest.

Excerpt from Eivart Rriu’s press conference transcript

Aukervik
^{January 10, 2022}

“…and as the situation is still not stable in some remote regions like this, which is well-known for its high grade of the Northern Pride, I now announce the return of autonomy to each and every State District. Einswenn is not a small nation and it’s naturally impossible for one man to be in charge of it so now every District will have a Governor appointed by the capital city. Should the people have any issue or inquire, they can contact the Governor office for assistance. Should the people be unsatisfied with the Governor’s job, they can send their collectively signed complaint to the national government office directly.

I still believe that Einset Rriknor doesn’t need as many internal politicians as it had before me to run the country well enough so that is why I decided not to re-establish regional parliamentary system. Local neighbourhoods and town communities are free to manage their local life as they please, they have kept their committees, unions, and other forms of micro-management to stay in charge of their lives while I will keep taking care of the greater scale: our proud nation of Einswenn.”

* * *

Excerpt from Eivart Rriu’s Forså speech

Forså
^{January 14, 2022}

“As you all know, Cape Thilad, formerly known as Dwardossa, is the newest District of Einswenn, yet the most independent and autonomous. During my crusade against democratic corruption you spoke your word to become independent and we heard that. Please, don’t take it personal: my forces pushed you back not for rage or revenge rather for preserving national integrity. We value your free spirit and I personally will take care of keeping things in order and prevent ethnic conflicts on this land. Our settlers that build new cozy towns along the Cape coastline should not bother your communities and customs. Dwarfs, as you prefer to be referred to, can live in peace and harmony with Einseters. Your communes remain independent in their internal affairs but you are no longer represented in national parliament, simply because I destroyed the parliament itself.

Cape Thilad will also have its Governor appointed, however, in your case they will be selected from local representatives of the people of former Dwardossa.”

^{* * *
Seconds ago: Following new legislation in Einswenn, the government is allowing greater autonomy for some regions in the hopes of quelling growing secessionist movements.}

Santichushari wrote:

Yes. It will remain a mystery. 😔 Maybe someone’s asked on the forums. I’ll go check them. There’s nothing on the forums. From what I know, they didn’t spam the RMB or harass other players or break any other rules. I feel like the most confused person on Earth. And saddest.

hmmmmmmmmmmm
maybe we should start a search party?

Imperial states of duotona wrote:

Whenever I see someone in the news who acts particularly evil (mainly the PRC and North Korea) I laugh because nothing hurts the legitimacy of an evil state by making them look like a joke.

yeah it's kinda laughable at

Forest green rovers wrote:

The evil ones in football are oil oligarchy states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Abu Dhabi, who own Paris Saint-Germain, Newcastle united fc, and City football group respectively. Plastic fans don't particularly care for their exploits. China is largely irrelevant in football except for mercenaries like Oscar and Hulk wanting to inflate their bank accounts.

that is so nearly off-topic

howdy, fair folks of forest!

nationstates has been a little deprioritized for me since going home for the holidays and then getting sick and finally starting classes again, but i've been quietly following along with the goings-on of our region. just wanted to pop in today and let you know that i'm here and i appreciate you all!

also my nationstates resolution for 2022 is to rework, restyle, reorganize, and otherwise revise my factbooks... they are in quite the sorry state unfortunately.

keep it up, go team, ramble on, huzzah huzzah, amen

-siornor

As of today, I am double-jabbed with the COVID vaccine.

Forest green rovers wrote:

Nearly, but point stands in the footballing world. Turns out you can put a price on sporting integrity with oil from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Abu Dhabi.

...but my post was never about sports. What's worse, buying a football club or committing atrocities against the Uyghurs?

Jutsa wrote:

setting aside the decent history of genocide most civilizations have under their belt and the daily mass extinction presently ongoing

Ah, human civilization...
Which reminds me of something I've had on my mind. What's this region's opinion on anti-civilization/primitivist anarchists? I mean, I know they're an extremely varied group that includes from 'eco-terrorists' and urban guerillas to internet weebs to straight up eco-fascists in disguise, but like... In general, are they good? bad? misguided?

I imagine that, being a left-leaning environmentalist region, we could have a lot in common with them, seen as they're just a very radical ecologically minded branch of anarchy. What throws me off is not even really the rejection of technology, but more this sort of mystical kind of view of nature... But engaging with them in good faith has been an interesting experience.

The most serene republicans wrote:

What's this region's opinion on anti-civilization/primitivist anarchists?

I feel like I should preface this by saying I'm not a sociologist, and I don't consider myself well-versed on the ideology at all.

From my point of view, there seems to be two different things categorized as "anarchism", and anything in between, with the first being your classical no law enforcement, I can do whatever I want, I will steal a bag of Lays Salt and Vinegar chips from the convenience store and drive home at 10 above the speed limit without a license anarchism. This is the more basic version of it, and I usually find that people who follow this just kinda want to do what they want, and they've built their political world view around it. In the context of living in a modern society, I think this is either ignorant or selfish to a degree, as the only thing separating it from liberalism is the lack of egalitarianism, which is one of the most important and fundamental ideas to my personal worldview, as I think it's the natural predecessor of empathy. I find most anarchists, under this description, are the type of people who want to ensure their survival and comfort, and don't care about society beyond it's ability to provide that for them.

When this combines with primitivism, however, I think it becomes a much more cohesive worldview, especially in an environmental sense. The world is dying, before we had industrialization and consumerism, things were a lot better. Even beyond environmentalism, the way we've built our economic systems (talking as a Canadian, I'm not up to date on every country's economics) prioritizes profits of the few over the health of the many. So why not opt out of the whole system, and go build a cabin in the woods and hunt for food? I actually respect this kind of anarchism a lot, especially if the person follows through, though I don't think it can be widely implemented, and doing so without complete willingness would be immoral. To do this would be to forgo all of the scientific and medical progress we've made. Lifespans would plummet, and I think tribalism would emerge as the dominant ideology because there is not enough habitable land and resources for everyone to be hunter-gatherers living in small groups. The population would either need to plummet, or we'd just end up where we already were, just with a huge technological setback and no global communication. So because it is not morally viable, I don't think this version of anarchism is productive, as it's literally just an opt-out. If you decide to follow this, nothing will change beyond your own removal from the system.

---
The other form of anarchism is a bit more nuanced, where it's the extreme implementation of egalitarianism rather than a lack of it. In this world view, no one is better than anyone else, so therefore, no one has a right to command others in how they act. Of course, there's obviously a lot of room for interpretation, but this leads to the breakdown of governments, police forces, and depending on how you view things, corporations, regulatory bodies, formal education, currency, and worker's unions. Under this world view, everyone acts out of a common interest to better their own life, and this would still retain a lot of the structures we have, as a doctor would benefit from being able to trade their services for resources, and those willing to trade would benefit from healthcare. In a more broad sense, even undesirable jobs will end up getting done in order for people to be able to trade labor for resources, because as was previously stated, there's not enough habitable land for everyone to live on their own. This actually goes hand-in-hand with environmentalism in my opinion, because it's in our best interest to not go extinct.

Of course, this is all theoretical, and assumes empathy, intelligent decision making, and an extremely cohesive moral philosophy in every individual person, as otherwise, people would exploit others to gain power, at best leading to an industrial society where CEOs control every movement of the workforce, and at worst leading to an all-out nuclear apocalypse as a result of clashing dictators. This isn't ideal for obvious reasons. The obvious argument here is that people couldn't do that, because a lack of laws would allow for the forcible removal of people from power, but people can create their own private militias. Even if the world can avoid this for hundreds of years, eventually we'll get a John McAfee who is able to convince enough people they'll benefit from helping them to become too powerful for one person to stop them. We've already seen this happen throughout history, where people rise to power and build civilizations, the only difference is now, they'll still have modern technology around.

I guess my tl:dr for this entire tangent is that society is self-assembling, so we should strive to make people equal through reform of the government and enforcement systems we already have rather than through disassembling them.

As for the primitivism side, I believe this interpretation of anarchism is much less cohesive when you add the rejection of technology. As I've already said, there's not enough productive land for everyone to live primitively. To do so would require massive population decline, either through eugenics, genocide, or good old survival of the fittest, all of which I believe are not egalitarian, morality aside. For this reason, I believe this form of anarchism is completely incompatible with primitivism. That said, I'm a huge fan of the importance this ideology puts on egalitarianism and personal freedom, so I'd keep that, but get rid of everything else, but at that point we're back at liberalism. The good of anarchy is not exclusive to anarchy, so a spirit of individualism is a good thing, but not as a primary motivator in my opinion.

Santichushari wrote:

Sure. That sounds like a good idea. I just want to have answers!

yeah

Jutsa wrote:

Alright guys, lets not get too gung-ho about one deleted user who many of us have established (re: former posts) was most likely deleted for wrongdoing some time before this. No need for a "search party"; what happened happened and it's their business, not ours. (If you're still not satisfied, though, I suspect you're welcome to make an inquiry about it in the moderation forums, although I suspect you might get a similar response to what I've said.)

maybe we should just ask the mods then?

Forest green rovers wrote:

Nearly, but point stands in the footballing world. Turns out you can put a price on sporting integrity with oil from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Abu Dhabi.

...
yeah corruption is a thing and it will be

Imperial states of duotona wrote:

...but my post was never about sports. What's worse, buying a football club or committing atrocities against the Uyghurs?

Uyghur genocide.

Jutsa wrote:

setting aside the decent history of genocide most civilizations have under their belt and the daily mass extinction presently ongoing as an individual not remotely interested in sports, I must say, you can quite probably put a price tag on just about anything. As Qlu Femme (one of Jutsa's ministers) would put it, "Integrity only sometimes works when it's more profitable than corruption".

Which is why Jutsa specializes in the business of selling antibribes and anticorruption bonds and services which definitely work.

good idea!

Uan aa Boa wrote:

I realise that especially in US discourse right now "the state is bad" is generally a right wing libertarian position, but I don't think it's fair to characterise anarchism as necessarily about individualism.

Nor wholly accurate; major forms of anarchism - collectivist anarchism, anarcho-communism - place a central emphasis on mutual aid, have been organized predominantly among workers' unions, and argue that individuals cannot be fully realized as atomized agents.

Jutsa wrote:

Relatable. :p Incidentally though, imo it does give your nation character. While many of us (myself included) look at existing stats/policies and think, "Hmm! That's quite interesting!", there's a lot to be said about a fascinating national history. (#Copingfromstatloss) That said, it does suck that you only half-rebounded after undoing slavery... that's certainly unusual as far as policies are concerned :I (at least for those affecting scientific advancement)

Oh yeah, I'm not against this turn of events from a canonical perspective (like you (and I've) said), it's great for "this period sucked, never again." moments, it's just frustrating how long it takes to repair it. I'm reminded of that "you'll have one bad test in a class and it'll take another 8 good tests to get back to scratch" joke.

But in other news, having gone through the Eco Fr. v. Env. B. data for Difinbelk, I'm not incredibly confident that the plan to delete Env spending w/o crippling Environmental Beauty'll work out (r ~=.9637 so strong correlation), but the data's also not linear so maybe correlation isn't the best way to do this (Anybody know better methods?)
Here's the graph if anyone's interested: https://ibb.co/W5LVVMF (Eco Fr. on Y-axis, Env. B on X)

1. In my experience it seems a little like the term anarcho-primitivism is becoming passé in favor of the term Anti-Civ Anarchist.

2. Would highly recommend John Moore’s “A Primitivist Primer” for a clarification of what Primitivists do - and don’t - believe.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/john-moore-a-primitivist-primer

Primitivists make themselves very susceptible to straw-man attacks because they use idiosyncratic and weirdly-narrow definitions of terms e.g. “technology” (to a primitivist it’s only called technology *if* it already depends on exploitation… tools that are produced and used on a voluntary basis are excluded from technology and are just called tools. Which is not how normal people use those words lmao).
But if a listener can put semantics aside and actually listen to the dynamics and meanings being described instead of the labels, it’s much easier to see the reasonableness underneath it, as a hardcore expression of degrowth-based eco-anarchism.

3. The most important aspect of primitivism isn’t so much the technology angle but the orientation towards social organization that rejects centralization and hierarchical institutionalization. Basically the same sort of project that anarchist anthropologists like Graeber and Wengrow (an archaeologist), Marshall Sahlins, James C. Scott, et al. have been doing. Looking at those cultures that aren’t locked into statehood as a way of life and asking how they do it and how we can learn from them, follow in their footsteps.

4. Obviously an ideology isn’t a monolith and different practitioners have different degrees of lucidity. A lot of primmies rely on the naturalistic fallacy and a lot of them commit to fallacious notions of human nature and “species-being” either directly or indirectly through negatives.