So there we are. The desired response from Pieter is here, Aria, and Veik’s arguments have yet to be refuted. So, as an outsider, is there any reason why I shouldn’t give them weight in terms of understanding the State?
2 Likes
Well, not completely.
So, like a lot of stuff Veik says, there’s an element of truth here, and it cuts in various directions.
There’s a saying that applies, broadly, to the Caldari: “Me against my brother; me and my brother against my uncle; me, my brother, and my uncle against the stranger.” That doesn’t mean that two technicians will usually meet on the factory floor glaring daggers at each other, even if they are technically in competition, though. Caldari, as a culture, love to compete, but they’re also highly community-oriented. One who undercuts the community for the sake of personal (or other sub-unit) gain will be seen as a traitor. That works at just about every level, all the way up.
Mind you, this can result in shooting wars where everybody insists they’re just acting in the best interests of the greater whole. The Cerberus and Eagle HACs are the product of kind of an arms race between Ishukone and Lai Dai, very much in this spirit. You don’t hear much about it now, though, because there’s an ongoing outside military conflict, however limited in scale.
The place where that community spirit stops is, indeed, “the stranger”-- there’s no level of the community that really includes outsiders. Nothing is owed, though despite Pieter’s remarks there is a common practice of honoring agreements made. After all, one who wishes to do business in the future should try to satisfy a customer in the present. Likewise, client peoples can generally expect to have their agreements with the State honored unless something pops up that the Caldari really, really want. Like I noted above, it’s the main form of “soft power” towards outsiders the Caldari seem to engage in-- you haven’t necessarily dishonored yourself if you break an agreement with a stranger, but you have weakened prospects for future dealings with that stranger and their community.
I’m a little surprised you didn’t notice the most basic problem with Veik’s citation. Maybe this history’s a little more important to me, though. She’s talking about events before the Caldari and Gallente went their separate ways-- that is, before the megacorporations actually became the Caldari government. She’s talking about civil lobbying and influence as though it were equivalent to, and proof of, foreign intervention. It’s a pretty strange argument.
Then again, the Caldari did kind of decapitate the Achura as a civilization. They were just pretty careful about not messing with our culture otherwise. It might be more accurate to say that the Caldari seem to consider themselves licensed to remove threats, but not to interfere much more than that. Considering what the error-state of Federal democracy has historically been (highly-aggressive fascist military power), undercutting it might be considered problematic because it would be more likely to create a threat than eliminate one? Particularly if any sabotage could be traced to the State. Hm.
Bad historical examples aside, the place where Veik’s claim kind of falls down (like a lot of her claims) is the idea that “this is how the Caldari are.” Yes, probably a lot of corporate executives see just about everything as a sort of gradation of competition that could be described as “war.” (The Practicals are particularly infamous for being, well, very realpolitik-y?) The Caldari, more broadly, though, see this world as a crucible, not a battlefield. It’s a struggle, sure, but it’s neither a game nor a winnable fight. The strong don’t win; they endure.
That said, some will see their proper role as aiding the State’s efforts at enduring by winning, themselves, on their own behalf and that of their community (on whatever scale). That’s where Veik’s really got a good point.
1 Like
The Mega corps did start to exist before the War, though, Aria. They may have arisen in emulation of the Gallente corporations or they may have already existed, but been shaped by those Gallente Corporations - but they definitely existed.
But, since Miz missed my arguments, I’ll repeat them here and more clearly…
- Veikitamo’s statements cannot be taken at face value for several reasons.
- There is no one opinion that can be argued to be the opinion of ‘The State’. ‘The State’ is often an illusion formed from the shifting dance of intersecting opinions and needs - imagine one of those ‘bait balls’ that are formed by aquatic herds of fish in the wild.
- Veikitamo’s statements are not meant to be internally consistent. They are meant to be confusing. If they don’t represent the true opinions of HER, then how can they represent the true opinions of The State?
3 Likes
Separate the arguments from the speaker, and they will stand or fall on their merits. If you disregard arguments because of who spoke them, you are effectively leaving them without opposition and there’s nothing to discredit their merit or worth.
When your counter-argument to her argument is “but but but Veik”, you increase their validity as far as I’m concerned.
1 Like
Well. You’re welcome to take Gesakaarin’s word as gospel truth, then.
As for my experience, I will say that she’s a remarkably clever and talented troll, not unlike some others on this forum, and similarly best ignored given the lack of honesty or internal consistency.
3 Likes
Fucksakes, people. I’m not holding her up as some damned paragon of truth. I’m simply saying that if her arguments do not hold water, it should not be this spirits-be-damned difficult to refute them without appealing to “oh but she said it” as if that means anything.
2 Likes
Here’s the trick, Ms. Del’thul.
She considers it victory if she ropes you into making an effort.
So, I’ve just stopped.
3 Likes
She probably considers it equally as much a victory if she’s having such an impact that people instinctively shy away from refuting her arguments simply because she spoke them. More importantly, should her feelings on the matter be considered so heavily that what has been claimed to be erroneous arguments should remain the last and so far best word on a subject simply out of spite?
This from the very same people who considers me “too angry”. This is baby and bathwater stuff, guys.
Ah well, at least Aria finally came around and laid down some actual arguments. Much appreciated, and providing the necessary different perspectives required for a more… nuanced viewpoint.
1 Like
Miz, ordinarily I do believe in weighing an observation independent of the speaker, and even in Veik’s case I sometimes do, but do you remember me saying earlier that the most dangerous deceptions contain an element of truth? Veik’s really good at those.
If you take her statements at face value just because they’re not obviously wrong, you’ll be doing a lot of delving.
–
Pieter, my point wasn’t that the megas didn’t exist; they did, and they were in the early stages of becoming what they became. My point was that lobbying or manipulating your own government isn’t really analogous to messing with someone else’s. It’s the difference between, say, you, as a KK citizen, maneuvering to help select KK board members who support your politics and cultural priorities, and helping select Matari tribal council members who support your politics and cultural priorities.
1 Like
Coming from you, Miz, this is funny. You do that all the damned time.
3 Likes
That I condemn someone’s choices does not mean I disregard their arguments on that basis. Distrusting their honesty when they make claims without something to back them up… that is an entirely different kettle of fish.
1 Like
You make a habit of dismissing as lies the words of people whom you do not like. When presented with evidence that what they are saying is technically correct and being presented as a half-truth for political purposes, you accuse the person presenting it of lying, because your biases are sacrosanct, and will never be evaluated.
1 Like
I make a habit of dismissing as untrustworthy the words of people who have made a decade long career in propaganda and spin. Confirmed such, in most cases. When the greatest defense that can be mounted for them is “Oh but this one is technically correct” and yet remains a blatant attempt at misdirection, dishonesty or simply spin I certainly still consider it a lie. I know this is an alien concept, but I’ve never been trying to hide the fact that lying by omission or dishonesty no matter how technically correct is still dishonest.
You really need to get over this stuff, girl. Especially if you’re now all the way down to “technically correct” as a defense for dishonest spin and propaganda. It’s a very tall order to ask for any kind of trust when this is the norm in an entire organization’s leadership.
At this point, I require something a bit more substantial than “it’s true because I sez” from that direction.
2 Likes
No, I co-opt people when I think it’s convenient. I can, for example, talk about the intelligence apparatus of the State knowing someone like Aria will do whatever they can to dismiss it (Because Grr Veik).
This then creates a demonstration of how the corporate relationship to intelligence services functions – if any admission that such intelligence service exists then it must be countered with a plausible denial.
It is not unlike the times I explained to Pieter that it was his duty and obligation, at times, to denounce me. This is because, whatever his personal opinions of me may or may not have been, situations demanded that certain forms and protocols must be followed.
Equally so, I can say that freely, knowing the reputation I have cultivated because if desired he can equally denounce the fact that I did instruct him so.
He could say, “Veikitamo, that is not true, because you are a liar.”
Then I would say, “Yes, given all the endorsements of such that must be true, I was lying about it.”
Then life goes on.
1 Like
Has anyone here considered adding another layer into truth-finding, that being to ascertain the motives of the speaker and taking that into consideration when forming arguments?
2 Likes
Woah now, woah now! Critical thinking isn’t permitted in these parts! 
3 Likes
See? This is exactly what I’m talking about with those unexamined biases. You’re so wrapped up in condemnation of the original source that when someone tells you ‘yeah, it’s propaganda’, but also points out that every leader in New Eden plays exactly the same game, you lash out. You get snide and insulting while deciding that the second-order source is lying by agreeing with you in the wrong language.
And yeah, it’s especially frustrating and hard to take when you do it as a way to berate and tear someone down for trying to mend fences. But you know, I can’t control how you freeze out absolutely everyone you can. That’s up to you.
Nope. Cutting anyone slack isn’t allowed, it seems.
1 Like
I am a cartoon villain, as such I must take great pains to spend the majority of my time twirling my fake moustaches while delivering monologues about my dastardly schemes, and what I’m going to do, before I do them. Because diligent hard work behind the scenes to take quiet satisfaction in a job well done?
Screw that.
I’m evil, I need as many people to recognize just how evil I am at all times.
Muahahaha.
3 Likes
Curses, foiled again.
I would have gotten away with it too if it was not for those super sleuths.
Time go with Plan B and deploy a Citadel named, “The Federation” stocked full of Gallentean prisoners I will torture. Then when people destroy it, I will go:
And this is why The Federation was destroyed.
7 Likes