[NN] The New Society, Part I - Political elitism
Mattio
The New Society, Part I - Political elitism
1. Political elitism
2. Recent examples of (assumed) political elitism in Dutch politics
3. Why elitism keeps occurring
4. What we can do against elitism
5. Sign the Manifesto
Publications in this series:
Day 2,709: The New Society, Part I – Political elitism
Day 2,714: The New Society, Part II - New Mechanics
Day 2,716: The New Society, Part III - The New Society
‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.’ – Karl Marx
Important note: the goal of this article is not to restart a fire that recently went out. It is the first in a series of three articles in which I explain my findings after having been active in our society again for roughly two months. A lot has changed in comparison to the past, mostly to our benefit if you ask me.
In all three articles, I will try to keep things short and clear – no need for theoretical epochs. However, I will try to get to a certain core, because I believe our current society as well as recent developments are very interesting.
I ask you to not read this article as the start of a renewed discussion but as part of a larger analysis of our country. Of course, you are more than invited to share your opinion in a comment. Thanks for taking notice!
1. Political elitism
In this part, I want to take a look at a political development that I witnessed immediately after my rebirth around day 2,650. I believe it must be an international one, at least one that occurs in all major countries that have been in the game since the beta version. It can’t possibly not be. The phenomenon may listen to many names, but in our country we refer to it as “elitism”. It is a returning issue in nearly every political debate, though I believe it doesn’t have to be. I do think I know why it keeps returning and what we can do against it, but I want to take a look at its recent occurrences first.
On an important side note: I will not speak of “the elitists”, nor will I give names of people who could qualify for such a title. The truth is that I refuse to call anyone an elitist and that I condemn every use of this word, as it could stimulate thinking in “us” and “them”. No one would call himself an elitist if he agrees to the following definition of elitism:
Elitism: The way of thinking in which someone’s digital age, his party, his position or anything non-related is an argument in a political debate and/or a reason to praise or dismiss the content of his or someone else’s contributions to the debate.
I will speak of elitism and the dangers of elitism that threatens all of us. If you ask me, it is not so much of a political problem that we can tackle but more a political danger that we should be aware of. If we admit that we all might run the risk of ignoring each other’s arguments only because of their or our own age or party or whatsoever, we are one step closer to annihilating elitism and we are closer to the tighter and more cooperative society that – I am convinced of this – we all strive for.
2. Recent examples of (assumed) political elitism in Dutch politics
I do not feel like restarting a fire that took a lot of time to be extinguished and therefore I will keep this short. I believe there is not much need to detail past examples of how elitism got in the way of our reasonable arguments. In the past CP period, we saw excellent examples of politicians accusing others of political elitism as well as statements that showed that our way of thinking got blurred by elitism. The current and then Vice-President was highly insulted after his real life girlfriend was denied Citizenship by the then Minister of Home Affairs. He immediately requested Congress to dismiss this minister, a request that did result in someone getting fired, be it the VP himself. The position of Vice-President would stay vacant for the rest of the President’s term, but it would prove to be just one of many government positions that would be empty at the end of the month. Some two weeks later, no fewer than six government members found themselves forced to resign from duty. One of them stated that ‘there is elitism, but not by political parties, but by vocal individuals high up in their self established air castles.’
3. Why elitism keeps occurring
In the examples above, we see how elitism and the assumption of elitist behavior can break apart whole governments within a few weeks. In a small country like ours, this is highly unwanted as it diminishes our political and societal base. In my opinion, the reason why we can’t get to work together properly and keep accusing each other of elitism is that we are somehow convinced that we can never be elitist and that it is always the other who is only after his own power. The reason for this is our use of the word ‘elitist’ as a noun, as if someone could be inherently arrogant and think he is better or right just because of his long digital life or his party. Hence my appeal to stop using the word ‘elitist’.
4. What we can do against elitism
This is a fairly easy question to answer, as I already have answered it in this article. I, Mattio, and you, reader – we both are subject to the dangers of elitism. Every time we dismiss someone’s argument because we, for example, exceed him in digital age, we commit a small act of elitism. We should judge each other’s arguments and reasoning and we should never, never give up the understanding that each and every one of us here wants the same: to make our society a stronger, a tighter and a more social place than it already is right now.
5. Sign the Manifesto
I have drafted a manifesto against political elitism which I urge you all to sign just like others did before you. The more people sign the manifesto, the more we all become aware of the widespread, universal will that is in all of us to annihilate the unwanted occupant that is elitism, who keeps showing his face in our political debates.
Thanks in advance and thanks for reading.
I salute,
Comments
If you play a game for a long time, you will be better at it than a noob. The noobs will always cry, especially when they don't bother to put in the same amount of work.
That being said, I never disregard the arguments of others based on my own experience. I disagree with them purely because their arguments have not been thought through, won't work, require more work than another option, etc.
If you disagree with a noob and you are more experienced, and what you do is telling him reasonable arguments, not only: "You are a noob, you know nothing, I know everything". Then, you are not being elitist, you are doing your job 😛
If a "noob" says something, be fair to him. Explain why he is wrong (if he is). Because, some "noobs" have great ideas, none of us could have come up with. And even if their first idea was shaped by inexperience, if you give them a proper explanation of the reasons behind things they will be able to come up with better ideas next time.
there are noobs and newbs. a noob will 9/10 times remain that because he will never understand/want to understand. a newb is 9/10 a good player that listens, and will in time contribute to a country and can become a great asset.
Yes, I agree. It is at times difficult to explain why something wouldn't work though, call it a form of 'fingerspitzengefuhl' you get from playing for far too long.
@Garmr: Yeah, you're right some things are almost impossible to explain. Experience definitely does play a role to get the right intuition.
But wherever possible, we should attempt to include our whole population by explaining our reasoning. We should convince by facts, not force opinions upon others on the basis of elitism.
As soon as it's based on intuition, people will be hard to convince. And there may be people whose intuition says the exact opposite...
The fact several issues are based on experience doesn't make it impossible to explain. It's my experience people not willing to explain know it isn't actually true what they claim or they are actually uncertain about it but are not willing to admit that and therefore bully the ones questioning it.
Yes Weekstrom, you absolutely know why people are unwilling to explain. Because you are such a friendly and open person willing to take in an explanation or criticism, everyone would want to explain things to you!
@Weekstrom: If it can be explained that definitely should be done. That's the best way to convince people. Saying "I know better" puts up a wall, keeping them in the dark, and isolated.
Whatever Garmr, whatever.
But I'm sure you know all about me as you always asked questions didn't you?
[removed]
There is a risk you keep playing a game you play for a while like used to do it in the past while the game changed. Several younger players adapt way faster then a whole lot of older, more experienced players just because it ain't no routine yet.
Also the need for the older players to think well about matters is less as they are already higher level or have more money while the young don't. Therefore the young, inexperienced players are forced to be more creative and inventive which often leads to better knowledge and strategy due to which in the long run you'll see they achieve more.
Apart from that there will always be a couple of players that keep being inventive and always analysing matters. They also, on average, will take an advantage over older players.
You make these claims based on thin air. There are no arguments to give against it, except to say I disagree.
The "you" is a general one Garmr. Not intended to point at the player Garmr, just older players in general. I have no means in telling if and how much you adopted.
Everyone should keep thinking for themselves. In the long run that will generate the most innovative ideas. And of course, helping each other by preventing each other from taking "dead end streets" makes the process faster.
So young and old players working together will work best, but not if either party forces his ideas upon the others. So there should be no elitism.
Signed!
"I will not speak of “the elitists”, nor will I give names of people who could qualify for such a title. "
Yet you name me and my government as an example 😉
" found themselves forced to resign from duty."
DemNL as a party resigning has nothing to do with elitism, they got mad about a comment I made, they interpreted the comment wrongly and resigned without asking what I meant with the comment. If anything I think it is either elitism of the demNL people who resigned who were so sure that they were right, they did not first talked to me about their grievances but just resigned. As I said before if they had come to be beforehand and talked to be and not resigned this could have been prevented. And " de soep wordt nooit zo heet gegeten, als zij wordt opgediend" many of those who "signed" didn't even agree on it or first want to talk to me. Either way, in the end it bit demNL in the ass because the results of their actions was that their candidate lost the elections.
Thanks for your comment Fhaemita.
I do name your CP term as an example, yet I have tried to abstain from using any names. I am aware of the fact that does not mean no one has a clue of whom I am speaking, but as I sai😛 I am not here to shame anyone as I believe that is exactly the problem with elitism. Whether there have been acts of elitism will always be open for discussion, but you can not deny that there have been accusations of it during that time. 😉
Taking a look at the motivations of those who resigned, I don't believe they are that sorrow about losing the elections afterwards. Their resignations was an act of principles which, I believe, exceed the importance of winning an election in an online game. Also, I believe Walhallah is doing a great job and may well be an equally suited CP as Arcanic would have been. Our country would have been in good hands with all three candidates of last elections.
Concerning the "method" of resignation: we have already spoken about that and you know that I agree with you. I see no need to lengthen the discussion on that topic and I hope you share that opinion with me. 😉
Hey. that last part is an interesting remark.
Personally I don't care that much that the candidate I voted for didn't win. Clearly a bigger part of our society preferred our current CP. And in all honesty, he deserves it as well. Imho, he is doing a good job.
If you're saying that odan was not serious about becoming CP, but only ran because those DemNL members resigned, I'd say that there is something wrong within I&W. That does sound like elitism to me.
Secondly, I don't think it was DemNL who simply resigned from your gov. Yes, a common article was released, and yes, that one was a bit premature, since even though the people listed as signing were all agreed that your statement wasn't respectful, they were not all planning to resign without discussing this with you first.
Also, I find it weird to attribute this specific incident to elitism. It was a "hoge bomen vangen veel wind" like resignation. They didn't support your action, and as their leader, they felt they could not passively support you by staying in the gov. In other words, the reason was not related to your age, party, etc. but to your actions.
Thirdly, in hindsight your post implying that Mata was an actor, playing a role, maybe was justified. But at the time I agreed that it was disrespectful. But maybe you were already better informed than the rest of us.
Such a knowledge gap, where there is an elite who knows stuff the rest doesn't and keeps it to themselves, definitely does sound like elitism. So I'd say "(assumed) political elitism" as Mattio named the section is after all head-on.
I'm not going to claim that this knowledge gap could be avoided. I know that some information is for instance personal, and cannot be disclosed to the public. In this case the whole thing was about the "death" of an individual, making it highly likely that some information indeed was personal.
The ultimate consequence of a knowledge gap in this case was rather drastic, and that's a shame.
Note: I don't want to say there was a knowledge gap in this specific case. But it would explain everything. With my current knowledge I definitely am agreeing with your post, while I didn't at that time.
Elitism by knowledge gap is an important thing to consider, and imho it's important to think about how to solve it.
Your post definitely triggered me to think about it for now...
experience does play a part in the mata case. a lot of members that where strongly in favor of resigning are younger people irl. so they do not have that much experience on this crazy thing called the Internet.
and then of course there was one person that got played by mate to play a part in making it believable for quite a number people by spreading a sighting of a hearse in his neighborhood.
Mata did her/his research in a thorough way as to include a irl occurrence to make it believable. i have to give credit for that.
I don't know if it is good to start this discussion again. I've explained our reasons to resign a couple of times already, but you still don't believe me it seems.
DemNL didn't resign as a party from your government. The word DemNL is not mentioned in our article. It was purely an act of a group of individuals. We didn't discuss our decision with other DemNL members. Yes, it happens there are quite a few DemNL members involved in the resignation. That's because it was a very quick decision, and the shortest lines are in your own party. Anyway, that's true in my case and I think this is also the case with the players who initiated this.
I understand you are confused. Our resignation wasn't based on our party, but our actions had political consequences for DemNL. So I understand the easy association with DemNL. I believe a lot of people already told you that we were wrong in not informing you in time. It was an act based on emotions, so that's why we didn't talk with you. But, talking with you wouldn't have solved anything. We thought your statements and those of other government members were disrespectful, and if we all see this, there will certainly be other people who also think this. That means they associate us with your opinion, because you were the CP. The only thing we didn't want was being associated with the things you said according our first impression of your sayings. We respect your opinion. If you want to be disrepectful (or rather look like to be disrespectful), that's up to you. We don't want to look disrespectful and that's why we resigned.
About the elections itself. The DemNL candidate lost the elections. Take a look at the current government and tell me if DemNL lost the elections.
I do not discourage any debate, but I believe this discussion was had in the past and there is no way it would benefit anyone if it were to be re-opened. My article is part of a larger analysis of our society and I could not possibly avoid this subject, but my wish was not to open up old wounds. I believe in the good will of all of my fellow countrymen and the good intentions of all who take part in this debate. This discussion is heading towards where it was weeks ago. Please leave it here; no one aims to be disrespectful or hurtful to others.
[removed]
There are players who are more active than others. Because of that, they are usually more informed about a subject and and are therefor better able back up their point of view with reasons that are in line with reality. As they are more active, they tend to discuss the subjects more thoroughly with others who are active as well and therefor often have similar opinions, opinions that you read at the very beginning of a discussion because, once more, of their activity.
Due to the decent amount of time they enjoy to spend in this game/community, they usually are seated in positions with power which they got because of their activity and because they have usually shown in the past their intentions to do a decent job in serving the country.
Now there are players that aren't so active but still slide into the debate for a couple of minutes to display their opinion that is impulsively created. Not weird that an opinion like that gets shot down by those active players. Calling them elitist is just a very cheap way of debating and in my opinion even very insulting.
You're right. But this article clearly excludes them in the definition of elitism.
Elitism is not being active, and backing up your points of view with good arguments, and sharing these points of view with other active players.
It is sort of skipping the first steps: just agreeing with another group of players without good arguments being given, and the other people's arguments being ignored.
So I totally agree. The people investing their time are totally right to be in positions of power. As long as anyone else has the same opportunity: to get more power the more time they invest. They're not elitist, because of spending more time.
Anyone should be able to enter a debate that is important to him, and use his debating skills to convince others of his viewpoints, on the basis of good arguments.
On the other hand elitism is when the group of people with the power ignores such a player, and only listens to each other.
As long as you are active and don't have very controversial idea's, everyone can get a position in eNL.