What the Hell are we Thinking?
Day 2,932, 16:22
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Stan Brown
Greetings everyone. I, Stanley Patricia Brown, have decided to come forward today in order to discuss Gnilraps' recent article [GR4ND] I've Been Changed and the SFP's reaction to it- both of which surprised me immensely. Some of the reaction to Gnilraps' announcement- that, if elected, he would fund a revolution against the Dictatorship- has been positive in the SFP's forums and in the members' comments on the initial announcement. It has been mentioned by a few that this action would be unconstitutional and that it would likely result in Gnilraps' impeachment and a blacklisting were he to go forward with the action. Faced with the decision to support Gnilraps in this endeavor or reject this course of action, we in the SFP now stand at a crossroads.
Why Support Gnilraps?
Gnilraps' idea is certainly revolutionary and it certainly appeals to many of the die-hard anti-dictatorship members of the SFP. Many of my comrades in the party have been fighting for a long time to rid the eUS of the Defensive Dictatorship for a variety of reasons as can be seen here.
Further, the presidential hopeful outlined a few policy ideas which will go hand in hand with his dissolution of the dictatorship. Gnilraps argues that without the defensive dictatorship the nation would have to be ever more vigilant and that this would increase activity in the eUS. Additionally, the candidate has proposed a greater involvement of the eMerican people across the eWorld and greater level of information among the eMerican people regarding the eWorld. Further, Gnilraps has made an offer of his own private stores of CC as a Failsafe Fund to ensure that the eUS can survive a month without the Defensive Dictatorship. Altogether, the idea is that the destruction of the Defensive Dictatorship will benefit the eUS greatly and that Gnilraps, through his own monetary contributions and a greater involvement globally, will ensure that we are ready for anyone who decides to take advantage of our newly freed state.
These are all good ideas. There are many arguments to be made in favor of Gnilraps' policy ideas and in favor of removing the DD in general. No wonder that it seems so many have embraced Gnilraps' announcement. We ought not blindly jump into the fray though.
Why not Support Gnilraps?
I'm not even going to bother with the many arguments to keep the dictatorship. Those can be found at the previously linked thread on the SFP forums as well as many, many other discussions on the eUS forums and elsewhere. I'm not trying to convince those members of my party who believe otherwise that we ought to embrace the DD- I don't believe so myself.
What I am here to say is that Gnilraps is going about this all wrong. The irony that this announcement came just recently after Aramec wrote an article about the SFP's unwillingness to put the nation first is not lost on me. Many of my comrades, as well as myself, thought his judgement unfair at the time- though now I'm unsure.
Right now my fellow SFPers may be considering blatantly disregarding the law and illegally overthrowing something which has been passed and upheld by democratically elected congressmen. Many of the issues that some of us have with the Dictatorship stem from its own blatant disregard of democracy- both practically and as a symbol. If we were to stoop to a military intervention in order to restore democracy, then I don't understand why we give a rat's ass about democracy in the first place.
What do you all think will happen if we do this and somehow succeed? None of the other t5 parties will ever work with us again- except maybe TBSP, I'm not sure if they're on board with the idea or not. One of the things that the SFP desperately needs is better relations with those parties which have held their positions far longer than we. We don't have to like them- we don't even have to give up our goals- but we do have to work with them if we ever want to create lasting reform in the eUS.
We can get rid of the dictatorship- with time and effort. We don't need to alienate ourselves from the other t5 parties even further than we already are with a stunt like this.
This entire piece has been my opinion on this matter- mostly directed at my party. I'm not sure if support for Gnilraps' plan is as widespread as it seems or if I'm just reading into a few early comments; however, there is one thing that I know for certain. We in the SFP are not at liberty to revolt against the system which has fostered our community for so long. We must take the proper avenues to work towards all of our goals- including the repeal of the Defensive Dictatorship.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
What the Hell are we Thinking?
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/what-the-hell-are-we-thinking--2568025/1/20
Vote|Comment|Shout|Endorse
Well written article ... keep it up I would like to see more of your writting 🙂
o/ Keep it Up Twitter Buddy
Voted / Commented / Endorsed / Shouted
Good article, good article.
The way I see it, this is the best way for us to return democracy to the eUSA. To do it in offsite forums means any proposal will be voted down by people who hardly even play the game anymore. With a dictator in charge it gives all power to the comparatively small fraction of players who go to the forums.
That, and a dictator is bad form. The eUSA is practically impregnable with so many territories. It would take weeks to conquer the entire country, why would a few hours make a difference against such a tremendous undertaking? If such an alliance is formed we'll be in trouble regardless.
It is a better arrangement that is far less meta-dependent. We'll survive, and maybe we'll even thrive.
Thanks for the response! I completely agree; however, I fear that taking this route will burn bridges that we'll never be able to rebuild and that the Defensive Dictatorship will just end up returning in a month.
Meta is what this game is designed for (applying for congress invites you to link to meta credentials, no?), denying meta denies community which is the only quality of this game.
As for the merits of a dictatorship, that is a more substantial argument in which we do, can, and perhaps should, disagree.
They don't have to take the eUS territory by territory. They can use a MTO to install a dictator and reap all the benefits without the need.
It's not the best way. Forcing your opinions on others only makes you more like the people you dislike, not less.
The eUS isn't impregnable, but the Dictator gives us some modicum of security. They don't need to spend weeks wiping us; as we saw with many other countries, all they need is a hostile Dictator.
This game is meta. The whole point of it is meta. Your poor arrangement will alienate your party and destroy whatever legitimate hopes at integration it ever had. No jobs will exist for SFP members in the national government, no potential will be had for SFP CPs. That'll be it.
Slavery was legal.
Apartheid was legal.
Jim Crow was (sorta) legal.
"Legal" didn't make none of that right.
Also, this is a game. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is "wrong" about putting forward a Presidential candidate who is openly promoting the overthrow of one pretend situation in order to replace it with another type of pretend situation. In fact it startles me that such a brief tremor in the Matrix would cause such ripples of concern.
A Holiday from e-Dick-tatorship sounds like music to my ears.
Cheers!
The main issue is that this would destroy our relationship with the other parties. If we pull a stunt like this, any move for future collaboration with the other parties will be a great deal harder than it already is.
❤ PQ
ilu2 !
It's a matter of executive power versus congressional, and the law is clear. Gnil hasn't tried to make this about him working to change legislation. He's just going to force the issue of no dictatorship if he gets elected like some kind of, oh I dunno, dictator.
We at SFP have been alienated by most of the other T5 parties for as long as I have been active in this silly game. I don't worry about being ostracized as we already are. The dictatorship is unnecessary and boring. Everyone here in SFP is completely within their rights to support or not support the DD but I for one never will. Congress, of which I am a member is full of those who are afraid to shed the DD and stand against the eWorld and have a true democratic nation.
A fair argument. I suppose that my naivety just comes with being new 🙂
Not entirely true, you were alienated during Jude's time as PP imo.
It'll take more than just SFP for Gnil to become CP, it'll take supporters from other parties and other party endorsements. It'll be an uphill battle, but one that I think will be worthwhile.
Great article, comrade. o7
If Gnilraps wins, the people have spoken. Democracy exists in-game. The game is literally set up to have democracy as a default. An off-site forum doesn't have any power in-game, it doesn't "hold up" in an in-game setting. SFP continues to be ostracized by the other parties. This will continue regardless of what happens.
The British tax laws were legal.
The American Revolution was illegal.
Look where we are stood IRL, the best nation in the world.
Sometimes, change is necessary.
I had not considered the fact that the idea is to support Gnilraps "Should he get elected", and the idea that if he is elected then the people have ruled as they wish makes sense. I can see the merits of that as justification.
The answer to ostracization isn't to then villainize yourself.
Fail to see where I'm villainizing myself here. If Gnilraps wins, the majority has spoken.
No, the majority will have voted for a President. The legislation of Dictatorship will still rest will congress, and if it is overturned by force, that will be villainization.
Good article, a real free thinker you are! o7
For me it is that Gnilraps openly says what is his platform including the revolution. When the population follows that by electing him with a clear majority in a fair election, laws should follow what the population wants. I will support Gnilraps because I know he is fair, not because I agree with all he says.
A mandate for Gnilraps = a mandate for gnilraps. If the majority wants a congressional majority against dictatorship, they should, and presumably would, vote that way on the 25th.
Several good points have been made in the comments section.
PQ reminds us that:
There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that is "wrong" about putting forward a Presidential candidate who is openly promoting the overthrow of one pretend situation in order to replace it with another type of pretend situation.
He reminds us that our entire set of meta laws are contrived and only have the teeth given them by the player base. If nothing else, this election is a form of referendum on the true strength of the eUSA Forums. Is the meta-community that resides there (in which I am and have been a major participant) more or less influential than the proletariat? We will gain some information about this question on December 5th.
Tom Cauchon reminds us:
Democracy exists in-game. The game is literally set up to have democracy as a default.
The ingame powers belonging to the proletariat are to elect a CP. The Meta has literally zero power to elect a CP. The meta has assumed the power to "elect" a Dictator. The meta does not, however, have the power to enforce its election unless it decides to use ingame tools. Perhaps Congress will launch a coup against a Democratically elected CP/nD? That would be fun, actually.
PilotPhil reminds us:
We at SFP have been alienated by most of the other T5 parties for as long as I have been active in this silly game. I don't worry about being ostracized as we already are.
I think that what Phil taps into is significant. It is quite acceptable for some/many to NOT be part of the establishment. While I am not a member of the "burn down the eUSA Forums" crowd, I am perfectly comfortable being part of a group that runs decidedly counter to the groupthink parties (Feds/USWP/WTP) which are basically three different varieties of vanilla.
I agree with the article's assertion that this is revolutionary. I disagree with the assertion that it is being carried out wrongly.
Groupthink parties? Holy shit Gnil that is dumb.
SFP isn't alienated for content, there are Feds who vote for lower taxes and many who are voting for you. The SFP hasn't always been alienated, I used to like the party, they're alienated because Jude was a slimy PP and ran the party as populist rather than principled.
The party is alienated because of victimizing narratives like the one you're peddling, where you call three T5 parties "groupthink" and "vanilla" to garner support.
We could trust the SFP if our differences were in content. My issue isn't with differences in content, I could be convinced to vote against dictatorship.
My problem, EMPHATICALLY, is with how you, and Jude, and some people propose carrying things out. The eUSA forums vs the Proletariat? Holy f--- Batman, what am I even reading? Gnilraps, I know for a fact you are smarter than that impossible to deconstruct rhetoric, but that is the rhetoric, of elitism, of victimhood, that isolates parties.
God.
If you get elected CP. WO will stay the Dictator and you'll just be a powerless, button-less, CP.
Which would actually show how some could care less how the majority of the country feels, but lets be honest the election could very likely be decided by multis. Who knew you'd become so politically devisive
You're right. The election could very well be decided by Colin's multi's.
Gnilraps has my vote. I think the dictator option has to go permanently, but I'll take what I can get.
Good article, well thought out.
Thank you.