WoWS, Philosophy & Freedom: A comment on 'Video worth watching' thread and WoWS 'Original Sin'

[ArIskandir]

11 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Whatever the system, communism or libertarianism, the problem is when some feel "entitled" to harm others or infringe upon their rights?

Indeed there are some base human impulses and actions that transcend politics. Some people feel entitled or think easier to 'acquire' the fruits of someone else's efforts instead of doing an effort of their own, some feel entitled to 'hoard' all the resources regardless of someone else's needs, some feel entitled to decide what someone else should think or do... human nature transcends ideologies. 

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

44 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Classless society: The ultimate goal is to create a society where social classes do not exist, and all individuals have equal opportunities and access to resources . 

The trouble is that this is a lie.

There is no way a society can exist without social classes...so claiming this is an ultimate goal is an obvious lie.

45 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Equitable distribution of goods: A fair distribution of goods and resources is sought, ensuring that each person receives according to their needs and requiring a proportional effort. 

Goal makes no mention of the actual availability or cost of those goods and resources.

You can't talk about equal distribution if the goods don't exist.

Which is problematic because...

46 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Planned economy: Communism advocates an economy controlled and planned by the State, instead of free market competition

Goods production and distribution is controlled by the state...which is a separate class than the mass of people.

Communism lies about the classless society, in that it can only control resources with separate classes...

...and invests only one class with the power to control goods production and distribution.

Which is the same problems of capitalism...only fewer people actually have power to make changes.

It's all just talk and promises while intentionally duping the masses into accepting abuse by the state.

[ArIskandir]

22 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

It's all just talk and promises while intentionally duping the masses into accepting abuse by the state.

Well, of course we know every practical application of so called communism devolves into a 'party' dictatorship... humans be human

22 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

There is no way a society can exist without social classes...so claiming this is an ultimate goal is an obvious lie.

A society can very well exist without classes. What I think you mean is a society can't exist without differentiated roles (unless it has a very primitive structure). You are assuming the leadership role must be consubstantial with a social class, it doesn't need to. For example, the basic premise of (ideal) Democracy is to alternate the leadership role so it doesn't become forever attached to any single individual or party thus becoming a ruling class (yes, we know in reality that's not how things happen cuz humans be human). 

22 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Communism lies about the classless society, in that it can only control resources with separate classes...

Again, different roles must not neccesarily mean different social classes.

A theorical example: it could be possible to fit all the different roles a society needs to function within the spectrum of what we understand as middle-class. 

Edited June 14 by ArIskandir

[ArIskandir]

2 hours ago, palestreamer said:

The only way to improve in this complex game is to play against players who are better than you, so you can learn.

So the more experienced players will have to accept the fact of sometimes playing with "noobs".

There are blowouts, but in my experience there are many tense and exciting games, this means to me the balance is all pretty good.

That's my perspective as well

[clammboy]

10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

 

10 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Still, it's a nice concept in theory, isn't it?

The concept appeals to some people.
Others, as indicated by their responses in this topic, feel differently.

I prefer the "sand-lot baseball" principle of "everybody plays".  
Imagine a neighborhood of children from 7 years old to 17 years old.  Imagine they get together to play a game of baseball or football/soccer for the fun of it.
They pick teams and play according to the rules of the sport.
The more experienced children lead by example and occasionally spend a few moments to teach the less experienced children some aspects of the game, here

 

This sadly is not even close to what happened when I was a kid. When we picked teams the best kids got picked first the less skilled last and some not at all so you just watched. In little league if you were bad you were lucky if the coach put you in at the end of a blowout everyone did not play back then.

Almost none of the better kids ever helped the less skilled players you were lucky if the coach helped . In high school and middle school if you were not good you got cut. Sometimes 35 or 40 kids trying out for 20 spots. lol they would tape your name on the wall if you made it and you would have to go look. But it sure is nice that there doing things differently now.

Edited June 14 by clammboy

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

55 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Well, of course we know every practical application of so called communism devolves into a 'party' dictatorship... humans be human

A society can very well exist without classes. What I think you mean is a society can't exist without differentiated roles (unless it has a very primitive structure). You are assuming the leadership role must be consubstantial with a social class, it doesn't need to. For example, the basic premise of (ideal) Democracy is to alternate the leadership role so it doesn't become forever attached to any single individual or party thus becoming a ruling class (yes, we know in reality that's not how things happen cuz humans be human). 

Again, different roles must not neccesarily mean different social classes.

A theorical example: it could be possible to fit all the different roles a society needs to function within the spectrum of what we understand as middle-class. 

If no society has ever achieved a classless state...and no society has ever achieved a state where the leaders did not get selected from a social class...

Why do we continue to posit theoretical states where these impossibilities exist?

What is the benefit in knowingly lying about potential human states that is not manipulation of the masses to give yourself more power than you deserve?

At what point does speculation like this turn from harmless idiocy to calculated evil?

Because at this point I think we have definitely crossed that line.

Heck, millions of people have already died exhaustively proving the point that Marx et al were full of shit.

Why do we continue thinking that Marx and his pals ideas are in any way valuable?

[Ensign Cthulhu]

2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

The ultimate goal is to create a society where social classes do not exist,

PM me to continue this debate, as I fear we're drifting off track and into the realm of verboten political discussion. 

[ArIskandir]

58 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

If no society has ever achieved a classless state...and no society has ever achieved a state where the leaders did not get selected from a social class...

Why do we continue to posit theoretical states where these impossibilities exist?

Nobody ever cooked food until someone did

Nobody ever flew until someone did

Nobody ever walked on the moon until someone did 

Argumenting something is impossible because has never happened before is one of the stupidest perspectives to have, we might as well be still apes if nothing ever evolved. 

Btw, hunter-gatherer societies are very egalitarian. Social classes are not even a thing on many cases. 

58 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

What is the benefit in knowingly lying about potential human states that is not manipulation of the masses to give yourself more power than you deserve?

Why is it lying to contemplate, design and dream of different ways to organize a society? Are we supposed to accept society can't be further improved? ... What kind of inquisitorial semantics equal a desire to improve the state of affairs with a desire to manipulate others for your own benefit? 

58 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Heck, millions of people have already died exhaustively proving the point that Marx et al were full of shit.

Why do we continue thinking that Marx and his pals ideas are in any way valuable?

Note, I'm not defending Marxism (really dude, contrary to you I have real experience under applicated Marxism and some undying grudge because of it, I did live under Marxist law), but the fundamental problem they set out to address is not solved and today remains as critical as ever. Just read the stats on 'distribution of wealth', inequality is on mad rise and there's no mechanism in place to balance the effects. The problem endures, if it itches people will scratch... 

 

Edited June 14 by ArIskandir

[Ensign Cthulhu]

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Ouuch....... this can go really ugly, real fast.

My point was that the Western nations that have never been Communist don't want to be Communist because "us old folk" (or not so old; I'm 53) remember just how s***ty Communism was for the people who suffered under it. There are people in the West today who are fashionably Communist who weren't even born when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, who therefore don't remember it, and who need to be told by the people who do remember it just what a terribly stupid thing they're advocating for.

[Silence_CN]

2 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Whatever the system, communism or libertarianism, the problem is when some feel "entitled" to harm others or infringe upon their rights?

 ... and the main concern is : "who the f*ck, gave them this authorization ?" Except themselves of course.
No ? 🙂 

[ArIskandir]

9 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

PM me to continue this debate, as I fear we're drifting off track and into the realm of verboten political discussion. 

As OP I can definitively state we are not drifting off track... this was ever the intended track 😀

As society we need to have these uncomfortable discussions with 'dissimilar others', these 'ideology face-offs' shouldn't be avoided or feared... it is the alternative to words and discussion what we need to avoid and fear. The way we solve the problem of interacting with dissimilar random people within the game environment can provide insight on how we can solve the problem of interacting with dissimilar people outside the game.

 

[ArIskandir]

16 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

There are people in the West today who are fashionably Communist who weren't even born when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, who therefore don't remember it, and who need to be told by the people who do remember it just what a terribly stupid thing they're advocating for.

In order to be effective, education needs to ackowledge all the fact, both positive and negative, else it becomes propaganda. The same way we need to remember the horrible suffering Communist regimes inflicted on people, we need to remember the horrible circumstances, problems and suffering that lead to its rise or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes. We also need to acknowledge their positive achievements (where they exist), there's little to win and much to lose by 'demonizing' and painting one dimensional images of ideologies, any experience can provide valuable knowledge; disregarding a source on basis of political differences is a disrespect to all those who paid the price to acquire such knowledge.     

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Btw, hunter-gatherer societies are very egalitarian. Social classes are not even a thing on many cases. 

Nope.

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Why is it lying to contemplate, design and dream of different ways to organize a society? Are we supposed to accept society can't be further improved? ... What kind of inquisitorial semantics equal a desire to improve the state of affairs with a desire to manipulate others for your own benefit? 

Moving the goalposts.

Why still use Marxist ideas when we know they don't work?

You know they are useless. Why are you still referencing them?

1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

Note, I'm not defending Marxism (really dude, contrary to you I have real experience under applicated Marxism and some undying grudge because of it, I did live under Marxist law), but the fundamental problem they set out to address is not solved and today remains as critical as ever. Just read the stats on 'distribution of wealth', inequality is on mad rise and there's no mechanism in place to balance the effects. The problem endures, if it itches people will scratch.

So actually move forward beyond failed ideas into something new.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

56 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

As OP I can definitively state we are not drifting off track... this was ever the intended track 😀

This is a terrifying thought, and also demonstrates my point.

 

57 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

As society we need to have these uncomfortable discussions with 'dissimilar others', these 'ideology face-offs' shouldn't be avoided or feared... it is the alternative to words and discussion what we need to avoid and fear. The way we solve the problem of interacting with dissimilar random people within the game environment can provide insight on how we can solve the problem of interacting with dissimilar people outside the game.

And now the victim card.

My friend, we are merely staying obvious truth.

Marxist ideas are proven falsities.

What is your goal in continuing to use them?

This road has been traveled before...in the 1920s, in the 1940s, and in the 1950s-1970s. Each time it's been tried, the folks spinning the ideas have proven to be fraudulent hucksters scheming to gain power in order to be the authoritarian tyrant.

What makes you think we would not connect the dots and think the same of you?

40 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

In order to be effective, education needs to ackowledge all the fact, both positive and negative, else it becomes propaganda. The same way we need to remember the horrible suffering Communist regimes inflicted on people, we need to remember the horrible circumstances, problems and suffering that lead to its rise or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes. We also need to acknowledge their positive achievements (where they exist), there's little to win and much to lose by 'demonizing' and painting one dimensional images of ideologies, any experience can provide valuable knowledge; disregarding a source on basis of political differences is a disrespect to all those who paid the price to acquire such knowledge.     

Follow your own advice here.

The ideas you are bandying about DIRECTLY LED TO THE SUFFERING AND DEATH OF MILLIONS.

The ONLY positive achievement of communism was to increase literacy rates in the nations that practiced it. And that was only done so that the state sponsored propaganda would be more effective to enable better control and abuse.

This isn't demonizing a source based on political differences...this is educating a fool on historical fact.

[Unlooky]

>thread about world of warships philosophy

>two pages of arguments about communism 

 

lol what

 

Edited June 14 by Unlooky

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

1 minute ago, Unlooky said:

>thread about world of warships philosophy

>two pages of arguments about communism 

 

lol what

 

Yeah, it's time to stop and get back to talking about the game.

[tangofan]

1 hour ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

My point was that the Western nations that have never been Communist don't want to be Communist because "us old folk" (or not so old; I'm 53) remember just how s***ty Communism was for the people who suffered under it. There are people in the West today who are fashionably Communist who weren't even born when the Warsaw Pact collapsed, who therefore don't remember it, and who need to be told by the people who do remember it just what a terribly stupid thing they're advocating for.

The problem with your statement is that the pervasive anti-Communist phobia that shines though in this thread is a US-specific thing. Many Western European nations don't want Communist government, but they certainly have no problems of taken certain elements from Socialism/Communism and using applying them, e.g. much stronger social welfare laws and more restrictions on Capitalism.

As a general point, I'd also like to point out that many of those who claim to despise communism are just too willing to embrace some other form of authoritarianism, even in countries that greatly suffered under communism. See Russia, Hungary, Turkey, until recently Poland and of course a large group in the United States that - while claiming to stand for individual rights - work hard to take away the rights of others and openly embrace the leaders of countries such as Russia and Hungary and their proto-fascist regimes. So in practice, whether a country is communist or (proto-)fascist or some other form of authoritarianism doesn't matter for all practical purposes.

As @ArIskandir correctly pointed out just being anti-communist does not make you a friend of humanity and the absolute right of the individual may just mean the suppression and subjugation of the weaker (e.g. poorer) by the stronger (richer), since in any society there are going to be conflicts between the interests of individuals.

On a side note (and to bring this back a little on topic): Of course the game (like any other game) is in a way the epitome of an authoritarian structure. WG runs this however they want to and you can take it or leave it.

[Daniel_Allan_Clark]

Just now, tangofan said:

The problem with your statement is that the pervasive anti-Communist phobia that shines though in this thread is a US-specific thing. Many Western European nations don't want Communist government, but they certainly have no problems of taken certain elements from Socialism/Communism and using applying them, e.g. much stronger social welfare laws and more restrictions on Capitalism.

As a general point, I'd also like to point out that many of those who claim to despise communism are just too willing to embrace some other form of authoritarianism, even in countries that greatly suffered under communism. See Russia, Hungary, Turkey, until recently Poland and of course a large group in the United States that - while claiming to stand for individual rights - work hard to take away the rights of others and openly embrace the leaders of countries such as Russia and Hungary and their proto-fascist regimes. So in practice, whether a country is communist or (proto-)fascist or some other form of authoritarianism doesn't matter for all practical purposes.

As @ArIskandir correctly pointed out just being anti-communist does not make you a friend of humanity and the absolute right of the individual may just mean the suppression and subjugation of the weaker (e.g. poorer) by the stronger (richer), since in any society there are going to be conflicts between the interests of individuals.

On a side note (and to bring this back a little on topic): Of course the game (like any other game) is in a way the epitome of an authoritarian structure. WG runs this however they want to and you can take it or leave it.

For sure true. Other ideologies are just as bad.

I just object to continuing to bring up old, false ideas over and over and expecting different results.

At least we can take WG or leave it...thank God they aren't the government of where we live.

🙂

[Wolfswetpaws]

29 minutes ago, tangofan said:

WG runs this however they want to and you can take it or leave it.

On that note.  🙂 

I often use the analogy of WOWs being like a "Private Club", or "Social Club".
Getting in requires filling-out a membership application and agreeing to abide by the rules.

Sure, we can start pointing out some differences from there.  But, it's a frame of reference to begin discussion with.

[tangofan]

38 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

For sure true. Other ideologies are just as bad.

I just object to continuing to bring up old, false ideas over and over and expecting different results.

At least we can take WG or leave it...thank God they aren't the government of where we live.

🙂

Well, the chain of argument that you and others in this thread are pursuing is something like this:

1. Somebody supports X.
2. Communism (whether in its philosophical form or in its practical implementation) also supports X.
3. Communism (whether the philosophy or the practical implementation) is bad.
4. Therefore X must also be naturally bad.

Under what category of rhetorical fallacies this falls, eludes me at the moment. Of course in the more general terms you can replace "Communism" with any philosophy or point of view that is despised by your audience and by you.

Of course in this thread @ArIskandir also established step 2 in addition to step 1. That made it easier for you and those others to jump up as if stung by a wasp at the pure mentioning of the word "communist"/"communism".

[Andrewbassg]

35 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Marxist ideas are proven falsities.

i'm afraid dis is quite a bit more complicated.....

If we talk about ideological things, then yes, but l'm fairy sure that he wasn't talking about those, but the practical ones 

 

 

[Wolfswetpaws]

1 minute ago, tangofan said:

Of course in this thread @ArIskandir also established step 2 in addition to step 1. That made it easier for you and those others to jump up as if stung by a wasp at the pure mentioning of the word "communist"/"communism".

 😄 

[Andrewbassg]

37 minutes ago, tangofan said:

...at the pure mentioning of the word "communist"/"communism".

What makes you think that there should be a difference, between how we asses nazism and "communism" ( meaning the lenininist, maoist, whatevs) one?  Coz to me, there is none. They are equally dangerous and lethal.

 

Isn't it true that communists (and marxists) hate capitalism? Isn't that true they have only contempt for anything, whether coming out from or being build in a capitalist society? Coz capitalism always produces the wrong result? Isn't that true that communists would rather let the world burn, instead of helping reforming capitalism? 

if all that is true, why should we entrust someone, displaying such childish idiocy, with "the fate of mankind"  

 

Edited June 14 by Andrewbassg

[3LUE]

The thing is, from childhood on, we are taught that if you want to succeed, you need to be the best you can be. All through school, the best athletes get on the sports teams, the best students get the honors, and when it comes to sports and education, the best get the scholarships. Then, when we start a job, the best get promoted, and the rest linger in the lower-paying areas. Being the best you can be is ingrained in our lives from birth. Many of us take that into our gaming world as well. Many of us look at failure as just that, a failure, and we must strive to not fail again. So we work hard at being as good at things as we can be, and we have a hard time understanding why others do not. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

24 minutes ago, 3LUE said:

The thing is, from childhood on, we are taught that if you want to succeed, you need to be the best you can be. All through school, the best athletes get on the sports teams, the best students get the honors, and when it comes to sports and education, the best get the scholarships. Then, when we start a job, the best get promoted, and the rest linger in the lower-paying areas. Being the best you can be is ingrained in our lives from birth. Many of us take that into our gaming world as well. Many of us look at failure as just that, a failure, and we must strive to not fail again. So we work hard at being as good at things as we can be, and we have a hard time understanding why others do not. 

Because it is a game and not a job?
A hobby? 
A passtime or drinking-game?
It's been explained earlier in this topic that not everyone shares the same motivations or commitment to playing WOWs at "tournament level" of proficiency.  🙂 

For myself, I've decided that I'm not going to lose sleep over the results of a game with 23 other people who have a fair chance of meeting each other for the first time and haven't had time to extensively train together.

Your expectations are more aligned with a permanent work-force of employees or volunteers who are training together in preparation for entering a battle together as a complete team, or at least a division.