|
Drone posted:And the swastika was created by people in India hundreds of years ago. It's totally not a Nazi symbol. This is kind of a weird derail but I'm actually curious if CK2 has had any problems in Germany because of the Swastikas in a lot of the Indian flags. The usage would be historically accurate and obviously be very different than Nazi iconography but Germany has pretty strict laws about that sort of thing.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 10:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:10 |
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:This is kind of a weird derail but I'm actually curious if CK2 has had any problems in Germany because of the Swastikas in a lot of the Indian flags. The usage would be historically accurate and obviously be very different than Nazi iconography but Germany has pretty strict laws about that sort of thing. No. We're anal, but not that insanely anal. The law does explicitly refer to Nazi iconography, not just the swastika in general. Basically, if the historical Indian swastikas were made with straight lines and angled like the Nazi swastika, you might have a problem on your hands, and even then it's kind of a very tenuous idea given the obvious different context (I think this might fall under the same umbrella as the whole "you can legally show a swastika if it's crossed out" thing - and yes, they actually had to take somebody to court over having a sticker of a crossed out swastika on his backpack before they thought to make an anti-clause). Basically, CK is in the clear, HOI not.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
Riso posted:That's right. Us white folk are the nobles and the clergymen, all those drat Indians and Arabs and Africans and South Americans and South-East Asians and everybody else on the planet who isn't white? They are the peasants. Totally not imperialist or racist, trust me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I've been slowly working on a Cold War turn based strategy game. It's heavily inspired by the ancient game Balance of Power. I posted about it back in the Spring but couldn't work on it for a long time, but I've gotten back to it recently and have made a ton of progress. This looks awesome, kind of reminds me of Twilight Struggle. Is it more than 2-player or can you only play as the USSR/USA? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:00
|
|
)
|
Sampatrick posted:Us white folk are the nobles and the clergymen, all those drat Indians and Arabs and Africans and South Americans and South-East Asians and everybody else on the planet who isn't white? They are the peasants. How are you this dense? I don't know who that 'Frenchman' was, but he was almost certainly comparing the developed world to the parasitic upper classes of the Ancien Régime who exploited the common people (i.e. the oppressed masses of the Third World).
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Anyone know off hand if the naval force limits shenanigans of Victoria II can be modded out or adjusted in a no-nonsense fashion? My EUIV conversion game is converting in a couple of weeks and I think we're almost in a universal agreement that its dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:This is why you use the term, "developing countries." Also your entire argument of there being such a thing as social progress, and placing infrastructural development as a key marking of how developed a country is, is patronizing on the one hand, and imperialist garbage on the other hand. Like I'm not trying to say that poo poo is good for Afghanis and Somlians, but there is no objective metric for determining how developed a country is, so just say developing countries so you can avoid the unfortunate racist/imperialist implications from the term third world. By using the term "developing countries" you are still using western countries as an objective metric for comparison, so it's not really any different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:How are you this dense? I don't know who that 'Frenchman' was, but he was almost certainly comparing the developed world to the parasitic upper classes of the Ancien Régime who exploited the common people (i.e. the oppressed masses of the Third World). Yeah, no that's not how these things work. The Frenchman can want that to be the interpretation for what he said, but it really isn't what he's saying. When you classify the world into three different worlds, with two of these being the grand and wonderful nobility[the clergy were de facto nobility], and then the last being the unwashed masses, the implication isn't that the first two are parasites, the implication is that the first two are better and/or more important than the rest of the world. Smoremaster posted:By using the term "developing countries" you are still using western countries as an objective metric for comparison, so it's not really any different. Yes, and that is still a bad thing, but the comparison has much less of a biased view. Basically, developing country sounds a lot nicer than third world, and happens to have a lot less unfortunate implications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Smoremaster posted:By using the term "developing countries" you are still using western countries as an objective metric for comparison, so it's not really any different. Inventing better euphemisms isn't going to make them any less poor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Inventing better euphemisms isn't going to make them any less poor. It actually can, if you change it from an Us versus Them point of view [First World vs Second World vs Third World], and instead just paint the world according to how developed a country is, you make the world seem much more integrated and make people more likely to care about other people in those countries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Well the terms were originally based on political alignment, but maybe third world sounded too much like third-rate 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Yeah, no that's not how these things work. The Frenchman can want that to be the interpretation for what he said, but it really isn't what he's saying. When you classify the world into three different worlds, with two of these being the grand and wonderful nobility[the clergy were de facto nobility], and then the last being the unwashed masses, the implication isn't that the first two are parasites, the implication is that the first two are better and/or more important than the rest of the world. But the implication is that the first two estates are parasitic and unnecessary, and that their continued domination is untenable in the long run. In no way are the nobility and clergy supposed to be good or virtuous. The term Third World is ultimately based on Emmanuel Joseph Sieyčs's famous pamphlet What Is The Third Estate?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_the_Third_Estate%3F quote:In the pamphlet, Sieyčs argues that the Third Estate the common people of France constituted a complete nation in itself and had no need of the "dead weight" of the two other orders, the First and Second Estates of the clergy and aristocracy. Sieyčs stated that the people wanted genuine representatives in the Estates-General, equal representation to the other two orders taken together, and votes taken by heads and not by orders. These ideas came to have an immense influence on the course of the French Revolution. It's a reductionist term, perhaps even paternalistic in the way that anti-imperialist 'Third Worldism' in general usually is, but your interpretation is totally nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Us white folk are the nobles and the clergymen, all those drat Indians and Arabs and Africans and South Americans and South-East Asians and everybody else on the planet who isn't white? They are the peasants. Okay, lets say that the term "Third World" has imperialist origins. Are you going to claim that everyone who used the term "Third World" is a vicious racist who believes in white supremacy? Because if you are, then you're a bigger crackpot than I thought you were. What is so racist about acknowledging that some parts of the world are worse to live in than others? Hell, depending on your interpretation, the term could even be used as pejorative towards Imperialist powers, since the reason most of the third world countries are third world is because of Imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:But the implication is that the first two estates are parasitic and unnecessary, and that their continued domination is untenable in the long run. In no way are the nobility and clergy supposed to be good or virtuous. The term Third World is ultimately based on Emmanuel Joseph Sieyčs's famous pamphlet What Is The Third Estate?: That can't be paternalistic unless you really stretch the word paternalistic. Which is usually the case when applied to anti-imperialism stuff, granted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:But the implication is that the first two estates are parasitic and unnecessary, and that their continued domination is untenable in the long run. In no way are the nobility and clergy supposed to be good or virtuous. The term Third World is ultimately based on Emmanuel Joseph Sieyčs's famous pamphlet What Is The Third Estate?: And that can be his interpretation as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't what most people think when they hear third world. When most people hear third world they think, "Oh, you mean those guys in other countries with lovely jobs and unstable governments and no education?" Nobody gives a poo poo what the original author intended for it to mean, because that is completely irrelevant for what a term actually means. The guy who made .gif says it's pronounced like jiff but gently caress if anybody says that instead of giff. VerdantSquire posted:Okay, lets say that the term "Third World" has imperialist origins. Are you going to claim that everyone who used the term "Third World" is a vicious racist who believes in white supremacy? Because if you are, then you're a bigger crackpot than I thought you were. What is so racist about acknowledging that some parts of the world are worse to live in than others? Hell, depending on your interpretation, the term could even be used as pejorative towards Imperialist powers, since the reason most of the third world countries are third world is because of Imperialism. Of course not, I'm saying that people should avoid saying third world because the discourse matters and frames the way we look at the world. It's like the difference between saying negro/friend of the family vs blacks vs black people vs african american; you're saying the same thing with all of them, and depending on when you're from you might not even be a racist when you say it. On the other hand, the language is divisive and leads to a world view where african americans are otherized compared to the rest of the population. The same thing applies here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
The term african american is actually more offensive than just saying black people. I've literally never met anyone that uses the term except stuffy white people who want everyone to know how not-racist they are. edit: Anyone remember at the Olympics one year some black British guy won a medal (I don't remember the specifics) and the guy interviewing him was some American dude who asked him how it felt, as an African American, to win the gold medal. The guy said something like, uh I'm not African or American. Smoremaster fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:And that can be his interpretation as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't what most people think when they hear third world. When most people hear third world they think, "Oh, you mean those guys in other countries with lovely jobs and unstable governments and no education?" Nobody gives a poo poo what the original author intended for it to mean, because that is completely irrelevant for what a term actually means. The guy who made .gif says it's pronounced like jiff but gently caress if anybody says that instead of giff.  . Besides, wasn't the original premise of your argument that the Third World is a term with imperialistic origins?Sampatrick posted:Of course not, I'm saying that people should avoid saying third world because the discourse matters and frames the way we look at the world. It's like the difference between saying negro/friend of the family vs blacks vs black people vs african american; you're saying the same thing with all of them, and depending on when you're from you might not even be a racist when you say it. On the other hand, the language is divisive and leads to a world view where african americans are otherized compared to the rest of the population. The same thing applies here. VerdantSquire fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Dec 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Oh good, now people are unironically making that argument. Like I have stepped into the Paradox forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
I miss the days when people used paradox games as a vehicle to argue design decisions and how large Serbia should be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
That amazing double post
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
RestRoomLiterature- posted:I miss the days when people used paradox games as a vehicle to argue design decisions and how large Serbia should be. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
This conversation is like two third world countries bickering over which one is less third world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:This conversation is like two third world countries bickering over which one is less third world. While another dude just keeps screaming "well you both suck  ".
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Soo errr is this thread move to the D&D forum or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Supeerme posted:Soo errr is this thread move to the D&D forum or something? People are spurging, its not that different than what it always is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
So, what do you guys think about the European tech group being better than everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Smoremaster posted:The term african american is actually more offensive than just saying black people. I've literally never met anyone that uses the term except stuffy white people who want everyone to know how not-racist they are. Uh when I'm talking about actual african americans in the US, the correct term is african american. That's just the proper term, I don't see how that British dude has anything to do with it. VerdantSquire posted:... Uh, maybe they think that because that is the exact situation of third world countries, to the point of almost being the dictionary definition? Or are you going to spout off about how the middle east and south america are bastions of stable government and economic equality? Because if so It's more like was it racist for people in the 1920s/30s to call African American negroes? Maybe. Was it deliberately offensive? Probably not. Did it promote an us versus them mentality? Most definitely. That's the issue with the term third world countries; it's not that it's deliberately bad, or that the people who say it are bad, it's that the phrase itself, simply by virtue of what it represents, is bad. And the problem with it on an imperialist line is that it justifies military interventions/whatever else, because, combined with the divisiveness, it lends credence to the idea that when we go into these countries we're trying to 'uplift' them, rather than just doing what are pretty standard imperialist tactics of preserving our economic interests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:So, what do you guys think about the European tech group being better than everyone else? They should rename tech groups to first world tech, second world tech and developing world tech.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:So, what do you guys think about the European tech group being better than everyone else? Europeans are better than everybody else so it makes sense
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Disco Infiva posted:They should rename tech groups to first world tech, second world tech and developing world tech. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Okay I get the first and last one, but what's the middle one supposed to be? Is the second stage of civilization the same as the first stage, but colder?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Yeah, no that's not how these things work. The Frenchman can want that to be the interpretation for what he said, but it really isn't what he's saying. When you classify the world into three different worlds, with two of these being the grand and wonderful nobility[the clergy were de facto nobility], and then the last being the unwashed masses, the implication isn't that the first two are parasites, the implication is that the first two are better and/or more important than the rest of the world. quote:His usage was a reference to the Third Estate, the commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed the clergy and nobles, who composed the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively. Sauvy wrote, "This third world ignored, exploited, despised like the third estate also wants to be something."[3] He conveyed the concept of political non-alignment with either the capitalist or communist bloc. You are so incredibly stupid, are you in seventh grade? Jesus Christ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement The Cheshire Cat posted:Okay I get the first and last one, but what's the middle one supposed to be? Is the second stage of civilization the same as the first stage, but colder?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Mans posted:You are so incredibly stupid, are you in seventh grade? Jesus Christ. Oh my loving christ you are like a five year old. You do realize that other people have different world views, and the majority of people aren't gonna think Third Estate of the Ancien Regime of France when they hear the term third world, right? Like for gently caress's sake, you're like one of those dumbasses who thinks there's only one possible thing that anything can mean, and any other interpretation is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Anybody else like the Fallout mod for Darkest Hour? It's pretty impressive, as far as scale and flavor is concerned, and it's still in ongoing development, which is impressive for a mod as old as that. The fairly recent port to the E3 map with its billions of provinces really breathed new life into it, as well.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
Clearly, the real reason why Paradox can't release a Cold War game is because it can't find a sufficiently politically-correct way to refer to Is this really the place for this discussion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Oh my loving christ you are like a five year old. You do realize that other people have different world views, and the majority of people aren't gonna think Third Estate of the Ancien Regime of France when they hear the term third world, right? Like for gently caress's sake, you're like one of those dumbasses who thinks there's only one possible thing that anything can mean, and any other interpretation is wrong. Same could be said for you. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Oh my loving christ you are like a five year old. You do realize that other people have different world views, and the majority of people aren't gonna think Third Estate of the Ancien Regime of France when they hear the term third world, right? Like for gently caress's sake, you're like one of those dumbasses who thinks there's only one possible thing that anything can mean, and any other interpretation is wrong. Just because you are ignorant of poo poo doesn't mean we should all stoop down to your level. Seriously, you used a term without knowing what it meant, just found out about it, and are now lashing out because it's different then what you thought it was. Calm down and go read wikipedia or something. Also, "a lot of other people are ignorant too, thus I am right" isn't a very convincing argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Sampatrick posted:Oh my loving christ you are like a five year old. You do realize that other people have different world views, and the majority of people aren't gonna think Third Estate of the Ancien Regime of France when they hear the term third world, right? Like for gently caress's sake, you're like one of those dumbasses who thinks there's only one possible thing that anything can mean, and any other interpretation is wrong. Sampatrick posted:It's more like was it racist for people in the 1920s/30s to call African American negroes? Maybe. Was it deliberately offensive? Probably not. Did it promote an us versus them mentality? Most definitely. That's the issue with the term third world countries; it's not that it's deliberately bad, or that the people who say it are bad, it's that the phrase itself, simply by virtue of what it represents, is bad. And the problem with it on an imperialist line is that it justifies military interventions/whatever else, because, combined with the divisiveness, it lends credence to the idea that when we go into these countries we're trying to 'uplift' them, rather than just doing what are pretty standard imperialist tactics of preserving our economic interests. The term itself is anti-imperialist by nature and is the opposite of apologia for first or second world invasions of the third world. The modern definition of third world is effectively useless with the collapse of the second bloc and is in fact used nowadays as an insult to throw against non-western countries. The definition of third world that the OP was talking about, however, was clearly meant to be a reference to the definition of thirld world as used during the Cold War. And you simply can't grasp that because nowadays, twenty years after the term became obsolete, the term is misused. You could've just said "nowadays the definition of third world is badly used and is a prejorative" but you went on stinking this thread with your babby first Maoist rant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:
Eh that isn't true, if the majority are ignorant and use it incorrectly than it really doesn't matter what the "correct" definition is. The popular use is the only one that really matters. Outside of allowing you to be smug, I suppose. See entitlements for another example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Okay I get the first and last one, but what's the middle one supposed to be? Is the second stage of civilization the same as the first stage, but colder? I notice the second guy has pants and shoes. I guess that's all you need to be considered one step more civilized. Can't help but notice that the "civilized" guy looks goddamn depressed compared to his pals. Appropriate, I suppose!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2014 19:20
|
|