https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/
https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6202
So, essentially, what you are saying here is, Octavious and I should be running the country.Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:44 amOct is rarely shrill and not especially conservative.
His core worldview seems to be that nothing bad ever happens. It's an anti-alarmist instinct that's probably more often right than wrong—but it puts him on the side of reflexively defending people and actions that I believe even he thinks are reprehensible.
When cornered into accepting that something bad may in fact be happening, Oct almost always takes comfort in a no-new-things-under-the-sun understanding of history. That historical analogizing can indeed be grounding and useful. But it's way too often used as an implicit argument for "everything will be fine" even when things were clearly not fine in his own historical example, and when it was in fact people becoming agitated and upset (in a manner Oct never will) that improved the historical precedent he's pointing towards.
Oct's actual politics seem to be broadly populist. He perfectly typifies the "anti-anti-Trump" phenomenon—folks who are more upset about the excesses of anti-populist and anti-fascist movements than they are about the bad behaviour of the populists themselves (which they don't totally dispute).
Oct is truly the perfect match for Jamie. Jamie's approach risks making a ton of type 1 errors, Oct's approach risks making a ton of type 2 errors.
Her anger is a powerful force.Ernst_Brenner wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:45 amTrump tells Greta Thunberg to go to anger management. No, that's not an onion headline.
For truth and just ice
Personally, I find just ice to be overrated. What we need is waterOctavious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 10:00 amFor truth and just ice
I DEMAND JUST ICEDiplomacyandWarfare wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 11:19 amPersonally, I find just ice to be overrated. What we need is water
The truth probably often lies between your and Oct's view, but the conflict of your views hasn't proven to be a reliable way to get at that truth—and occasionally, the friction it causes is probably counter productive. It's a microcosm of democracy.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 9:43 amSo, essentially, what you are saying here is, Octavious and I should be running the country.
I don't mean to re-litigate old disputes on a joke thread, but there is such a thing as taking this virtuous charitably you describe above to absurd lengths. "Putin is not a dictator" is one memorable example. There's a fuzzy line somewhere between earnestly stress testing recieved wisdom and being unproductively contrarian—I think I've seen you on both sides of that line, but of course that's a matter of opinion.Octavious wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 8:20 amWhat I will say, and what used to be well understood but seems to have slipped somewhat in recent years, is that defending people who are reprehensible is rather important. Defending people who are broadly seen as the good guys is extremely easy and rarely necessary.
We've established that he's wrong 50% of the time, and I'm wrong the other 50% of the time, so if we cancel each other out, we can be right 100% of the time.Klaus klauts wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:48 pmGuys, have we just witnessed how Octavious and Jamie found common ground?
Unfortunately, those things work the other way around most of the time, so that you both would probably be right 0% of the time.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:36 pmWe've established that he's wrong 50% of the time, and I'm wrong the other 50% of the time, so if we cancel each other out, we can be right 100% of the time.Klaus klauts wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:48 pmGuys, have we just witnessed how Octavious and Jamie found common ground?
That's science!
so jamie was wrong about the chances of them both being right, and therefore octavious was right!Klaus klauts wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:59 pmUnfortunately, those things work the other way around most of the time, so that you both would probably be right 0% of the time.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:36 pmWe've established that he's wrong 50% of the time, and I'm wrong the other 50% of the time, so if we cancel each other out, we can be right 100% of the time.Klaus klauts wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 12:48 pmGuys, have we just witnessed how Octavious and Jamie found common ground?
That's science!
Quantum entanglementDiplomacyandWarfare wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 1:26 amso jamie was wrong about the chances of them both being right, and therefore octavious was right!Klaus klauts wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:59 pmUnfortunately, those things work the other way around most of the time, so that you both would probably be right 0% of the time.Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 11, 2025 1:36 pm
We've established that he's wrong 50% of the time, and I'm wrong the other 50% of the time, so if we cancel each other out, we can be right 100% of the time.
That's science!
nice job, octavious!