More fun with the communicative entitlements of the internet

Ok, so here's a discussion I've been having with this Mortimer Bachton character who frequents the TES threads on Facebook:

• 
  

  Mortimer Bachton

  I am definitely on the Stormcloak rebellion side. But not because of some ignorant compulsion to blindly support a rebellious or anti-authoritarian movement.
  
  I fully support the right a nation has to sustain cultural homogeneity and regulate its sovereign legacy. I oppose enforcing multiculturalism, or enforcing multi-ethnic imperialism. Independence is a right and a virtue.

  
  
• 
  

  6li7ch

  /\ If your independence is dependent on the independence of a nation, then you are always dividually dependent, and never independent individually.
  
  I dislike the Mede Empire, and I don't know enough about the Stormcloaks to swear loyalty. I'd join both, and play them against one another to mutual benefit. You know, keeping things fair. Independence is rarely a matter of strength of arms anyhow.

  
  
• 
  

  Mortimer Bachton

  My statement made it sufficiently clear I was referring to the independence of a nation, not the independence of an individual.

  
  
• 
  

  6li7ch

  Indeed you did - wonderfully clear. I then responded with an unnecessarily vague statement commenting on the sad nature of nationalism; that in order to have a right and virtuous nation, one often has to sacrifice the rightness and virtue of the individual self.
  
  Look! I just did it again!

  
  
• 
  

  Mortimer Bachton

  Not a vague statement - it was just tangential. It was essentially your brain leaking an arbitrary thought.
  
  As for your second statement.... Well, there is always compromise between personal liberty and public responsibility in civilized society. A nationalist perspective doesn't actually change that. Also, it is not inherently 'sad'. Quite the opposite. That a collective group of people with a communal legacy are entitled to sustain a unified cultural identity is actually very rational, straightforward, and benign.

  
  
• 
  

  6li7ch

  Hey! Don't arbitrate the arbitrariness of my statements! :P
  
  Nothing was leaking anywhere. The statement was perfectly cohesive when my whole post is taken into consideration: acting out of a sense of personal rectitude under any government is as virtuous as being part of a localised collective identity.
  
  And I stand by my nifty sentence structure; it is inherently SAD that Nationalism OFTEN means a sacrifice of individual identity.
  
  (see what I did there, highlighting the two linked words? I mixed a definite with an indefinite, so just as it is sad that some kittens die, the fact that most kittens live doesn't make the fact that some die any less sad. For the kittens, at least. Unless you are a cat murderer or a suicidal kitten or - ok, now THIS is tangential.)
  
  I'd like to add that, YES, I agree with you! However those who do not feel wholly comfortable in their ancestral mold should be able to adopt their own cosmopolitan culture, wherever they feel the most comfortable doing so. Imperial taxation and registration sucks, but so does hogging the lush natural beauty of Skyrim and declaring it a residence purely for Nedic citizens.

  
  
• 
  

  Mortimer Bachton

  With or without a nationalistic perspective (let's define that simply as adopting and supporting your host nation's cultural identity), you will be compromising your individual identity. Because nationalism does not restrict it - society itself does.
  
  Because that's more or less the function of civilisation: the imposition of law and order by obligation of public responsibility, restricting and regulating personal liberty.

  
  
• 
  

  6li7ch

  Ok. But to add a parameter for myself - and I encourage you to disagree and go do something better with your time without being persuaded what-so-ever by my ramblings - it is theoretically possible to have a citizen who feels completely at ease with the laws of both society and national identity, and therefore cannot be compromised.
  
  Arguably, nationalism cannot exist without society, ergo society exists within every nationality. One's individuality can (again, theoretically) be aligned with society without being aligned to a specific nationality, hence we have socially-friendly politicians (ha ha) who do not approve of a country's national practices, and seek to change them with the aid of society.
  
  Hence the solution of joining both the Legion and the Stormcloaks - both are societies, but they have opposing nationalities. One is cosmopolitan, the other exclusive. Ironically these adjectives show their INDIVIDUAL political stance, which must both be compromised to create a lasting continental civilisation.
  
  For example, the Legion asks you to collect taxes from a Stormcloak-governed city. You go against the laws of both by raising the money yourself (mixing 1000 'Restore Fatigue' potions and selling them cheap to an alchemist) and giving it to the Legion. You are finding an individual solution to the needs of two conflicting parties, and all to the benefit of society.
  
  What was I getting at? Oh yeah. Just because someone is 'individual' doesn't make them selfish in the classic sense of the word. Some individuals like it when other people are happy.
  So long as everyone realised they are making their own choices - under threat or coercion or not - they can rest assured they have an identity, even though it may not be one they are particularly proud of.
  
  (I realise it is likely our definitions of words are clashing at this point. Please substitute one word [like 'society'] with the other ['nationality'] just to be sure we aren't arguing the same thing.)
  
  How cool would it be do debate this stuff with Dragon Shouts!?!

  
  
• 
  

  Elrich Lestrange

  #inoverhishead
  
  I think my own topic has slipped out of my reach... and even with the countless time I have spent on here and reading lore and loving these games, and knowing my stuff in many other areas of expertise... perhaps I should just stick to studying chemistry. I am at a loss, and have no business on this forum with this 6li7ch.

  
  
• 
  

  6li7ch

  Hee hee.
  
  Free time does one wonders.

  
  
• 
  

  Mortimer Bachton

  "it is theoretically possible to have a citizen who feels completely at ease with the laws of both society and national identity"
  
  Of course - that isn't even theoretical. That's typical. The majority of humans support their nation's culture AND societal law. The two have fundamentally similar purposes after all.
  
  " and therefore [their identity/liberty] cannot be compromised."
  
  Incorrect. By supporting societal law, you ARE having your liberty compromised. A human's personal liberty is restricted the instant they decide to participate in human civilisation.
  
  For example:
  
  Do you have the freedom to walk down the street naked defecating in public? No. You'd be arrested for public indecency. That is a restriction of your freedom, one obliged to you for the benefit of others. As a participant of human civilisation, you are willingly allowing your liberty to be restricted and regulated to create law and order.
  
  Whether a person supports their nation's cultural identity is irrelevant to this phenomenon. No matter the context, if you wish to exist in civilisation, you have restrictions on your personal freedom that you must obey. Period.
  
  *
  
  Now, you go on to discuss how a person can associate with society but not a nation. To avoid confusion, that can be explained in less vague terms. Most humans, regardless of the country they live in, share a majority of ethical codes. For example: Most of us, no matter where we live, instinctively feel that murder, rape, and theft are wrong.
  
  And that's obvious of course, because the fundamentals of human morality are biologically derived and perpetuated, not memetically.
  

  
  
• 
  

  Mortimer Bachton

  This conversation is starting to implode - we are experiencing a communication breakdown, and as you said - it's because we are defining and using terms differently. Which is fine, but it's creating convolution.
  
  Your final paragraphs, for example, are obviously true, and I never said anything remotely close to disputing them. :/

  
  

• Perhaps debating this in Dragon Shouts IS a good idea. One could only hope there'd be less discrepancy in terminology.

  
  :P

• 
  

• 
  

  6li7ch

  Yeah, a fireball is a fireball, even if you don't duck. ;)
  
  Ok, aside from our perspectives on majority and minority opinions (which would only change after doing a lengthy public census), We're almost on the same page. Almost.
  
  The main difference right now is also perceptive, but far easier to mutually disagree upon. You see, I feel perfectly free to go outside and defecate on the street (urhg. How unsanitary. I would never actually do this). I'm FREE to do it.
  
  HOWEVER I also acknowledge that there is a consequence. I'm not particularly bothered by that. Everything has consequences, and all consequences are imposed - if not by people, then by the very forces of reality. Frostbite and dysentery await public defaecators.
  After acknowledging this, identity is no longer a matter of what you think you can and cannot do. It's what you WANT to do. Your desires, your phobias, so forth.
  Liberty doesn't equate to identity.
  
  This theoretical person is at ease with social and nationalist laws, so they have no desire to act against them or to do anything but uphold them. Their identity is their country's identity, and therefor the only way to compromise them-self would be to act AGAINST their country's laws.
  In short, society provides additional consequences to actions, but cannot restrict those actions themselves.
  
  I'd agree with the basic laws of human nature (no rape, murder or theft is acceptable, mimetically motivated or otherwise), but by the very fact that we can perceive a society that doesn't hold these attributes as canon (most Orcs, for example) I cannot in good faith agree that society is reliant on contemporary ethics.
  
  I'm glad that it is, but I have to admit it may not always be.
  
  Thus, to me, ethics are part of a national identity rather than a social identity, even if that nation consists of the entire human race.
  
  I'd recommend ignoring the last part, because I need to invent a third word to juggle the various concepts and it is high time I went to feed my dog.

  
  

  • 
    

    Mortimer Bachton

    Wait - what? Public defecation would result in dysentery?!
    
    o_O
    
    If your excretory habits are putting you at risk of that disorder, whether in private or public, you are doing something ALARMINGLY wrong good sir.
    
    ....
    
    Anyway.
    
    Establishing the obvious differences between ability VS desire to do something was unnecessary. Obviously we all have the CAPACITY to walk naked and shit in public, that's irrelevant. When I said you couldn't walk naked and shit in public, that was framed within the context of our discussion: personal freedom VS societal law. You DON'T have the personal freedom to walk naked in public [free from negative societal consequence].
    
    Alas, our communication breakdown appears to be continuing. :( I never actually suggested ethics are contemporary. I said they were biologically derived, in fact. Morality is evolutionary instinct programmed into our genetic memory. It is very, very OLD - and fundamentally immutable.
    
    And yes - identity is not the same as liberty. The context we have been discussing them is the LIBERTY to express one's personal IDENTITY.
    
    *sigh*
    
    I am enjoying this conversation but we are experiencing an unfortunately frequent amount of communication failure. :(

  • 
    
  • 
    

    6litch

    
    
    The word 'contemporary' always gets me in trouble. It's a right pity I love it so much.
    
    Con - With
    
    Temporarius - Of time
    
    Effectively translatable as "sharing the same time as"
    
    By which I meant to say that ethics evidently share the same time and space as humanity, no matter what date either are present in. Whether genetics is ethics cause or otherwise are both completely plausible to me. The only scientific fault is to deny the possibility of something.
    
    SO.
    
    Dysentery sounded appropriately disgusting and people have the propensity to avoid it. I wasn't being literal. 
    
    In the whole identity/liberty thing, I was looking at this:
    
    " and therefore [their identity/liberty] cannot be compromised."
    
    You inserted the possibility of both into one of my comments (I meant identity) and then proceeded to elaborate on only one, so I considered it a possibility you saw them both as the same entity. Stranger things have happened.
    
    Hmm. Perhaps there's a simple way to get my message across. Ooh! I know!
    
    "If your independence is dependent on the independence of a nation, then you are always dividually dependent, and never independent individually."
    
    The "Independent Individual" embodies Personal Freedom. "Dividual Dependence" is Societal Law.
    
    With a bit of work:
    
    If Personal Freedom is dependent on Societal Law, then your Identity is a reflection of Societal Law, and never Personal Freedom.
    
    Gosh, that kinda makes sense. Of course I'd need to add the parameters of the 'theoretical citizen'.
    
    It's 'Murder by Numbers'. Personal Freedom can only be measured by one's willingness to pursue their individuality regardless of civil consequence.
    
    Whether that pursuit destroys the society or simply changes it falls in perfectly with the question of ethics, and thus genetics.
    

    
    
  • 
    

    6li7ch

    Gasp! I missed an apostrophe!
    
    *shame*

  
  

  Goodness, I love debates. Even the circular kind that never seems to go anywhere. Trust me, it is. I'm learning about another person's mental lexicon, which is a very important thing for a writer (and librarian) (and human being) (I shouldn't use parenthesis so much) to do.

  
  

  There was more to follow, but it was primarily derogatory. I shall not repeat it. It is disappointing when two minds do not fit together.