Special Comment #1: The Quilor Perspective

So, I've decided to start an Op-Ed series here in the EBC. What I think about things, here in Europeia, and the broader NS world. I'm calling them “Special Comments” after the Kieth Olbermann's special comments – Olbermann being my favorite news commentator, because I expect they'll end up much the same, though perhaps with a tiny bit – emphasis on the tiny – less vitriolic than Olbermann's. But it won't be a reporting of the news. It will be, simply, my opinions. My views.

My views, like anyone else's are informed by my ideology, my worldview. My ideology, essentially, doesn't conform to any of the pre-existing NationStates political ideologies, per se. I call it, for lack of a better term, 'Quilorism' or 'The Quilor Perspective'. Fairly uncreative, I know.

So What is the Quilor Perspective?

First and foremost, I believe in contention. I believe in disagreement. I believe in argument. Every region needs contention, needs dispute, needs debate, needs argument. Yes, it can cause problems. Yes, it can drive people away. But it is also essential to keeping things interesting, keeping the politics from stagnating into a bunch of people who just agree on every little thing, and thus becoming boring. The last Senate elections were filled with people who said they would 'continue the law reforms and the discussion on Con V.' Everyone said that. Because they all believed it. And I agree, that was a good thing to believe, but I felt the Senate Elections themselves, then, were boring. I remarked that I wanted someone, anyone, to say they opposed discussion Con V, or wanted to stop the Law Reforms, just for some difference.

Does contention need to be carefully managed? Do we need to stop it from spilling over, from becoming too much? Yes. Does that mean that we should choke contention off? No.

I believe that there is a potential to have too much civility, too much politeness, too much tact. I know that I'm not in danger of having those things, but I also believe that it is eminently possible for Europeia too, and I think it may well, to a degree, have them.

The trend of the senate conceding to the Executive, overall, in recent times, bothers me. The trend of just approving the vast majority of cabinet appointments without any comment, and then people getting annoyed when someone does take the time to ask questions and deliberate is dangerous. There are times when the Senate can and should concede to the executive, and its not as if all cabinet appointments need to be contended or questioned, but a Senator should feel free to question – aggressively, if they wish – a cabinet nominee. And vote nay.

I'll construct a purely theoretical example. Pretend we still have a region economy for a second, and that it works. (We don't and we shouldn't, but that isn't the point). I'm in the Senate, and the President Nominates Bob to be the Finance Minister. There is no question that Bob has the dedication and activity to do the job, or that he doesn't know what goes into being a finance minister, but I, a Senator, fundamentally disagree with what his policies in the Finance realm are. I should have every right to grill him, and vote nay. Or if I think his association with certain people, regions, organizations, etc, are a problem, then I should be allowed to vote on that.

The Senate can and should be able to aggressively question the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet – everyone. The Senate should not just roll over, and should always be willing to legislate.

And on that front, is another thing: A reconsideration of Consensus. The region should always be willing to discuss old consensus. The old consensus may not need to be changed. Probably won't, in most cases, but it should always be open to discussion. We shouldn't necessarily discuss every old consensus now, or even on a regular basis, but if someone does want to discuss it, does want to bring up the idea of changing an old consensus, they should always be allowed to – no, they should be encouraged to. Europeia needs to keep looking forward, using the past as a base, a foundation, rather than a road map or a fence.

I believe that Europeia needs to continue an assertive foreign policy, and needs to be more willing to be attacked by some people, some regions. We can't please anyone – ever – and we definitely shouldn't try. The decision abstain on the liberation of Catholic, then to vote for the repeal that liberation were in part because of the perception of the Catholic raid. Both candidates now have fundamental issues with the Catholic Raid, the way it was handled, and the way it was perceived. Well, I think Europeia should be willing to not care. We shouldn't go out of our way to piss people off, but its not as if the FRA, TITO and the UDL liked us any more. It didn't make the neutrals change their minds towards us, because they're neutral. Europeia should be more willing to stand with its allies and friends on issues like that, like Soviet Union.

And that, in a slightly incoherent nutshell, is the Quilor Perspective.
 
>_>

<_<


tl;dr
Coming from you?

Still rich.
I thought you said contention and disagreement were needed by every region.


I feel that I have to disagree. Individual people need contention and disagreement. For a region; these things are a two-sided coin, being flipped into the air and it's a 50-50 chance that it will make or break the region.

No one person can quantify exactly what makes a region successful. The fact that many regions succeed based on those factors doesn't mean that a region needs them.

No matter what amount of text you create to back up your 'facts'; I have created and maintained a region before now that did succeed without any contention or disagreement. We flourished in compromise and peace. Legislation was by-passed for the pleasure of being lead by a benevolent Monarch, though the option to create it still existed.

Friendships were forged and rivalries were made, but without the rudeness or meanness that you see in the rest of NS.

The region failed because contention and disagreement found their way into the region unexpectedly and without warning and it slowly tore it apart over the span of a couple years. It will be remade back into what it was before all of that happened; it will make light of all the disagreement and warmongering in the rest of the world and it will be a place of rest and happiness again. It will grow and flourish and succeed, not because of contention and disagreement, but because of the will of its diehard natives to see it do so.

Your statement is full of the propaganda one expects to hear from people who sow contention and disagreement wherever they go.
 
This coming from a man who sows contention and disagreement everywhere he goes? *Points to the signifigant disagreements and arguements Henry has had with lots of people in RI in just the last two months* Even more rich.

Friendships were forged and rivalries were made, but without the rudeness or meanness that you see in the rest of NS.

I didn't say the region needed rudeness or meanness, and I didn't present anything as 'fact'. I said I was stating my opinion, my view. I know I'm rude and kind of an asshat, but that's another matter entirely. Contention and disagreement is not the same thing as being rude or a jerk. That's just kind of who I am.
 
This coming from a man who sows contention and disagreement everywhere he goes? *Points to the signifigant disagreements and arguements Henry has had with lots of people in RI in just the last two months* Even more rich.

Friendships were forged and rivalries were made, but without the rudeness or meanness that you see in the rest of NS.

I didn't say the region needed rudeness or meanness, and I didn't present anything as 'fact'. I said I was stating my opinion, my view. I know I'm rude and kind of an asshat, but that's another matter entirely. Contention and disagreement is not the same thing as being rude or a jerk. That's just kind of who I am.
Actually, I debate and I persuade. Some times I can be a bit overbearing, especially when I believe strongly in something. If I see a better way of doing things than the general system provides, I'll say something and then I'll back it up until someone comes along that has an alternative that makes more sense.

I said that a region doesn't need contention and disagreement. If those are already inherent in the system that's in a region; then it becomes unavoidable. Of course, people will question a system, but that's not the same as disagreement.

You made it sound as if contention and disagreement were the only things a region thrived on without painting the surrounding scenery. What conclusion did you expect people to draw?
 
Does everything have to get so fucking personal?
It would seem so.

I think, Henry, we're operating with very diferant definitions of contention and disagreement, but you cannot have an active political sphere where everyone is agreeing with eachother an all the major and the majority of the minor point. You can have an active community, but a political sphere needs disagreement, or things will stagnate.
 
Does everything have to get so fucking personal?
It would seem so.

I think, Henry, we're operating with very diferant definitions of contention and disagreement, but you cannot have an active political sphere where everyone is agreeing with eachother an all the major and the majority of the minor point. You can have an active community, but a political sphere needs disagreement, or things will stagnate.
here's my idea of something without Contention and Disagreement:

A: This is what I believe.
B: This is what I believe. It slightly differs from what A believes
C: This is what I believe. It differs a lot from what A and B believes, but is closer to A than to B.
D: This is what I believe. It differs a lot from A and B, but it closer to C and A than to B.

A: Let's combine those and see if we can create something we'll all be happy with.
B: I agree with A.
C. I agree with A and B.
D. That sounds like a good idea.

A,B,C,D: This is what we have agreed to believe and follow. This benefits everyone; not just one of us.



Most of the contention and Disagreement that comes in a region is when one person or many people are not willing to give a little and compromise. When people aren't willing to try new things out to see what work and what doesn't; people who scorn others without thought; or just put people down for their ideas without even explaining why they're doing so. A lot of people follow their own agendas and have no wish to help others out unless it helps them out.

The way you paint the picture is that we should stand next to our allies no matter what they do and that we are made stronger for it even with the discontent expressed by our citizens for the reasons that you stated about contention and disagreement.

Things don't stagnate without disagreement; they stagnate without communication and expression.
 
Like I said Henry, your definition of Contention and Disagreement is differant than mine.

My Asshatery and my general jerkishness is simply part of my personality, and isn't part of my view in regards to disagreement and contention. I don't try to justify outright dickishness.
 
Like I said Henry, your definition of Contention and Disagreement is differant than mine.

My Asshatery and my general jerkishness is simply part of my personality, and isn't part of my view in regards to disagreement and contention. I don't try to justify outright dickishness.
And your belief that people should be able to 'aggressively challenge'?

I'm not attacking you or how you act, Cerian. I'm merely questioning what you said and I'm asking you questions based on the contradictory nature of what you said compared to how you defended what you said.
 
Back
Top