Based Vampire the Masquerade
-
Oh no, I had a feeling that wasnโt the best terminology. Iโve offended the bees, havenโt I?
Iโm not offended, if thatโs what you mean. Iโm just curious what it means because I havenโt seen it before and can only guess.
-
Fascism is what you get when Aristocracy gets a business degree. The difference between a feudal lord and a CEO is non-farm income.
Far, far from it. Despite the casual use (including by me!) of aristocracy for any entrenched elite, there is a non-negligible difference between actual aristocrats and plutocrats. Long story short, aristocrats are dependent on social capital and extraordinary legal privileges; plutocrats are dependent on financial capital. The tension between these competing sources of elite power has fueled many pre-modern conflicts. The two can blend, and thereโs rarely a โpureโ example of either, but theyโre arenโt quite equivalent either. A majority-owner of a modern farming conglomerate does not base his power on the same foundation as a feudal lord, and vice-versa.
In principle you are correct, in practice the functional difference is very much negligible. As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works. The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, itโs all there, itโs just got a different window dressing.
On paper their power is different. In practice, not so much.
-
I apologise for the aggressive tone of My first reply to you, and will now attempt a more measured response:
Weโre talking about fantasy creatures and their equality with humans. Iโm a fantasy creature. Denigrating other inhumans is a very slippery slope to denigrating inhuman creatures like Me. I and other members of the otherkin community would prefer to know that youโre an ally.
Literally talking like chat GPT.
-
Yes, but I believe you should have either phrased this nice enough to actually affect people or much more aggressive and definitive instead of this rather diplomatic statement.
โFuck off, weโre not dealing with your bullshitโ is a perfectly acceptable thing to say to fascists.
Having neither the desire or energy to โfixโ everyone is fine โ especially dirtbags that are looking for an argument in bad faith.
-
I think treating inhumanity as horror is pretty fascist. Iโm in love with a very sweet monster who hates Nazis, and Iโm a big fan of Guillermo del Toroโs movies where humans tend to be more evil than monsters.
In My experience VTM players trend fascist because the game encourages you to accept the Camarillaโs fascist idolisation of humanity.
Inhumanity meaning the opposite of humane โ in fact it used to be spelled inhumane. I.e. โcruelโ.
Strangely enough it doesnโt have the โnot a humanโ meaning inhuman does, but English is weird.
-
Literally talking like chat GPT.
My first reply to that user was a lot more aggressive, but I decided to tone it down and be more patient. My patience did not bear any fruit, but Iโm glad I gave it an effort.
-
Inhumanity meaning the opposite of humane โ in fact it used to be spelled inhumane. I.e. โcruelโ.
Strangely enough it doesnโt have the โnot a humanโ meaning inhuman does, but English is weird.
Thatโs because we speak a language designed by human supremacists.
-
In principle you are correct, in practice the functional difference is very much negligible. As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works. The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, itโs all there, itโs just got a different window dressing.
On paper their power is different. In practice, not so much.
As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works.
Thatโs not the point being made by the legal distinction. The point is not that a plutocracy is vulnerable to the rule of law while an aristocracy is not - the question of the strength of rule of law is separate from the question of aristocracy or plutocracy. The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.
The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, itโs all there, itโs just got a different window dressing.
What youโre complaining about ere can be applied to any elite.
-
As anyone who has ever tried to hold a plutocrat accountable in court can tell you, their equality under the law is more theoretical than how the world really works.
Thatโs not the point being made by the legal distinction. The point is not that a plutocracy is vulnerable to the rule of law while an aristocracy is not - the question of the strength of rule of law is separate from the question of aristocracy or plutocracy. The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.
The cults of personality, the careful reputational management, the nepotism and cronyism, dynastic rule and insularity, itโs all there, itโs just got a different window dressing.
What youโre complaining about ere can be applied to any elite.
The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.
Weโre so very close but weโre not quite getting that last point. What Iโm saying is itโs a distinction with very little meaningful difference. Itโs interesting from an academic point of view, but thatโs it. How they rationalize their privilege and sell their legitimacy to people makes no difference.
-
True, but in fairness I tried to discuss utilitarianism with my cat over dinner and his response was trying to steal food off my plate.
Which in hindsight could have actually been a rather profound commentary on the pursuit of happiness in a utilitarian framework.
-
The point is that the basis of aristocratic power comes (in part) from a position of extraordinary legal privilege, not simply being able to escape consequences for crimes.
Weโre so very close but weโre not quite getting that last point. What Iโm saying is itโs a distinction with very little meaningful difference. Itโs interesting from an academic point of view, but thatโs it. How they rationalize their privilege and sell their legitimacy to people makes no difference.
Itโs more than just academic. The question is not whether aristocracy or plutocracy acts in a fundamentally better or worse way than the other, which you seem to be focused on, but whether they act in a different way from the other, which they very much do. The basis of their power comes from different roots, and because of that, they have different interests, different goals, different avenues of action, different preferences in compromise with wider society. Failing to understand that will result in failing to understand the reasoning for political maneuvering by one or the other.
-
On the one hand, good on them for trying a โnazi punks fuck offโ type move.
On the other hand, a blood sucking aristocracy that feeds off the โlesser peopleโ beneath them as the protagonistsโฆ thatโs nearly the definition of fascism?
thatโs nearly the definition of fascism?
Yes, which is why they need to put this kind of disclaimer in their handbook โ lest they end up with chuds like the Warhammer franchise. Those chuds being the ones that donโt understand that the Imperium is really bad.
-
I mean, theyโre fictional, they can be whatever you want them to be
But White Wolf VtM vampires arenโt.
-
Itโs more than just academic. The question is not whether aristocracy or plutocracy acts in a fundamentally better or worse way than the other, which you seem to be focused on, but whether they act in a different way from the other, which they very much do. The basis of their power comes from different roots, and because of that, they have different interests, different goals, different avenues of action, different preferences in compromise with wider society. Failing to understand that will result in failing to understand the reasoning for political maneuvering by one or the other.
they act in a different way from the other, which they very much do. The basis of their power comes from different roots, and because of that, they have different interests, different goals, different avenues of action, different preferences in compromise with wider society.
I firmly disagree. There is no meaningful difference in motivation or expected outcome. The behaviour is functionally identical. In neither case is there any commitment to compromise with society, both Aristocracy and Plutocracy leverage economic factors to control and contain the wider community, to arbitrary and capricious ends; frequently little more than the further consolidation of power. The terminology is different, it sounds different, but it does not behave different in any meaningful way. Any social contract is entirely grounded in what we choose to demand as a society, not intrinsic to the flavour of elite class.
Itโs the same motive, the same tools, and the same outcome, just re-branded and with a fresh coat of paint. Plutocracy in this era leverages scientific and evidence based psychological conditioning, social control, and new communication mediums to play on a variety of fundamental cognitive biases and limitations instead of leveraging religion alone as the primary means of containment of the governed, nothing more. As I said, itโs Aristocracy with a business degree. If you want to get specific itโs Aristocracy with a business degree and a marketing team instead of just the clergy.
-
True, but in fairness I tried to discuss utilitarianism with my cat over dinner and his response was trying to steal food off my plate.
Which in hindsight could have actually been a rather profound commentary on the pursuit of happiness in a utilitarian framework.
You can come discuss utilitarianism with the good creatures at !transspecies@lemmy.blahaj.zone
-
Iโm not offended, if thatโs what you mean. Iโm just curious what it means because I havenโt seen it before and can only guess.
Oh I just made a spelling mistake and was trying it into a dumb joke
-
Yes and no. Aristocracy can exist independent from fascism, and should be considered entirely separately. However, if they canโt maintain power with a purely conservative/reactionary coalition, aristocrats will almost always side with fascists over liberals, much less socialists. As such, in the modern day, aristocracies are aligned with fascists, despite fascism erasing aristocracy as it โsucceedsโ and aristocrats being generally aware that fascists do not have their aristocratic interests in mind.
Oh absolutely, itโs just that the modern day aristocrats of capitalism are so short sighted they canโt see past their own nose.
They donโt know that their own wealth is meaningless since rule of law is not theirs, and no one will care if they get epstiened like many Russian oligarchs.
โFirst they cameโ and all that
-
*Acided.
-
Good on them for stating it upfront though. (The mention of โalt-rightโ indicates a more recent version?).
Back in the 90โs/early 00โs it definitely attracted people both left and right winged.
However from my personal experience right wingers was more prevalent in wargaming compared to rpgโs. (Which really sucked because there you were enjoying a nice back n forth about Warhammer and then out comes the racist nazi talkโฆ)
Games Workshop did good by making a pretty strong statement a while ago. But Iโm afraid itโll always be a thing.
the problem is that they have no media literacy (well, barely any literacy at all) so the satirical nature of Warhammer goes far over their head and they instead unironically think the politics in the game are based.
-
the problem is that they have no media literacy (well, barely any literacy at all) so the satirical nature of Warhammer goes far over their head and they instead unironically think the politics in the game are based.
they donโt realize the nazi shit in these games is supposed to be grimdark authoritarian hellscape dystopias, not utopiasโฆ
but they can take grimdark authoritarian hellscapes as long as theyโre run by nazis.
