Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Machiavellianism

threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2009 10:48:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Hypothetically speaking, if our society were dictated by an oppressive ruling class and to maintain power they needed to divide the powerless and prevent them from unifying and rebelling, what sort of division tactics would be apparent in our society?

Religion? Sports teams maybe?

Oh, and don't forget fear tactics as well, aside from making us hate each other, they'd want to keep us afraid of, and distracted by "enemies" abroad. That way we'll never notice who our real enemies are. Does anyone see any apparent fear tactics?

See how alike you are to Machiavelli.
http://www.salon.com...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2009 11:23:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/1/2009 10:48:15 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if our society were dictated by an oppressive ruling class and to maintain power they needed to divide the powerless and prevent them from unifying and rebelling, what sort of division tactics would be apparent in our society?

Religion? Sports teams maybe?

Oh, and don't forget fear tactics as well, aside from making us hate each other, they'd want to keep us afraid of, and distracted by "enemies" abroad. That way we'll never notice who our real enemies are. Does anyone see any apparent fear tactics?

See how alike you are to Machiavelli.
http://www.salon.com...

Very true. Divide and rule. That's what keeps the privileged classes in power and is what ordinary people should rebel against.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2009 11:26:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/1/2009 10:48:15 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if our society were dictated by an oppressive ruling class and to maintain power they needed to divide the powerless and prevent them from unifying and rebelling, what sort of division tactics would be apparent in our society?

Just look at society today and you can find all your answers.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2009 11:33:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/1/2009 10:48:15 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if our society were dictated by an oppressive ruling class and to maintain power they needed to divide the powerless and prevent them from unifying and rebelling, what sort of division tactics would be apparent in our society?

Religion? Sports teams maybe?

Oh, and don't forget fear tactics as well, aside from making us hate each other, they'd want to keep us afraid of, and distracted by "enemies" abroad. That way we'll never notice who our real enemies are. Does anyone see any apparent fear tactics?

See how alike you are to Machiavelli.
http://www.salon.com...

I got an 80 on that test; I probably would have gotten higher if I'd put 'strongly dis/agree' instead of just dis/agree on some of them; I may have sugar coated a little, I guess.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 6:48:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I got 54% on the test, which is apparently "average."

"Divide and rule" Machiavellian leadership style is well known in Canada. Our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has broken so many political no-nos that it is starting to scare me. For example; during the coalition crisis near the end of 2008, he pitted English Canada against French Canada, in order to gain support for his continued government leadership. He attacked two other federalist parties on the issue of separation - something that has never been done, because it would be unthinkable. He likes to pit region against region, and rule the country through division.

Machiavelli would be proud of a lot of modern government tactics today, because they do work. Fear tactics, divide-and-rule, mass distractions... they're all evident and they all work. This is why Machiavelli was a political genius.

But, that being said, the governments don't always create these problems - they exploit them. These fears and divisions are already evident in our society, and the Machiavellis of the world will seize upon their chance to use them for their own purposes.

But it doesn't all governments do, or that all capitalist politicians, all sports teams, all wars, have Machiavellian reasoning behind them. Some sh*t just happens because it happens. For example, I don't believe 9/11 and the War in Afghanistan are Machiavellian machinations - but Iraq is, especially the way the old administration tried to get support for it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:26:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
74

For example; during the coalition crisis near the end of 2008, he pitted English Canada against French Canada, in order to gain support for his continued government leadership. He attacked two other federalist parties on the issue of separation - something that has never been done, because it would be unthinkable.
Was it TRUE that they held the views on separation relevant?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 4:47:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:26:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Was it TRUE that they held the views on separation relevant?

Well, the issue was that the coalition included the Liberals, the social democratic NDP and the separatiste/regionalist Bloc Quebecois. All three opposition parties together had enough members to replace Harper's Conservative government, but you needed all three to do it, so there was no way to leave out the Bloc.

It is an unwritten (or maybe written, I don't know) code among federalist parties that you do not attack each other on the separation issue; federalists, regardless of ideological stances, need to show a united front against the separatistes, because division along other lines does not help. Harper broke that by attacking the Liberals and NDP for promoting Quebec separation, regardless of the fact that the Bloc agreed to not even put forward the idea of separation during their time supporting the coalition.

What happened is that the rest of Canada, west of the Ontario-Quebec border, moves swiftly to support the Conservatives, since those damn Liberals and New Democrats are helping Quebec separate and get more of a privileged status. Quebec support for the Conservatives drops completely, but what does it matter when the rest of Canada supports him? Canada's language and regional schisms become exaggerated due to Harper's divide-and-rule tactics.

It was damn effective, though.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 8:15:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 4:47:56 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/2/2009 9:26:36 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Was it TRUE that they held the views on separation relevant?

Well, the issue was that the coalition included the Liberals, the social democratic NDP and the separatiste/regionalist Bloc Quebecois. All three opposition parties together had enough members to replace Harper's Conservative government, but you needed all three to do it, so there was no way to leave out the Bloc.
So in other words the excuse was "we needed to do it to win, and now we're gonna whine because the people we did it to beat are telling the truth about it."


It is an unwritten (or maybe written, I don't know) code among federalist parties that you do not attack each other on the separation issue; federalists, regardless of ideological stances, need to show a united front against the separatistes, because division along other lines does not help.
And you're saying that the Machiavellian thing to do is to NOT follow this code of cynical solidarity?

Harper broke that by attacking the Liberals and NDP for promoting Quebec separation, regardless of the fact that the Bloc agreed to not even put forward the idea of separation during their time supporting the coalition.
"Don't tell the truth about our views. In exchange, we promise not to tell the truth about our views."


What happened is that the rest of Canada, west of the Ontario-Quebec border, moves swiftly to support the Conservatives, since those damn Liberals and New Democrats are helping Quebec separate and get more of a privileged status. Quebec support for the Conservatives drops completely, but what does it matter when the rest of Canada supports him? Canada's language and regional schisms become exaggerated due to Harper's divide-and-rule tactics.
Better than lie-to-the-people-you-think-are-stupid-and-unite.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 8:15:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So in other words the excuse was "we needed to do it to win, and now we're gonna whine because the people we did it to beat are telling the truth about it."

Half-yes, and half-no. We needed them to form a coalition, but the Conservatives didn't tell the truth about the deal.

And you're saying that the Machiavellian thing to do is to NOT follow this code of cynical solidarity?

No, I didn't say that. I said Harper's divide-and-rule and fear tactics were Machiavellian, not this.

"Don't tell the truth about our views. In exchange, we promise not to tell the truth about our views."

Our views were well known. We had it in writing, signed by the Bloc leader, that there would be no mention of the separation issue. The idea was to form a semi-viable governing coalition to replace the Conservatives, and for that we needed the Bloc. Everyone knew this.

Better than lie-to-the-people-you-think-are-stupid-and-unite.

No one lied to them, lol. We laid all our cards out on the table and Canadians rejected them. I can't blame them either. But no one lied.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 8:45:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 8:25:40 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/2/2009 8:15:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So in other words the excuse was "we needed to do it to win, and now we're gonna whine because the people we did it to beat are telling the truth about it."

Half-yes, and half-no. We needed them to form a coalition, but the Conservatives didn't tell the truth about the deal.
What did they say that was false? You needed to play nice with them, you did, isn't the playing nice with them what conservatives were pissy about?


And you're saying that the Machiavellian thing to do is to NOT follow this code of cynical solidarity?

No, I didn't say that. I said Harper's divide-and-rule and fear tactics were Machiavellian, not this.
The divide and rule stuff is other words for "NOT FOLLOWING THIS CODE OF CYNICAL SOLIDARITY."


"Don't tell the truth about our views. In exchange, we promise not to tell the truth about our views."

Our views were well known. We had it in writing, signed by the Bloc leader, that there would be no mention of the separation issue.
Stating "there will be no mention of the issue" in other words means you don't go talking about the views. It might still be well-known, to some (e.g. those who already pay so much attention that they aren't the votes that matter anyway), and announcing that you will not mention an issue central to your ally's existence is another word for announcing that you have made a dishonorable move, that you yourself regard it as dishonorable, and that everyone should have contempt for you.

The idea was to form a semi-viable governing coalition to replace the Conservatives, and for that we needed the Bloc. Everyone knew this.
Claiming you need something to defeat your opponent is never going to help you against your opponent. When your opponent calls "Foul," saying "We needed it" is just dumb.


Better than lie-to-the-people-you-think-are-stupid-and-unite.

No one lied to them, lol. We laid all our cards out on the table and Canadians rejected them. I can't blame them either. But no one lied.
When you announce, openly "we're not going to discuss whether we share the views of the people who we signed up with" it's more contemptible than any lie, because a lie at least does the person you're lying to the honor of acknowledging that they have a brain to be lied to. If people know you aren't actually a separatist, when you join with separatists it makes it impossible to tell the truth about your stance on the issue because it announces you don't have a principled enough stand on the issue to think joining with them requires an explanation. At least Winston Churchill wasn't shy about naming the devil.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2009 9:57:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 8:45:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What did they say that was false? You needed to play nice with them, you did, isn't the playing nice with them what conservatives were pissy about?

No, they were pissed off that we were trying to throw them out. XD They only used the Bloc issue to cast more negativity on the idea of the coalition and divide the country along its fragile lines.

The divide and rule stuff is other words for "NOT FOLLOWING THIS CODE OF CYNICAL SOLIDARITY."

Pretty much.

Stating "there will be no mention of the issue" in other words means you don't go talking about the views. It might still be well-known, to some (e.g. those who already pay so much attention that they aren't the votes that matter anyway), and announcing that you will not mention an issue central to your ally's existence is another word for announcing that you have made a dishonorable move, that you yourself regard it as dishonorable, and that everyone should have contempt for you.

I agree with this analysis, to be honest. But, the Conservatives never necessarily said something like this; they attacked us for support separatism, while even the Bloc did not want to push the issue (support for separatism is low in Quebec at the moment).

Also, when I say "won't mention the issue," I mean that the Bloc will not hold separatist issues against the two coalition partners as they rule. Not that they aren't going to say, "hey look, we're separatists."

Claiming you need something to defeat your opponent is never going to help you against your opponent. When your opponent calls "Foul," saying "We needed it" is just dumb.

Good point, and I personally wouldn't have done this coalition idea... it was overall a bad idea, even if I agreed with the intent. We didn't just say "we need it," either - we laid out the deal and why we were doing it, as well calling the Conservative accusations idiotic, due to our leader's record against the separatistes.

Not the best defense, which is why we ultimately never had huge support. The best support we probably had was Harper's general lack of popularity.

When you announce, openly "we're not going to discuss whether we share the views of the people who we signed up with" it's more contemptible than any lie, because a lie at least does the person you're lying to the honor of acknowledging that they have a brain to be lied to. If people know you aren't actually a separatist, when you join with separatists it makes it impossible to tell the truth about your stance on the issue because it announces you don't have a principled enough stand on the issue to think joining with them requires an explanation. At least Winston Churchill wasn't shy about naming the devil.

We said we don't share their views, and people should have known that. The deal, and the ambiguity of it, did not help us, but Harper pushed that uncertainty into overdrive, causing our momentum to drop and for our leader, the person who ultimately made it very hard for separatistes to separate legally, was thought a buffoon.

As I said, it was an effective tactic, and I believe Machiavelli would have been proud.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 4:26:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/1/2009 10:48:15 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if our society were dictated by an oppressive ruling class and to maintain power they needed to divide the powerless and prevent them from unifying and rebelling, what sort of division tactics would be apparent in our society?

Religion? Sports teams maybe?

Oh, and don't forget fear tactics as well, aside from making us hate each other, they'd want to keep us afraid of, and distracted by "enemies" abroad. That way we'll never notice who our real enemies are. Does anyone see any apparent fear tactics?

See how alike you are to Machiavelli.
http://www.salon.com...

The same division tactics that ARE and always HAVE been in place:

(1) CLASS. In Britain there is very little cross over between the classes.
(2) MONEY. Goes hand in hand with class but money will elevate you above your position ONLY while you have it.. Class is yours a life time.
(3) RACE. Political correctness means we talk (and perhaps even think) with more equality BUT the hard facts of the world are still the same: The darker races serve the lighter.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2009 10:53:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 4:26:37 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
(3) RACE. Political correctness means we talk (and perhaps even think) with more equality BUT the hard facts of the world are still the same: The darker races serve the lighter.

Really, DAT? Maybe you're more like Nick Griffin than you thought.

Or was this meant to be a "I don't agree with it, but it is reality," quote.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2009 8:54:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/1/2009 10:48:15 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Hypothetically speaking, if our society were dictated by an oppressive ruling class and to maintain power they needed to divide the powerless and prevent them from unifying and rebelling, what sort of division tactics would be apparent in our society?

Religion? Sports teams maybe?

Democracy?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2009 4:11:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I got a 64, although I do see problems with the questions themselves. For example, #18, "It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there." Well, of course it's harder, but that doesn't justify the cutting of said corners.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 4:18:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/11/2009 10:53:28 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/11/2009 4:26:37 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
(3) RACE. Political correctness means we talk (and perhaps even think) with more equality BUT the hard facts of the world are still the same: The darker races serve the lighter.

Really, DAT? Maybe you're more like Nick Griffin than you thought.

Or was this meant to be a "I don't agree with it, but it is reality," quote.

Yes, obviously the latter.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2009 4:36:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 4:18:03 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/11/2009 10:53:28 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/11/2009 4:26:37 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
(3) RACE. Political correctness means we talk (and perhaps even think) with more equality BUT the hard facts of the world are still the same: The darker races serve the lighter.

Really, DAT? Maybe you're more like Nick Griffin than you thought.

Or was this meant to be a "I don't agree with it, but it is reality," quote.

Yes, obviously the latter.

Okay, do you mean darker with respect to pigmentation, or darker as far as sense of ethics? (As in, the wicked serve the pious?)
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 4:33:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
According to Machiavellianism, you shouldn't say that you have a high score if you got a high score, because my knowing that you would be classified as a cut-throat does nothing to help you, and only hurts you.
youguysaredouches
Posts: 122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2009 9:53:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://i890.photobucket.com...

I got a 90. Is there a good or bad, or is every score ok?
studentathletechristian8 - You may have your first online girlfriend

Me - I had a MySpace girlfriend, but it turned out to be a 45 year old guy friend.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 7:39:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/30/2009 4:33:18 PM, mongeese wrote:
According to Machiavellianism, you shouldn't say that you have a high score if you got a high score, because my knowing that you would be classified as a cut-throat does nothing to help you, and only hurts you.

Depends on whether you're going for love or fear neh?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2009 8:26:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/29/2009 4:36:52 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 8/29/2009 4:18:03 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 8/11/2009 10:53:28 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/11/2009 4:26:37 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
(3) RACE. Political correctness means we talk (and perhaps even think) with more equality BUT the hard facts of the world are still the same: The darker races serve the lighter.

Really, DAT? Maybe you're more like Nick Griffin than you thought.

Or was this meant to be a "I don't agree with it, but it is reality," quote.

Yes, obviously the latter.

Okay, do you mean darker with respect to pigmentation, or darker as far as sense of ethics? (As in, the wicked serve the pious?)

pigmentation, obviously.

Who made the sneakers your wearing? or the clothes?
The Cross.. the Cross.