[NEW PECULIAR WAY]: Manifesto for the 54th Cosa

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I'm enjoying watching this debate, but I just wanted to chime in on the question of "pompibility".

1) "Pompibility" isn't a real word.
2) I know what Epic means, though.
3) It's a complete red-herring to connect this question to the constitutional question. You can have down-to-earth, bicycle-riding monarchies like the Netherlands and Sweden. You can have republics whose heads of state are pompous as all get-out; it's just that usually the latter tend to be dictatorships.



Nevertheless, I don't think democracy and pomp are counterposed.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 5, 2019 14:17:27 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Nov 5, 2019 10:57:59 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Four would be the easiest (each new province could be formed by a merger of two old ones), but the exact number isn't important. Provinces are an important part of Talossan culture and it would be a shame to blow them up unless we really needed to (and at this point we don't). 

Also, the last round of catchment reform was designed specifically to group people more meaningfully.

Important?  Why?  What's so important about them?  And if they're so important, how do you justify mergers?  Seriously.  It seems like the only time things are important^TM around here is when we're putting plastic slipcovers on things.

Many people care about them in a variety of ways:
-Lengthy debates over provincial colors
-Distinct identities (ie, Cezembre is generally considered "EuroTalossa", Iason and Vitx often talk about being "Ohio Benitians," etc).
-Many TFL teams are named after provinces
-Laws and holidays unique to different provinces
-General banter about which province in the best 

I could go on if I thought about it for a little bit longer.

Mergers are necessary to inject life into the provinces. Yes, if provinces merge, some of their unique traits will go away, but that is small price to pay for losing provinces altogether to inactivity. As AMP points out in its manifesto:

"All eight provinces currently have distinct histories, but that will be little consolation when their histories cease for lack of anything happening there."

I have not had anyone think we are secessionist movement. It is obvious from everything we do that we are not. But what we very well could turn into is just a place where some people get together to post on a message board. Perhaps that is what Peculiarists want, but in that case you will need to provide a compelling alternative explanation of why we are all here and why others should want to join us. Our community is pretty good but not so much better than what can be found elsewhere.

People want to join us because we claim Milwaukee?  That's patently ridiculous.  

I never said people join us because we claim Milwaukee. I have said repeatedly, though, that people join Talossa because it is unique. In the absence of a claim to land, which is a big part of what most countries do, it would be difficult to convince people why they should even jokingly consider us a country. To outsiders, we'd be a social club, and being a social club is not unique at all.

I have all due respect for the cradle of Talossanity, but you talk in circles about how we obviously don't control it, but then on the Haxh you're "in" Talossa. Which is it? Is that sovereign Talossan territory or not?

After years of going through literature classes, I finally figured out the importance of suspension of disbelief.

I find it quite easy to think that the east side of Milwaukee both is and is not Talossa, in different ways.

This is not a convincing example. As Epic pointed out, the Changing of the Guard in Prague is just a holdover from its days of Monarchy. When I saw Changing of the Guard in London, it was really cool in part because there is an actual Royal for whom the guard is changing.

The changing of the Guard at Prague castle is a holdover from the Czech monarchy? That's news to me.  The castle guard was established in its current form in 1918 specifically to protect the seat of the *checks notes* Czechoslovak President.

Oops.

I maintain that the ceremonial changing of the guard probably draws on traditions of Monarchy in central Europe. Obviously, were we a country that can use force to govern people, it's better to have a republic (and not a pompous one at that). However, we have the luxury of not being that. Given the opportunity to have real Regal traditions or just the shadows of them, why would we choose the latter?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 5, 2019 14:56:32 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Hands off my illusions!

Over the past four years I have "deluded" myself into thinking I have been a scholar, magazine editor, Senator, sportsman, and world leader. Those experiences have benefited me greatly.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Nov 5, 2019 15:19:06 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Nov 5, 2019 14:56:32 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Hands off my illusions!

Over the past four years I have "deluded" myself into thinking I have been a scholar, magazine editor, Senator, sportsman, and world leader. Those experiences have benefited me greatly.

Oh no!  That's the thing... you've not deluded yourself into thinking you were those things.  You actually were/are those things.  You performed the roles in the Talossan context.

And that's the crux of the matter.  You actually have been a Senator.  But the land of East Milwaukee, despite our claims, does not function as our sovereign territory.

You're confusing levels here.  Part of the appeal behind Talossa (micronationality in general, but Talossa specifically) is that you really can be a Senator and a scholar, with the rights/privileges/responsibilities that come with it.  Your Senatorship is small, not fictional.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Nov 5, 2019 15:13:03 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

People want to join us because we claim Milwaukee?  That's patently ridiculous.  

I never said people join us because we claim Milwaukee. I have said repeatedly, though, that people join Talossa because it is unique. In the absence of a claim to land, which is a big part of what most countries do, it would be difficult to convince people why they should even jokingly consider us a country. To outsiders, we'd be a social club, and being a social club is not unique at all.

But land claims aren't unique.  You're pointing to that yourself, Ian.  People are drawn to what is uniquely Talossan, cool.  I get that.  But these land claims aren't that.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 5, 2019 15:30:44 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Nov 5, 2019 15:19:06 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Hands off my illusions!

Over the past four years I have "deluded" myself into thinking I have been a scholar, magazine editor, Senator, sportsman, and world leader. Those experiences have benefited me greatly.

Oh no!  That's the thing... you've not deluded yourself into thinking you were those things.  You actually were/are those things.  You performed the roles in the Talossan context.

And that's the crux of the matter.  You actually have been a Senator.  But the land of East Milwaukee, despite our claims, does not function as our sovereign territory.

You're confusing levels here.  Part of the appeal behind Talossa (micronationality in general, but Talossa specifically) is that you really can be a Senator and a scholar, with the rights/privileges/responsibilities that come with it.  Your Senatorship is small, not fictional.

Not exactly. If we didn't function at least a little bit like other countries do, I would have just been a Prime Minister, Senator, etc over an internet forum. This does not have the same appeal as doing them in the context of a country, even if it is closer to the literal truth of what is occurring.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Nov 5, 2019 15:39:37 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Nov 5, 2019 15:30:44 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Oh no!  That's the thing... you've not deluded yourself into thinking you were those things.  You actually were/are those things.  You performed the roles in the Talossan context.

And that's the crux of the matter.  You actually have been a Senator.  But the land of East Milwaukee, despite our claims, does not function as our sovereign territory.

You're confusing levels here.  Part of the appeal behind Talossa (micronationality in general, but Talossa specifically) is that you really can be a Senator and a scholar, with the rights/privileges/responsibilities that come with it.  Your Senatorship is small, not fictional.

Not exactly. If we didn't function at least a little bit like other countries do, I would have just been a Prime Minister, Senator, etc over an internet forum. This does not have the same appeal as doing them in the context of a country, even if it is closer to the literal truth of what is occurring.

Talossa is a country.  I never claimed it wasn't.  It's the Derivativists among us who claim that without land (which we don't actually control, remember), we're just an internet or social club.  You're not addressing land claims now but other behaviors.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 5, 2019 15:33:07 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Nov 5, 2019 15:13:03 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I never said people join us because we claim Milwaukee. I have said repeatedly, though, that people join Talossa because it is unique. In the absence of a claim to land, which is a big part of what most countries do, it would be difficult to convince people why they should even jokingly consider us a country. To outsiders, we'd be a social club, and being a social club is not unique at all.

But land claims aren't unique.  You're pointing to that yourself, Ian.  People are drawn to what is uniquely Talossan, cool.  I get that.  But these land claims aren't that.

The land claims aren't singlehandedly what makes Talossa cool. It's a combination of factors of which the land is a part:
-There are many unique pursuits available in Talossa which are not available in other countries, but:
-Talossa looks and acts like other countries just enough to give everything an aura of realness.

You must have both parts. We are uniquely positioned to deliver given our activity is reasonably high and the legitimacy of our claims are good enough that they can feel real.

[E.S. Bornatfiglheu]

Nov 5, 2019 15:45:27 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Nov 5, 2019 15:33:07 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

But land claims aren't unique.  You're pointing to that yourself, Ian.  People are drawn to what is uniquely Talossan, cool.  I get that.  But these land claims aren't that.

The land claims aren't singlehandedly what makes Talossa cool. It's a combination of factors of which the land is a part:
-There are many unique pursuits available in Talossa which are not available in other countries, but:
-Talossa looks and acts like other countries just enough to give everything an aura of realness.

You must have both parts. We are uniquely positioned to deliver given our activity is reasonably high and the legitimacy of our claims are good enough that they can feel real.

But the land claims not only aren't real... they don't even feel real.  That's part of the issue here. 

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 5, 2019 15:44:50 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

Nov 5, 2019 15:39:37 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Not exactly. If we didn't function at least a little bit like other countries do, I would have just been a Prime Minister, Senator, etc over an internet forum. This does not have the same appeal as doing them in the context of a country, even if it is closer to the literal truth of what is occurring.

Talossa is a country.  I never claimed it wasn't.  It's the Derivativists among us who claim that without land (which we don't actually control, remember), we're just an internet or social club.  You're not addressing land claims now but other behaviors.

I am aware of the concept of stateless nations, but it is generally recognized that a country must claim land to be a country. I don't know how to justify Talossa's "country-ness" (even jokingly) if we do not do this.

You said you have had friends interested in Talossa before you told them about the land. How had you explained it before that point, and what exactly were they interested in? This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Nov 5, 2019 15:52:50 GMT -6 E.S. Bornatfiglheu said:

But the land claims not only aren't real... they don't even feel real.  That's part of the issue here. 

Ahh, I think we may have gotten down to the crux of our disagreement.

Whenever it is convenient, I can get myself to feel as though the land claims are real, even though I know they are not. If you don't feel the same way I can see why you would want to get rid of them.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Nov 5, 2019 14:26:29 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I'm enjoying watching this debate, but I just wanted to chime in on the question of "pompibility".

1) "Pompibility" isn't a real word.
2) I know what Epic means, though.
3) It's a complete red-herring to connect this question to the constitutional question. You can have down-to-earth, bicycle-riding monarchies like the Netherlands and Sweden. You can have republics whose heads of state are pompous as all get-out; it's just that usually the latter tend to be dictatorships.



Nevertheless, I don't think democracy and pomp are counterposed.

Love the picture. And also:

1) I know, but hey: now it is a real Talossan English word.

2) I am glad my being too lazy to write out "ability to exude pomp and ceremonial fanfare and mieidă" hasn't impeded communications
3) Right you are, but going slightly off-topic, I do think that a (somewhat) apolitical, but very much active Monarch (so, not John I) would be a very welcome cultural enrichment and area of activity that Talossa could use, which might not be possible for the (ceremonial?) Head of State of a Republic. Also, I would very much hope that our Monarch(s) be eco-friendly and green, and choose to ride bicycles (or horses, whatevs), and with their pompibility intact! I dream of an enlightening and enlightened mother- or father-figure that contributes to arts, crafts, culture, language and literature very significantly and frequently (so, not John I).

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Nov 5, 2019 15:55:22 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

I am aware of the concept of stateless nations, but it is generally recognized that a country must claim land to be a country.

Generally, but not exclusively.

• Sovereign Military Order of Malta
• Esperanta Civito

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Most of our current and aspiring citizenry live in some form of actual/aspiring republic. A monarchy has more novelty and more charm.

I also can't help but notice that your platform is entirely negative, ESB. You want to get rid of the idea of provinces, Talossan territory, and the monarchy. But I'm trying to imagine Day 2.