Rationals (NTs)

[Reason]

They be making fun of our NT-ness!

But muh logic filling!

Keep this thread light-hearted please, no genuine typism

 

[Ren]

Can I join? I'm an undercover NT. :blanketwave:

 

[Pin]

At least, I can breathe.

Spoiler: A series of profanities.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. Titty. Ass Fuck fuck fuck.

 

[Pin]

Can I join? I'm an undercover NT. :blanketwave:

Yeah.

I'm steering this topic towards World Domination. Your thoughts on the idea?

 

[Pin]

@Reason With Logic Filling
@Ren

I want to explore two sub-ideas here under the umbrella of World Domination.

How powerful can a person become? Provide examples of the most and least powerful people who've ever lived to support your points.

How large can a state (polity) become before it collapses like the Roman Empire? Provide examples of successful or unsuccessful states, forms-of government, or economic systems to support your points.

Take your time.

 

[Reason]

Yeah.

I'm steering this topic towards World Domination. Your thoughts on the idea?

Service guarantees citizenship

 

[Reason]

Just what quickly jumps to mind Pin, is aliens. Nothing would more quickly solidify a worldwide hegemony quite like the discovery of aliens. If I wanted to be dictator of Earth I would just manufacture the best evidence of aliens I can and demand loyalty to combat the threat.

The world would panic and give unfettered power immediately to whoever they felt could protect them the best.

EDIT: this is not how I imagined this thread going XD

 

[Pin]

I want to explore two sub-ideas here under the umbrella of World Domination.

How powerful can a person become? Provide examples of the most and least powerful people who've ever lived to support your points.

I believe that there are limitations to one's control over the world around them. Age, sickness, incapability, death, and poverty, to name a few. That's why it's important to keep healthy. Napoleon died in his early-fifties. He was the Emperor of France! All of that work and sacrifice on behalf of his country, only to die before reaching seniority, it's unfortunate.

How large can a state (polity) become before it collapses like the Roman Empire? Provide examples of successful states, forms-of government, or economic systems to support your points.

Take your time.

I feel that a state should master the art of administration before expansion. Rome had numerous internal problems, the most prominent being the conflict between the rich and the poor. This never really went away. In modern times, states that follow the Nordic Model seem to function very well. In fact, I think it's the best form of government that's ever been tried. Not necessarily out of principled reasons, but the observable results conferred by this system. There's a reason why Norway has the highest Human Development in the world.

 

[Fidicen]

How powerful can a person become?
How large can a state (polity) become before it collapses like the Roman Empire?

These questions are too extensive to answer because in order to give an answer several other questions need to be addressed, not only thinking about power relations and political science, but veering deep into the realm of philosophy.

What is power? Does it primarily mean control over a large land mass and its resources or the greatest number of people possible? Or the percentage of people? What if the number is very small but the percentage is great? How can we compare an ancient ruler who was very dominant with the leader of a smaller nation that can destroy the world with nuclear weapons? And if it means influencing people, does it mean absolute obedience or subtle control of their minds which goes unnoticed. Power of course means a combination of these things, but to give an answer to how powerful a person can become, we'd first have to define which aspect is emphasized.

And when it comes to the second question, even more problems arise because we'd have to define exactly what contributes to the fall of a state and historians can never agree about those things. While there is some consensus on the reasons why the Roman Empire disintegrated, there isn't a reason that stands out as the decisive factor. People can blame the stagnation of a homogenous culture or demoralization of a heterogenous culture, and both viewpoints might have credible supporters.

In conclusion, if you want to become a real dictator, don't think about these problems. They're too complex for one person to solve for good and you'll spend a lifetime trying to understand the concept of power instead of seizing it.

 

[Pin]

Just what quickly jumps to mind Pin, is aliens. Nothing would more quickly solidify a worldwide hegemony quite like the discovery of aliens.

Ok, interesting idea.

If I wanted to be dictator of Earth I would just manufacture the best evidence of aliens I can and demand loyalty to combat the threat.

These demands would be met with opposition, I presume.

The world would panic and give unfettered power immediately to whoever they felt could protect them the best.

As in, absolute power in the hands of one person?

EDIT: this is not how I imagined this thread going XD

We're getting more productive as time passes; we've just got to keep building this thread.

Post by post.

 

[Reason]

interesting idea.

Nothing unifies like the credible threat of annhilation

These demands would be met with opposition, I presume.

That's what the army is for

As in, absolute power in the hands of one person?

One ENTJ lol, I knew where this was heading.

 

[Pin]

These questions are too extensive to answer because in order to give an answer several other questions need to be addressed, not only thinking about power relations and political science, but veering deep into the realm of philosophy.

Let's attack these questions together.

What is power?

[I prefer Robert Greene's definition]
"Power is the measure of the degree of control you have over circumstances in your life and the actions of the people around you. It is a skill that is developed by a deep understanding of human nature, of what truly motivates people, and of the manipulations necessary for advancement and protection. Power works best when it is indirect — never coercing people; instead, getting them to voluntarily align with your interests."

Does it primarily mean control over a large land mass and its resources or the greatest number of people possible? Or the percentage of people? What if the number is very small but the percentage is great? How can we compare an ancient ruler who was very dominant with the leader of a smaller nation that can destroy the world with nuclear weapons? And if it means influencing people, does it mean absolute obedience or subtle control of their minds which goes unnoticed. Power of course means a combination of these things, but to give an answer to how powerful a person can become, we'd first have to define which aspect is emphasized.

Absolute obedience without coercion. Is this even possible?

I'm already seeing problems.

And when it comes to the second question, even more problems arise because we'd have to define exactly what contributes to the fall of a state and historians can never agree about those things. While there is some consensus on the reasons why the Roman Empire disintegrated, there isn't a reason that stands out as the decisive factor. People can blame the stagnation of a homogenous culture or demoralization of a heterogenous culture, and both viewpoints might have credible supporters.

You don't think that there are enough failed states throughout history to determine a series of factors that lead to disintegration?

In conclusion, if you want to become a real dictator, don't think about these problems. They're too complex for one person to solve for good and you'll spend a lifetime trying to understand the concept of power instead of seizing it.

Ha! Noted.

 

[Reason]

Drinking game: shot for every time someone references Rosseau.

 

[Pin]

Drinking game: shot for every time someone references Rosseau.

I mean... in the context of human civilization's timeline, Human Rights are a radical idea.

 

[Reason]

I mean... in the context of human civilization's timeline, Human Rights are a radical idea.

Yeesh.:backaway:

 

[Reason]

I don't like reacting emotionally to ideas but that is a spicy meat-a-ball you've rolled onto my plate :IAMRAGE::lol:

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

@Eventhorizon is an NT, right?

 

[Fidicen]

[I prefer Robert Greene's definition]

I see, so the definition of power we're going for means first and foremost being able to control people. In that case becoming a religious leader would be the best option. We can also broaden the concept to include people like Lenin since many totalitarian regimes have functioned by turning a secular idea into a sort of religion.

Absolute obedience without coercion. Is this even possible?

Yes. Manipulation through mass media. Think of religious cults made global. As Reason mentioned, an outside threat is a good approach. However, in squishing the opposition the army is not always effective. If we get enough people to believe in the sanctity of our state under attack and label dissidents as traitors, we'll be sowing the seeds of doubt in the opposition. While they might not give up their beliefs, this doubt will be of crucial importance since it makes them weaker and may even make them crumble under peer pressure without the army doing anything.

You don't think that there are enough failed states throughout history to determine a series of factors that lead to disintegration?

We can determine factors, yes, and even point out which mistakes are more severe than others. But the fall of any empire is a complex series of events that defies simple answers. We can find a number of reasons why the Third Reich failed, some of them related to military decisions, others to domestic and economic policies, and yet others to the changing dynamics of the Allies and their powers. My point wasn't that there would be no factors to be found, but that in most cases it's very difficult to determine which one was decisive. For example, for Japan WW2 ended when the nuclear bombs were used, so it's possible to say that was decisive. But what led to the situation in which the US felt it was justified to use them? And wasn't the Japanese army in shambles at that point anyway? When you start to take into account the earlier decisions and the complex chains of causality, the whole issue of decisive factors becomes blurred.

"A feeble body weakens the mind" - Rousseau:engarde:

 

[Reason]

This is a minor point but most American military officers in the Pacific theater found the atomic bombs totally unnecessary. At the time of the bombings Japan was essentially finished anyways.

Just sayin'

 

[Wildfire]

*Looks for popcorn eating emoji*

*Finds popcorn eating emoji*

*Inserts popcorn eating emoji*

opcorn:

* Ponders what kind of emoji award to give @Fidicen *