The Userite Myth (by New Pacific Order)

[Pierconium]

Not to be too mean, but I feel that this is a text by somebody trying to mimic what they think true political theorists write like.


First, the argument that the partition of people into two broad groups is an intentional deceit to uphold the status quo requires first that you explain the status quo. You can't just say it's being upheld. *What* is being upheld? Then you have to explain how and why.


Second, whoever wrote this doesn't actually understand the feederite/userite dichotomy. Nobody has ever said that there are people who have never been in feeders. The dichotomy exists because of the choice players make, not because of the game mechanics of where their nations are automatically placed. The rest of this pseudo analysis is based upon that misunderstanding, so it's fundamentally flawed.

Since Senator Elegarth has already addressed this broadly, I will address a couple of your points directly.

 

While I do thank you for your input, you are incorrect on several counts.  First, in a political theory essay, which this undoubtedly is, it is more important, especially in the first such iteration of something that will be linked to several other commentaries, to put forth the theory more than any empirical evidence.  Therefore, defining the status quo, which is readily apparent to most actors within the political spheres of the feeders, is unnecessary.  Some would consider it pedantic.

 
Second, to state that any member of The Pacific would have a lack of understanding in regards to the supposed feederite/userite dichotomy is the height of ignorance.  The fact that we hold such a firm understanding of this false dichotomy is due in no small part to our own creation of it.  The Pacific created the idea of the feederite vs userite mentality, I know, I was there.  The concepts of Francoism have been an effective and useful tool in our arsenal for nearly a decade.  We do not espouse the complete dismantling of the system, but we do wish to place it within its proper context.
 
Not to be too mean, but I feel that your comment is a text by somebody trying to critique a writing style that they looked up on wikipedia or in a undergraduate reading course.   Obviously, I don't know you at all, nor do I particularly care to, but the essential idiocy of such a comment remains valid because your post 'is based upon [a] misunderstanding, so it's fundamentally flawed.'
 
Have a nice day.