Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TempAcc]

But you see, that is a result of power centralization.
Feudalism itself is an example of centralized power structures which are tied to another, but its still centralization of power, after all, the lord is powerful because he's tied to the king and the other lords, who all support eachother when a threat to their power comes about, IE a form of medieval corporativism.

That's, not how I would characterize that. Feudal times were truly one of the least centralized times. By definition, it's not centralization if there is more than one center (otherwise you're just making up definitions), and Feudalism was dominated by many centers of power, and not only feudal lords, but also guilds, and the Church, and the town, and the family, and etc. And Feudalism was in general counter to the idea of centralization: feudal lords were the first people to make trouble if there was any notion of their privileges being taken away. And calling Feudalism corporatism when the feudal era was one marked by the least degree of organizing along lines of shared interest is just odd.

So I'll need some sources or evidence on this. I mean this is just entirely new to me. The idea that a system where there exists heavily armed warlords who take tax from the land (and otherwise just leave them be) and all nominally swear allegiance to one warlord or another, and that this is a more centralized system, is hilariously weird. I mean think about it like this: if there exists a group of people with an army who have the ability to challenge your power, is that more centralized or less? Now imagine there's fifty of them; more centralized or less?

I mean look at the HRE for Christ's sake. Does this read "centralized" to you?

Plutocracies come about due to ye olde phenomena of the "friend of the king". Rich businesmen with strong ties to the government can basically walk all over the rest of the private initiative because they get unfair advantages in the "free" market in exchange for favors, which is what happens nowadays with many western democracies. Coupled with corporativism, you get a self perpetuating plutocracy that makes sure to keep a facade of democracy by changing faces now and then, while perpetuating an oligarchy, since only members of the leader's club get to have a true chance at office.

Democracy has yet to find a way to properly stop this from happening, but its still better than any of the alternatives, since there's still the chance the people get fed up and change stuff, which is far easier to do in a democracy than in any other political system.

Look man I'm not here to step on your anarchist theory of society or whatever but if you are going to directly link it to historical circumstances like feudalism, particularly ones that are widely agreed to be a result of decentralization, you are going to need to do some citation. Mind if you had been doing a Marx and using his explanation for things, I'd leave it be (don't agree but it's good logic at least), but as it stands you're going to need to give a little more.

Oh, don't give me that look, the anarchists are over there, with the other hobbits:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

You'll find them often arguing with the marxist orcs.

Anyway, that part didn't exactly have anything to do with the feudalism thing. It was just a discourse on how oligarchies manifest on western democracies nowadays.
In regards to feudalism itself, while it was certainly decentralized in comparison to the true monarchies of later ages, there was still a significant level of centralization, with more or less defined hierarchal structure. Lords were expected to answer to the King, and the King (in most cases) had the power to interfere in a lord's fief and even imprison any lord he considered rebellious (hello hello, King John the Landless). Lords also held significant power within fiefs, and could interfere with the affairs of guilds, traders, etc, if they really wanted to. Sure, just because these kind of actions weren't practical most of the time, it doesnt mean they couldn't legally, say, imprison certain guild members over matters of personal interest.

Which doesnt mean true feudal decentralization (practical and legal) was never a thing, as stuff such as the Magna Charta came about. But at the time, this was the exception rather than the rule, IIRC. I'm no historian, so I can't cite any specific textbook sources pointing as to how exactly feudalism worked in all of europe (my view comes from medieval england and the HRE, mostly), but I'm pretty sure it varied a lot, and that legislation in regards to decentralization of power was only put in place later, rather than earlier. Sure, one can argue that practical decentralization was in place long before any actual legislation came about, but I'm also a bit starved for sources on that.

[Dunamisdeos]

THEY FOUND A MURDER VICTIM'S BODY WITH A SNOWBLOWER IN WINTER STORM ORSON.

LET ME GIVE YOU A VISUAL ON WHAT THAT MIGHT BE LIKE.

[TD1]

Yikes

[Greiger]

From the chopped up human remains to food.

I purchased some chips from the local corner store.  Tom's chips.  A brand I never heard of.

Now I know that chip manufacturers fill much of the bags with special gas to prevent them from going stale while sealed, and the bags often appear only half full.  But is it normal for a bag of chips to appear only a quarter full?  One cereal bowl full of chips was half the contents of the bag.

EDIT: (pretty damn tasty chips though. 10/10 for flavor, 3/10 for size of bag compared to number of chips.)

[itisnotlogical]

I like to imagine that potato and tortilla chips are arranged into delicate crystalline structures in the bag, painstakingly hand-assembled in the factory to resemble molecules, mathemetical formulas, Renaissance sculptures and other beautiful things. Then you open them with your big dumb hands and they all collapse to the bottom leaving a ton of empty space behind.

It's better than just assuming the chip makers are cheap bastards that sell you a big empty bag to make you feel like you're getting more.

[Frumple]

Pretty normal, especially for the cheaper/off brand stuff. Which Tom's is, heh. Cept maybe for the bugles stuff... that's arguably a bit more well known/brand name type stuff. Said bugles are pretty a'ight. Rest of their stuff's mostly okay, too... though want to say they did something to their cheese nacho things a year or three back that made 'em taste really good to me, heh.

[TD1]

Tests must be done. Cameras much be purchased. Tweezers used to tear minuscule holes in packaging.

[Egan_BW]

If you feel like it's a ripoff, divide the price by the net weight marked on the bag, then compare that to other brands.

[Frumple]

Yeah, the cost's set by weight, not so much bag size. Tom's is usually on the low end cost/weight wise, but it tends to be one of the more expensive of that general band of chip costs.

[Lord Shonus]

An odd thought occurred to me. The only console company that isn't using a controller that can be traced directly back to the Super Nintendo controller... is Nintendo.

The PS1 controller was nothing more than a SNES controller with handles and two extra buttons on the back. Thumbsticks were grafted on with the Dual Shock, the PS2 added analog buttons,  the PS3 added motion controls, and the PS4 added a touchpad, but it is fundamentally the same design lineage. Microsoft started fresh with the Xbox, but by the time of the 360 they'd gone to basically the PS2 controller with the left stick and the d-pad swapped. The Xbox one controller is essentially the same. In other words, the Xbox is still an effective descendant of the SNES design by branching from Sony.

Meanwhile Nintendo's started with a blank page with all of their consoles since the SNES. Just struck me as odd is all.

[Egan_BW]

Because the super Nintendo controller is a good base, and easy to add to. The PS2 controller handles most games elegantly, with the exception of games where the main mode of interaction is with a cursor. To some extent, I believe that this is the problem that all the recent Nintendo consoles, the PS4 touchpad, and the steam controller all try to address. Not very well however, in my opinion.

[itisnotlogical]

The DS and 3DS are pretty similar to the SNES controller except with a touch screen in the middle and thumbsticks added. The GBA was pretty similar too, minus the X and Y buttons (and squished horizontally in the case of the SP and Micro).

I could never stand Playstation controller shapes. The thumbsticks being so low on the controller and close to the center is the most unnatural-feeling thing in the world. The small handles don't feel too good in my big hands either. I prefer the standard Xbox design, which places emphasis on the left thumbstick and face buttons, and of course the standard Xbox controller is larger overall.

[Lord Shonus]

The DS and 3DS are pretty similar to the SNES controller except with a touch screen in the middle and thumbsticks added. The GBA was pretty similar too, minus the X and Y buttons (and squished horizontally in the case of the SP and Micro).

I could never stand Playstation controller shapes. The thumbsticks being so low on the controller and close to the center is the most unnatural-feeling thing in the world. The small handles don't feel too good in my big hands either. I prefer the standard Xbox design, which places emphasis on the left thumbstick and face buttons, and of course the standard Xbox controller is larger overall.

I was thinking more of the home consoles, but fair point.

I'm the opposite of you, in that I find the "thumbstick where the D-pad belongs" extremely uncomfortable (to use as a stick, using a D-pad there is fine), which is why I rarely play my 360 anymore.

[itisnotlogical]

I played Xbox first and foremost, not being a huge Playstation fan.

[hector13]

I'm something of a Sony fanboy, but the original Xbox controller was so big it hurt my hands to use it.

The original SNES controller is also a little bit too small, but then again I grew up playing it so my hands are obviously a bit bigger now.

PS4 controller is alright, not too pleased with the touchpad, and not having a select button seems very strange, and the options button is in the wrong place... but it feels a lot better than the flimsy-ass PS3 controller.

I've used that controller and variations thereof for most of my life, though. It just feels right.