Print

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

[Kagus]

Like, it can't be as bad as you make us believe Kagus. I refuse to believe.

I had a look at the natural population increase (births/death) and they aren't doing poorly, so maybe it's just Kagus

Norway is one of the most antisocial countries around, also one of the most promiscuous. Very liberal government and societal structure plus a massive drinking problem will do that, I guess... Go figure.

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/rude/

"In the Norwegian version of politeness, it’s more important not to bother other people [...] And engaging in meaningless chat with people we don’t know definitely comes under the definition of bothering them. Which is why we do it as little as possible.”

There's also a handy guide for many of the basics, that's still reasonably up-to-date.

A fairly large number of Swedes actually move to Norway in search of work. You can very easily spot them as waiters and waitresses, because they will actually greet you when taking your order. They also used to be the only ones in clothing stores and the like who would come and greet you when you came into the store (a horrifying experience for everyone involved), but this has started becoming fairly standard practice in a lot of places... Now you have to pay slightly more attention and notice whether or not the person seems terrified by having to approach you (thus revealing that they are a Norwegian). Despite this, you can still readily find the native Norwegian glancing at you when you cross the threshold into their store, but only making vocal acknowledgement if you happen to make prolonged eye contact. They will at all times stay behind the safe and professional barrier of the counter, just so that nobody gets the wrong idea.

For more information, you can research the ubiquitous Norwegian Bachelor Farmer, or really any kind of humor related to Norway. Yes, it's comedy, but the reason we find it funny is because we happen to actually know those people...


Or you can just come here and see for yourself. Winter's coming soon, and we're at our coldest and most asocial during this period, as we can't even comment on the weather being nice.

[Arx]

The point is that a repressive regime that sustains itself through dominance,  creates a much larger class. Examples are helots vs Spartans. The helots were enslaved by the Spartans, as an underclass. The mound dwellers are immortal, and lack generational cultural turn over. As such, their culture is stagnant. They are Spartans that never fell, and live in sociological isolation. Exposure to outside culture is an existential threat to their ruling culture, just as much as pitchforks and torches are. Their rulers know this. This is why the residents of the mound are forbidden to leave.

This again strongly parallels modern north Korea. The willingness of individuals to defect indicates Th as t the ruling culture is an empowered minority, and not wholly representative of the whole culture.

So then naturally it follows that since

Individual behavior is dictated more by established social norms than the rule of law.

The established K'n-yan norms and culture are what we might consider, say, despicable and immoral?

The fact that they are capable of change does not mean that the civilisation should be dignified with the label of "really not that bad".

It also amuses me that we've slid from

They have an insular but culturally left-/liberal social norms otherwise.

to

This again strongly parallels modern north Korea.

I'd never have pegged NK as being a particularly liberal society, what with the heavy indoctrination and state control and all.

[ChairmanPoo]

I feel "indoctrination" is a weasel word. It seems to imply that the population somewhere is composed of mindless automatons that know no better (and the corollary is that it's the white man's "freedom lover's" burden to bring enlightement and civilization  to the unwashed masses. Goes without saying that things don't normally work like that.  Also goes without saying that a more pressing problem is that if you start to popularize the mechanism you might get it turned back around against you, as it's a slippery slope of sorts (and I'm not exaggerating ... you see controversies about supposed "school indoctrination" all around the world)

[Rowanas]

Like, it can't be as bad as you make us believe Kagus. I refuse to believe.

I had a look at the natural population increase (births/death) and they aren't doing poorly, so maybe it's just Kagus

Norway is one of the most antisocial countries around, also one of the most promiscuous. Very liberal government and societal structure plus a massive drinking problem will do that, I guess... Go figure.

https://www.lifeinnorway.net/rude/

"In the Norwegian version of politeness, it’s more important not to bother other people [...] And engaging in meaningless chat with people we don’t know definitely comes under the definition of bothering them. Which is why we do it as little as possible.”

There's also a handy guide for many of the basics, that's still reasonably up-to-date.

A fairly large number of Swedes actually move to Norway in search of work. You can very easily spot them as waiters and waitresses, because they will actually greet you when taking your order. They also used to be the only ones in clothing stores and the like who would come and greet you when you came into the store (a horrifying experience for everyone involved), but this has started becoming fairly standard practice in a lot of places... Now you have to pay slightly more attention and notice whether or not the person seems terrified by having to approach you (thus revealing that they are a Norwegian). Despite this, you can still readily find the native Norwegian glancing at you when you cross the threshold into their store, but only making vocal acknowledgement if you happen to make prolonged eye contact. They will at all times stay behind the safe and professional barrier of the counter, just so that nobody gets the wrong idea.

For more information, you can research the ubiquitous Norwegian Bachelor Farmer, or really any kind of humor related to Norway. Yes, it's comedy, but the reason we find it funny is because we happen to actually know those people...


Or you can just come here and see for yourself. Winter's coming soon, and we're at our coldest and most asocial during this period, as we can't even comment on the weather being nice.

If I didn't have a strong feeling of obligation towards my daughter, I absolutely would (if you'd have me).  Cold, beautiful and happy - what's not to like?  Sadly, I would be like a Morlock in the garden of the Eloi.

[wierd]

You are approaching that from a 1 dimensional axis, and not a 2d matrix.  A nation can be liberal and open, liberal and isolationist, conservative and open, and conservative and isolationalist.

The mound culture is more liberal minded internally, but isolationist. Eg, the normative residents accept and begin trying to integrate the protagonist rather than incarcerate and torture him. It is due to the isolationist nature of their government that the two of them are mutilated for attempting to leave.

Your lack of understanding stems from this 1d understanding.

You are further constrained by a bias for upward mobility in society, but the fact that the mound dwellers are immortal does not sink in for you. Upward mobility in that circumstance means instability of the power structure. As such, the form of liberalism practiced is different from your expectations. This makes you reach for conservatism, but that is wrong. The rulers are conservative, but the main population clearly is not. Compare, the protag is a black man. He is treated as an equal by the lay people of the mound. Compare, black people in the company of white conservatives.

That it does not take by the form you expect, does not make it stop being what it is.

[Arx]

I think my "lack of understanding" stems from finding slavery, torture, and eugenics abhorrent. I'm still waiting for you to explain why that's "really not all that bad", by the way. Are you down with Aztec culture? After all, the Aztecs only attacked the conquistadors because they were a threat to their way of life (this isn't about the conquistadors' own total lack of morality - don't try and change the topic to that, thanks).

Notice how when I did that I had to completely ignore the human sacrifice, torture, and constant warfare?

Edit: Also how do you feel about domestic abuse? Is a household where one parent abuses the other and both abuse the children "really not all that bad" because the kids would probably be down with leaving?

[wierd]

You hold that view in contravention of centuries of prior thinking due to cultural turn over associated with the removal of prior elite rulers due to old age.

The mound dwellers are immortal.

Tat still has not sunk in.

As for your second attempt at moralizing, compare.

The USA started with slavery being an economic staple. Unassailable politically. Do you hate being an American? Do you think Americans are by and large evil because of this? Do you think Americans were evil by and large then too?

You need to let go of your biases. And accept that all cultures have warts, and understand why they have them. Failure to do so robs you of the ability to rationally compare them.

[Arx]

Mhmm, and? I'm still waiting for the reasoning behind "they don't know any better" making it okay. So you think Aztec human sacrifice and slavery culture was A-OK? They didn't know any better either, after all.

Besides which, they didn't start out so cruel nor so isolationist. Since they're immortal and have no cultural turn over associated with the removal of prior elite rulers, doesn't that take your argument out at the knees? If they're capable of change in the one direction, they are capable of change in the other or they are evil, there isn't much more to it.

[wierd]

Mhmm, and? I'm still waiting for the reasoning behind "they don't know any better" making it okay. So you think Aztec human sacrifice and slavery culture was A-OK? They didn't know any better either, after all.

Besides which, they didn't start out so cruel nor so isolationist. Since they're immortal and have no cultural turn over associated with the removal of prior elite rulers, doesn't that take your argument out at the knees? If they're capable of change in the one direction, they are capable of change in the other or they are evil, there isn't much more to it.

Why didn't the helots overthrow the Spartans. They outnumbered them more than 10:1.

Again with the moralist shit.

You seem unable to put down a big brush, in your rush to paint. Rather than "good" and "evil", consider the overall stability and features of the culture.

Eg, your choices about how they are evil, is no different from how an extreme Muslim state thinks the west is evil for allowing profane things like gayness to be in the open.

The features of by their culture exist, because they must, or their society would implode.  Same as 1700s USA. Unlike 1700s USA, the status quo does not change, because the rulers are invested in it, and they never die.

Their culture stopped evolving in a broad way when they became immortal.

That is what you are not understanding

There is no uprising because it is not logistically possible, same reason the helots did not kill the Spartans.

In your haste to moralize, you are painting all the mound dwellers with the same broad brush. I tell you this is wrong, because it is the same as condemning the helots for Spartans brutality. Yet, you fail to comprehend. I tell you that the majority of the mound dwellers are clearly liberal, due to how they act, and you are confused because you paint them with the same brush as their elite.

The failure is still ultimately yours.

[Loud Whispers]

Why didn't the helots overthrow the Spartans. They outnumbered them more than 10:1.

The Helots were ceremonially declared war upon by the Spartan government annually so as to ensure any Spartan could legally kill a Helot without scruple for any reason; couple that with the Krypteia who actively sought out dissident Helots formulating plots of escape or rebellion, and the fact that the Spartan constitution existed with single-minded focus towards militarizing the state to ensure the subjugation of the Helots, it becomes apparent that the Helots didn't overthrow the Spartans because of a lack for trying. Unable to meaningfully organise with other groups of Helots, unable to train militarily or procure weapons, how could they ever stand a chance of winning without a precipitous decline in the fighting strength of the Spartan army?

The features of by their culture exist, because they must, or their society would implode.  Same as 1700s USA. Unlike 1700s USA, the status quo does not change, because the rulers are invested in it, and they never die.
Their culture stopped evolving in a broad way when they became immortal.
That is what you are not understanding

Cultures can be full of unnecessary features which exist because they speak to an older continuity, not a necessity of the present

[wierd]

Exactly, in both cases.

As arx points out, the mound elite do horrible things, and do so regularly. Compare, Spartans treatment of helots.  Like sparta, the mound cannot all be elites.  Most must be something else. Much like it was artificially imposed to keep the helots down, via ritual warfare and cruelty, the same is clearly the same with the mound with an exception. A broken immortal population loses the will to resist over time, because resistance equals death. This leads to a kind of peace when the elites rule is not challenged any more.

Immortality makes the narrative take strange shapes.

[Loud Whispers]

Ah, I see your point. It's a lapsed hierarchy

[Maximum Spin]

I don't understand how people can get anxious or unhappy. At least involuntarily. I've always been able to choose how I feel about things. It seems like most people are constantly some degree of miserable and I really can't comprehend it.

[Loud Whispers]

I don't understand how people can get anxious or unhappy. At least involuntarily. I've always been able to choose how I feel about things. It seems like most people are constantly some degree of miserable and I really can't comprehend it.

People all have variable degrees of tolerance and responses to certain environmental stimuli, as we are all affected by various passions in various different ways, especially regarding whether they're used to the stimulus or not. Consider the classic example of rain and sunshine: Someone from the UK is not going to be depressed by perpetual grey skies and moist socks, because they are accustomed to it. Someone who lives in a tropical paradise moving to a rainy exiled island in the north sea however, may be considerably depressed by the change in scenery

[TD1]

I found my months on the continent rather gloomy, mainly because the weather was too damn consistent.

A complaint I'd never thought to have.