New release?

[ThatOneDude]

Are you still planning on releasing a new release on Guy Fawkes day? If so this could be part of the new age! I saw one of your posts in another thread that said in honor of Guy Fawkes you might include napalmed or something. Hehehehe....

[Stormweaver]

Are you still planning on releasing a new release on Guy Fawkes day? If so this could be part of the new age! I saw one of your posts in another thread that said in honor of Guy Fawkes you might include napalmed or something. Hehehehe....

Curiosity: Why would you honour guy fawkes? I'm all for napalm, but the really seems a bit weird :/

[pi4t]

Weird? For a guy who grinds up souls and stuffs them in urns to make steel?

[Stormweaver]

Weird? For a guy who grinds up souls and stuffs them in urns to make steel?

I'm just not really aquainted with attaching "In honour of" to terrorists, sorry :|

[walker_boh_65]

Weird? For a guy who grinds up souls and stuffs them in urns to make steel?

I'm just not really aquainted with attaching "In honour of" to terrorists, sorry :|

I think that was toward thinking FC honoring him is not weird, not you, but I can not say for certain.

[Necropolis]

I'm a bit iffy on calling the attempted demolition of a government building terrorism. I would consider it more a matter of efficiency.

[PuppetRebel]

I'm a bit iffy on calling the attempted demolition of a government building terrorism. I would consider it more a matter of efficiency.

+1

Although, some confusion comes from Guy Fawkes the real life man who was part of a plot to overthrow what some thought was a corrupt government for probably a just as corrupt government, or Guy Fawkes the fiction character who represents freedom and revolution. (i.e.: V for Vendetta.

[FlowerChild]

I'm just not really aquainted with attaching "In honour of" to terrorists, sorry :|

Americans still attach a great deal of honor to their founding fathers...who were almost all terrorists.

Besides, Guy Fawkes day is an international celebration.

[PuppetRebel]

It's all just a matter of perspective.

[Stormweaver]

I'm just not really aquainted with attaching "In honour of" to terrorists, sorry :|

Americans still attach a great deal of honor to their founding fathers...who were almost all terrorists.

Besides, Guy Fawkes day is an international celebration.

I was just being semantic about the wording ^.^ Semantic? Possible usage fail. I'm tired >.>

To be honest, I've grown up around too many wannabe anarcists who kept saying he was awesome every fucking november. I'm not exactly pro-government myself, but I think I'd rather have a government that hasn't been blown up to a government that has.

[DaveYanakov]

For the most part, the founding fathers held their rebellion openly. Guy Fawkes was trying to facilitate a hostile takeover. It also strikes me as odd how a holiday marked by burning Guy Fawkes effigies is assumed to be honoring the man.

[FlowerChild]

For the most part, the founding fathers held their rebellion openly. Guy Fawkes was trying to facilitate a hostile takeover. It also strikes me as odd how a holiday marked by burning Guy Fawkes effigies is assumed to be honoring the man.

Don't get me wrong. I don't object to the American founding fathers. I just object to the modern use of the word "terrorist" as it is an overly broad expression that lacks in any real meaning to the point where it can be applied to a wide range of otherwise revered historical figures.

To me, it is the equivalent of the Orwellian "Goldsteinism", where it is meant to elicit an emotional response in the listener rather than communicate any actual information. For all the meaning it now carries, people may as well just say "bad guys" (whatever their personal view on what "bad" may be).

As a result, I tend to react rather negatively whenever I see someone use the expression, as I believe the term has been abused to such an extent as to relegate it to only being useful in propaganda. My natural instinct when I hear it now is to feel like I am being conned, just like I do whenever I hear any other kind of political jargon.

I think applying the term to Guy Fawkes above was a perfect example of this. From what I know of the Gunpowder Plot, its goal wasn't to terrorize a civilian population, which would be the old-school formal definition of terrorism when it still had meaning. Instead, it was intended to overthrow a government, which is a very different thing whether you agree with it or not. The use of the term is thus more in keeping with the modern loose usage which I find so objectionable.

I'm certainly not a supporter of Guy Fawkes or what have you either. Given the tongue-in-cheek element present in the celebration of the holiday, I just thought it amusing to coincide a themed release with it.

[morvelaira]

Personally, I wouldn't call the American founding fathers terrorists, because - with one or two major exceptions - their aim was not to cause terror or injure/maim/kill civilians. Once they backed themselves into a corner with a few terrorist-like incidents, and convinced themselves it was the right course, the held a rebellion in open warfare between soldiers. (We could have a debate if the Boston Masacre or the Boston Tea Party were terrorism, but that's a different discussion. I admit, they might fall under the definition.) That, of course, is different than a pure terrorist organization like Al-Queda or the IRA who have specifically targeted innocent civilians for the sole purpose of causing fear and terror.

Guy Fawkes kind of falls into a grey area. His methods were closer to terrorism, but his goals were closer to traditional rebellion. Eitherway, not a man I want to be associated with. I know how the English love their history, but I honestly think Mr. Fawkes would have just been forgotten if someone hadn't come up with a catchy rhyme.... >_>

[M!C]

I think "The winners are always the good guys" partially applies here ... successful rebellions looks better in hindsight than unsuccesful ones. History usually is like that since it's written by those who won the conflict.

[DaveYanakov]

I fully agree that there's nothing wrong with having fun with the Guy Fawkes ideas or anything else. It's the people who latch on to a single aspect of it without bothering to understand it and then use that aspect to justify themselves that bugs me.

[Kwilt]

I think "The winners are always the good guys" partially applies here ... successful rebellions looks better in hindsight than unsuccesful ones. History usually is like that since it's written by those who won the conflict.

Which is funny, because I can think of tons of successful rebellions that have usually led to not-so-good guys. Not naming any names, though.

But, yes. While I can't say I agreed entirely with Fawkes' ideals, he had quite the valiant hero.

Also, on the off-hand, the winners don't always get good looks. Here's looking at you, Communist dictators! :D

[pi4t]

Who lost to democratic 'good guys', at least on the whole.

[ThatOneDude]

Uhhhhhh....
So is all that a yes or a no.....

[FlowerChild]

Uhhhhhh....
So is all that a yes or a no.....

All that is me engaging in a discussion about something only vaguely related because I don't answer questions like this.

[Stormweaver]

Thread derailment successful!

It was wholly my intention to draw the thread away from 'When's teh new update'. Really.

[morvelaira]

Thread derailment successful!

It was wholly my intention to draw the thread away from 'When's teh new update'. Really.

*snerk* Suuuure.

I'm glad to see thread derails here can be cereberal and engaging, though. :)