And indeed, while our characters were picking up Mr Huffam’s special election edition of the Unexpurgated London Gazette, they spied Sinning Jenny in Hastings Square performing some fairly obvious symbolism:
.
This endorsement isn’t really all that surprising as Feducci is an untrustworthy adventurer (to put it mildly) who has pledged to pull up all of Sinning Jenny’s reforms by the roots and yet has absolutely no idea what to replace them with. The Detective meanwhile has pledged to investigate Miss Jenny’s administration for corruption and is having something of a nervous breakdown. So Jenny naturally is throwing her lot in with the one decent candidate who has pledged to not only maintain her reforms but build upon them. I suppose it was no accident Jenny spent her final ball having sherry after sherry with Southwark.
But there’s a personal aspect to this endorsement as well - both ladies are actually pretty similar. Jenny, for all her personal quirks and Bohemian life style, was committed to a holy order dedicated to fighting the Vake. During her campaign she extended this desire to help London to the city’s poor and marginalized. The Dauntless Temperance Campaigner likewise has dedicated her life to fighting injustice and exploitation, only instead of the Vake she has principally done battle with Big Gin and Big Honey. As with Jenny, the Campaigner’s platform is focused on helping the poor and marginalized. Similarly, Jenny is by all accounts Bold, while the Campaigner is Dauntless. Too fearsome ladies who are used to taking risks and breaking down the door, come what may.
. edited by Anne Auclair on 7/3/2017
Here’s the letter I’m sending out about this (hopefully others will join me):
My friend, Sinning Jenny, London’s beloved first Mayor, has openly endorsed the campaign of the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner by taking tea in Hastings Square. The Mayor has been won over to our cause by the Campaigner’s determination to continue Sinning Jenny’s legacy of actively helping the poor and the marginalized citizens of London. Among these poor and marginalized are the Rubbery Men and the Clay Men, both of which have found a dauntless advocate for their rights in the person of the Campaigner.
Our Mayor has no doubt also been unnerved by all the disturbing revelations surrounding Feducci: the bribes he has received from foreign powers, his service in Hell’s Revolution, and HIS WORK AS A SLAVE DRIVER ON HELL’S BRASS TRIREMES. But most damning for Feducci is his intent on COMPLETELY TEARING UP SINNING JENNY’S LEGACY without any realistic idea of what to replace it with.
The choice is clear. You can help the poor and marginalized of London by voting for the Campaigner. Or you can cast your vote for Feducci, foreign occupation and the rejection of Sinning Jenny’s work on our behalf.[i]
I had my doubts about this letter-writing campaign, but it’s already shown some results. If it keeps up, combined with the news that the Campaigner is a champion of the Clay and the Rubbery, well, we could make history and create one heck of a turnabout.
I haven’t heard him pledge anything concrete, other than the ability to gamble things away. I suppose Sinning Jenny has given urchins and dockers more things to gamble away, but I haven’t heard Feducci say that he’s going to force them to do so. Or that he’s going to do anything at all about Jenny’s school, which she is apparently planning to keep governing.
Is this just some entertaining hyperbole to sway people who don’t read newspapers, or do you have any actual evidence?
I haven’t heard him pledge anything concrete, other than the ability to gamble things away. I suppose Sinning Jenny has given urchins and dockers more things to gamble away, but I haven’t heard Feducci say that he’s going to force them to do so. Or that he’s going to do anything at all about Jenny’s school, which she is apparently planning to keep governing.
Is this just some entertaining hyperbole to sway people who don’t read newspapers, or do you have any actual evidence?[/quote]
It’s all in the logic of the proposal itself. If you create a system where the individual’s position is cast as entirely the results of their own efforts, then those who are on top owe absolutely nothing to those on the bottom. The rich are rich because they are superior, they poor are poor because they are inferior. If this sounds familiar, it’s because this is the Neathy version of the infamous 19th century idea: Social Darwinism.
So there you have it. Most people are condemned to remain where they are, equality is bad, and liberty is simply the ability of the individual do whatever they want.
I think this is pretty much the opposite of what Sinning Jenny ran on during her election…which is why she’s endorsing the Dauntless Temperance Campaigner, rather than Feducci.
. edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017
So you are mainly making it up then, and presenting it as fact. Completely understandable. As far as I know, the main thing Jenny did was to educate urchins and dockers, thereby allowing them to improve their lives. Hopefully she educated them well enough that they’re not going to gamble it all away to Feducci. Because the house always wins, and that’s where ‘all could rise, and most shan’t’. But that’s not uprooting the school. Unless Jenny chooses to gamble it away.
No, it is fact. It is inherent in "equality is death," among other things.
EDIT: Should be: It is inherent in "equality in death," among other things.
Oh, she did a lot more than that. From her Mayoral Influence Card:
[quote=Investigate the Mayor] The Mayor has hired out-of-work Wolfstack dockers to renovate the east wing. Once finished, it’ll become the Office for Public Works; Jenny’s former employees stand ready to move in.
Jenny’s work on London proceeds at similar pace. Soup kitchens are already attached to several theatres. Gin houses will be forced to provide beds – within weeks! She’s even organised voluntary glaive training with the sisters.[/quote]
So you have public works spending with the aim of providing jobs for the underemployed, job training, and a basic welfare state for the hungry and homeless. Feducci’s "most shan’t rise, equality is death and liberty is license" philosophy rejects all of that. According to Feducci it is entirely on the individual to better themselves. Which means they’re pretty much on their own. edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017
Surely we can compromise and agree that, while Feducci’s espoused philosophy is largely antithetical to Sinning Jenny’s, how he would actually act if elected remains to be seen - especially as he hasn’t yet (and apparently has little inclination to) outlined many specific policy proposals.
Acts proceed from ideas. If Feducci’s ideas are antithetical to Sinning Jenny’s, then his actions will naturally be antithetical, whatever they ultimately turn out to be. Lack of feasibility and serious planning probably means they’ll be poorly implemented on top of everything else.
Though come to think of it, the foreign powers backing Feducci probably have more realistic and well thought out programs than he does…
I thought it was equality in death, not equality is death? I don’t know how equal people are in death, but presumably… fairly equal… when they’re dead? Not quite sure what "Liberty in License" is supposed to mean though, except possibly… more freedom?
But thanks for reminding me of the soup kitchens. I don’t think Feducci has mentioned those though. It does seem entirely possible that those might go away, but hardly a guarantee, and certainly not a pledge. Just because you interpret things a certain way doesn’t make it true. I believe that you’re just doing what the ‘temperance = prohibition’ people were doing: Reading as much bad stuff into your opposition as you can, and then believing in it. Or at least presenting it as if you believe in it.
That said, with text specifically pointing out his inability to form policy from his slogans he might not actually do a whole lot as mayor. We’ll have to wait and see should he get elected, but I’m just not seeing him doing much. The Detective has one big thing planned, while the DTC has a lot of little things she wants to get done, but Feducci is living more in the election than in what he would actually do should he win. At least, in terms of mayor things. I’m sure he has his own personal plans that mostly benefit himself and his friends/contacts.
I thought it was equality in death, not equality is death? I don’t know how equal people are in death, but presumably… fairly equal… when they’re dead?[/quote]
And correspondingly, to be equal is to be dead. If one is only equal when one is dead, then equality is death.
EDIT: As Akernis pointed out below, this is a fallacy. The correct way to describe Feducci’s statement is that Equality in Death means that equality is either undesirable or impossible and in either case has to wait until death, rather than equality is death. I meant to emphasize that Equality in Death is an absolute rejection of egalitarian ideals, but I made a mistake that made my language absurd.
Sinning Jenny seems worried they’ll go away. It’s probably significant that Jenny endorsed the DTC after Feducci criticized her administration:
It seems pretty straightforward. Feducci announced his intention to undo all Jenny’s policies to her face. The Mayor then endorsed the Campaigner. edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017 edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017 edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017
I’m considering whether my main would switch after this comes to light. She’s a horrible, jaded person but every now and again she has those little bells of conscience. And she’s always tried to be good to the Rubberies. Less so the Clay Men, but on occasion.
Inherent in "equality in death" is that the Rubberies and the Clay Men can never be equal with Londoners as a group. Certain individuals can achieve greatness, but the groups as a whole are destined for a life of unequal treatment, for "most shan’t rise."
There’s a reason the Rubberies and the Clay Men have not been won over by Feducci’s promises. …
edit: removed fallacy edited by Anne Auclair on 7/4/2017
No, that’s a logical fallacy (non causa pro causa, to be exact). You are mistaking effect for causality. Feducci never claimed that one has to be dead to be equal, simply that those who were dead were equal (or at least more equal).
Saying that there is ‘equality in death’ is not the same as saying that you have to be dead to be equal, just that it is at least one option.
What you are saying is equivalent to saying:
"Feducci says that red is a colour, thus he must mean that red is the only colour, and correspondingly that blue, green, and yellow are not colours. Everyone! Feducci is lying to us by claiming that blue, green and yellow are not colours!"
Whether there is equality in death is separate question, which may be right or wrong, but saying that he claims that equality is death is blatantly untrue.
OOC, I think this was an outstanding choice by FBG. Jenny was/is an incredibly popular candidate who got a vast majority of the vote. So, at the halfway point of this election, having her come out against the candidate who is winning and come out in favour of the candidate pulling up the rear is a great way to upend things and have people switch their choice.
The trouble is that, after a week, most people have already gotten quite a few levels in their chosen career. The only way to switch candidates and not throw all that away is to spend Fate. Enough Fate to buy a unique story.
I don’t think there is much they can reveal which can get anyone to either give up all the actions they’ve spent or to give up real money.
No, I’m now pretty sure that it’s supposed to be interpreted as ‘anyone, high or low, can be killed’. And apparently Feducci enjoyed killing infernal aristocrats in Hell? Hm, yes. Back to my initial apprehension: I hope I’m not a Fallen London ‘aristocrat’ in this scenario, and that he’s really aiming for people who are above himself in social standing. Then again, perhaps death isn’t such a bad thing. Certainly beats boredom.