Why I am Supporting Her Royal Highness

Arguing that art projects fail to improve city living because they don’t provide housing to the poor is like arguing that poorhouses fail to improve city living because they don’t serve lobster chowder. A city is multifaceted, and each facet needs to be improved by its own methods in its own way. Determining the priority order in which those facets will be addressed is the key component of the argument, and can’t just be ignored.[li]

I thoroughly disagree, mon trognon! London is, and always has been, its royal house. The sprawling limbs of its palace, the intrigues of its court, and of course the Empress herself, whose influence is felt through her city even while she remains in mourning, ensconced deep within the city’s heart. It is by her will that we are safe underground, shielded from the merciless light of suns. It is by her will that the Masters of the Bazaar ply their trades and bring us strange riches from across the dark seas of the underworld and beyond. It is by her will that the wheels of government turn, that we live as we do. The people of London are her subjects, the blood in the city’s veins. Their work is both necessary and devotional. To improve their lives is an act of kindness and charity, and uplifts the city as a whole, but feeding their mundane physical needs is a shallow way of showing your affection. We need to give them something more profound, and this is something the Princess is more than happy to offer.

[quote=Gul al-Ahlaam]
Arguing that art projects fail to improve city living because they don’t provide housing to the poor is like arguing that poorhouses fail to improve city living because they don’t serve lobster chowder.[/quote]

Normally, I’d agree, but when the brief for the art project involves demolishing residential districts, the question of housing suddenly becomes relevant.

[quote=Sir Frederick][quote=Gul al-Ahlaam]
Arguing that art projects fail to improve city living because they don’t provide housing to the poor is like arguing that poorhouses fail to improve city living because they don’t serve lobster chowder.[/quote]

Normally, I’d agree, but when the brief for the art project involves demolishing residential districts, the question of housing suddenly becomes relevant.[/quote]
You shouldn’t worry yourself about that sort of thing, kitten. While our beloved Princess has a certain predisposition toward improving Spite there’s no reason she couldn’t turn her attentions elsewhere. I’m sure if it comes to that someone as passionate and persuasive as yourself will be no trouble convincing her of the benefits of relocation. ^_~[li]

Speaking as one of London’s foremost hedonists whose infamous prowess was enough to grant access to the House of Chimes on it’s own merits, and speaking as one whose Salon, the London Labrys, is one of the most famous and infamous artistic Salons in London, I say no.

When the people actually held up their ideas for art, The Princess rejected them in favor of her own. She does not share her own, likely nonexistent, artistic collection with London, she does not truly care about Art. She is a poseur. When has she ever been known to back the arts? As one with my finger on the pulse of Bohemian culture I don’t remember any Echos flowing from her to art or artists. She also does not truly care about London, or she would not be okay with driving people from their homes.

None of that matters, though, in the face of the fact that the Empress openly indulges Red Honey. As an addict, she will certainly bring London into her addiction, likely by legalizing Red Honey and making more Londoners sources. Worse it will warp both the users and the victims. If one contends it is simply “A different hue” they are either dangerously ignorant of the truth, or complicit in the suffering of many.

And I will be frank, I am rather disgusted that I, of all people, even need to say it, but one must pull their head from their libido and shake off the influence of the Princess’s finely crafted sheepskin. Most of those reading this are human, and there is only one human in this election. I would turn to him rather than allowing another inhuman puppetmaster to add more strings and get more control of the human world. Slowcake and the Princess have too many yanking us by strings attached to oozing sores already.

And I would ask Anne, who is known for her strong morals, to ask herself why she now backs one guilty of the things that Princess has done, the one would leave people homeless. We have never seen eye to eye, but I have always held a certain respect for her as a woman of character. What has happened to change her in the past year, I do not know, but I would ask her to pull herself together and think of what she once stood for.

(OOC Note: To be clear: Nothing in this post is an attack on the poster Anne Auclair. I know literally nothing about her (I am even assuming a pronoun) except that her posts are entertaining enough they are ones I always read when skimming threads. Caroline is disgusted and disappointed. I am not.)
edited by Lady Karnstein on 6/29/2018

Oh, I am disappointed in you, creampuff. What kind of Nocturnal are you who would condemn the inhuman, appeal to conventional moralities, and shame a kindhearted and formidable woman for placing her own compassion and sense of duty above the qualms of pedestrian society? You are very eager to bring judgement down on your foes. Have you truly been so quick to forget the cruelty of the surface? Or have you simply not witnessed it for yourself?

And all this cruel and senseless fear mongering! You might as well be writing sermons for the Bishop of Southwark! The Princess keeps her private predilections private. She’s not going to walk about like a roaring lion seeking whom she may devour simply because she’s got another title to add to her collection.[/li][li]
edited by Gul al-Ahlaam on 6/29/2018

Do you know me? Because if you know me, you know precisely what sort of Nocturnal I am. And if you don’t, that’s fine. I don’t think I know who you are.

You use the descriptor “Kindhearted” therefore you are misinformed or you are deliberately obfuscating the truth. Can a truly kind person so hungrily consume Red Honey? I know the answer and so do you, but do you know me?

Do you know me? You mock me for compassion, and that tells me precisely what sort of people I am arguing against. How dare you show compassion says those who back the Princess! Is that what she stands for? Is that what Anne stands for?

Do you know me? Sense of duty? Those who I am trying to protect the Bohemian community from one who would tear down their homes and their studios in their own name, true, but I am a Bohemian, I seek freedom of art. A woman who would quash journalists and discard the opinions of artists is no friend to art herself. Do you care? Is it a sense of Duty that I defend art and artists? Vey well guilty then.

And what do you know of what I suffered on the surface? Do you know me?

No, no I do not think you do.

I do so wish I could. I would write a sermon people would be talking about for decades. Anyway

If the princess kept her peccadilloes to herself, if outsiders did not suffer, I would not care. But even I find I must care in the face of Red Honey.

Anne, is this the company you would keep now? Those who mock compassion, mock sense of duty? Do you, too, raise your fist against those who do not want people to suffer? Or do you stand against this person?

(OOC: Creampuff. Well played.)

It’s a hoary old tropes, that all revolutionaries must want to overthrow established morality - when it would be equally revolutionary for established morality to be applied, consistently and equally, to all ranks of society.

Art - true art - inspires the heart and provokes the strongest of emotions. It is true that London is lacking in this - every year, the depredations of the Masters leave the people of London more listless, more downtrodden, more dispirited. But before you throw your influence in favor of the Captivating Princess, let me ask you this:

What has the Captivating Princess ever actually accomplished?

What art has she created? What famous works has she presented for the glory of London? What has she actually done all these years, in which she could have used her influence to make London a more magnificent place, besides lounge around the Palace and attend the occasional salon? If she is so set on making London magnificent, then why has she not already done so?

She has done nothing. In this she is lower than the most impoverished of Bohemians and the most miserably charitable of Society. She has done nothing to improve London, nothing to justify her place in its order besides the matter of birth. If London society became organized as per the dreams of Slowcake’s campaign, where every soul was judged by merit and accomplishments, hers would not even qualify as Brilliant. Her plans change by the day, her ability to collaborate with others is nonexistent, she has offered no strong critiques of competing artistic movements.

And this is the kind of figure you believe will make London magnificent? Who will suddenly inspire a new wave of art and creativity? A person who’s only notable quality is of who she was born to, a person who must rely on the most illegal and horrific of drugs in order to even approach the concept of creativity?

Absolutely, we can Make London Magnificent. I too share in the dreams of building something more than what is already here, drawing on the strengths of London and her people to build the foundations for a greater society. I can envision the great public murals of obsidian and marble, showcasing the heroes of modern society: the mushroom farmer, the industrial laborer, the scientist, the teacher. I can envision the wonder of the architecture we shall build to ensure that no one is homeless, the beauty of the crops we shall make to ensure than no one goes hungry, the glory of the rifles we shall distribute to ensure that all may defend themselves against the predations of those higher on that terrible chain. I weep to think of the art we shall make from the ashes of the Imperial Palace, and the paintings we will make with the lifeblood of the Masters as our palette.

But such a magnificent future will not come with the Princess. Her vision is short-sighted, and her talent questionable. London will only ever be Magnificent for Her.
edited by Hotshot Blackburn on 6/29/2018

Lady Karnstein, I know precisely what sort of Nocturnal you are. A Bazaarine.

It’s a shame you didn’t listen to a word I said, though. I don’t mock you for your compassion. It is one of the most important qualities any creature can have, and I appreciate how highly you value it, even if it means shaming a kindhearted and formidable woman like Anne Auclair for placing her compassion and sense of duty above the qualms of people like you. I’m merely indicating that your understanding of compassion, of love, is… limited. If you cannot understand how the ichor of the mind mirrors the ichor of the heart, the devotion that would lead one to carry another’s memories behind their own eyes, the ineffable desire to devour and to be devoured, then you and I differ in that regard. Perhaps were you more open to new experiences, more willing to make sacrifices in the name of your art, you would understand. Perhaps also your art would be more interesting.

Suffering is often necessary to produce great art. It is the prerogative of those who take their art seriously to recognize that this suffering need not always be their own.

(OOC: ^_~)

It may please you to know, dear kitten, that I am no revolutionary.[/li][li]
edited by Gul al-Ahlaam on 6/29/2018

[quote=Ixc]We, thankfully, have history to show her idea is doomed to fail.

Basically, urban renewal’s goal was to improve city living. This was done by destroying supposedly low quality housing, and making better housing in its place. Thus, landlords charged higher rent and eventually threw out their lodgers, who were now both poor and homeless. Unless her Highness wishes to house the people she displaces in the Palace herself, I doubt she has the attention span, nevertheless the magnanimity or humility to help those lower than herself. If the results displease her, much like her campaign, she will just ignore it and move on.

worddump finishes[/quote]
This wiki page is filled with High Modernist examples, which are totally wrong in terms of the time period. A better comparison would be the renovation of Paris by Baron Haussmann during the reign of Napoleon III between 1853 and 1870, which created the present day Paris, city of lights. This is relevant because the Captivating Princess has probably been directly inspired by its example.

[quote=Gul al-Ahlaam]
It may please you to know, dear kitten, that I am no revolutionary. Well… not in any typical sense of the word.[/quote]

Oh, I didn’t mean you. I meant your suggestion that no true Nocturnal would appeal to conventional morality.

[quote=Sir Frederick][quote=Gul al-Ahlaam]
It may please you to know, dear kitten, that I am no revolutionary. Well… not in any typical sense of the word.[/quote]

Oh, I didn’t mean you. I meant your suggestion that no true Nocturnal would appeal to conventional morality.[/quote]
I’m Bazaarine, so art is what you can get away with on the open market.

Lady Karnstein, I know precisely what sort of Nocturnal you are. A Bazaarine.[/quote]

Ah that’s why I had no idea who you are.

It is, I suppose, a settled thing in the art word for the turks to try to make their mark by lashing out at those established masters of the school. I remember those days. The good news is as you mature out of it you will come into your own and discover how to really shine as a Nocturnal. I simply did not recognize what stage you were at, my apologies.

Maybe then I will know who you are.

You will probably learn by then, too about what suffering and art means, but this is neither the time nor place. And speaking of time, I seem to be out of it for now. Pity.

I’m a Mycologene.[li]

I, personally speaking, am quite interested to see just what the Captivating Princess will consider to be the purest expression of her inner self. That is the very heart of the art show - the grand unveiling of her true character to those who mistakenly believe they know her. That my hands are quite tied thanks to valuing Church and Master connections equally has nothing to do with it. Perish the thought!

It should prove quite interesting, no doubt. I shall bring snacks and pray I retain my appetite.

[quote=Anne Auclair]
I’m just pointing out you’ve got this particular predator/serial killer pegged wrong when it comes to her usual choice of victims.[/quote]

Yeah … I’m just going to go ahead and vote for the non-serial-killer candidate. Seems safer that way.

Vote for the candidate with the best policy, not the cleanest hobbies.

I am voting for the Princess because it is far better than abstaining.

Although no critics have said their canidate yet let me throw this fact out in the open so nobody can claim ignorance.

Not a single canidate this year is by any stretch of the imagination a paragon of virtue. Not Slowcake, not the Contrarian, and not our dear Princess.

Slowcake is literally supporting the interests of Hell and Hell only. To say that Slowcake’s heart is in the city would be a lie. Not because of his allegiances. No no no. That would be far to simple. As the players over at the Slowcake thread have discovered if you bug his assistant enough you will find the first and currently only statement in game that Slowcake does not exist. A vote for him is not putting a spy or front for a foreign power in charge but rather giving Hell free reign in our government. 11% may seem like a tiny number by the end of his term.

The Contrarian is no better! He has easily discovered revolutionary ties, has not changed his behaviors in polite company despite sending far more than one person to the boatman (so he is both actively and wilfully killing people), and with how often he flip-flops on the most minor (and as his bathtub revelation when he anounced he was running again major issues are included) issues he may very well change his mind by hollowmas, doubleback on everything he’s done, and make no progress during his term. At least Feducci has acomplished something as a spy. Even though it made him an ineffective mayor.

The Captivating Princess is, as already pointed out by numerous people in the past 12 hours alone, is a red honey sipping murderer with more narcacism than someone who just finshed a classic short story with minimal requirements. The vast majority of her supporters are either aware of this since they pledged support, or have learned this. All of them recognize these… habits and realize that in the grand scheme of things the Princess has a rather underwelming hand. Sure she drinks red honey but have you heard of this giant bat that eats people? Sure she’s a murderer but there’s another one called Jack who can not die! People think shes the worst but don’t recognize that she simply has toned down traits of multiple other figures of menace. Rather than one terrible trait she has multiple unnerving traits.

Please! I beg of you! Do not call her a narcisistic and hedonistic monster! We could buy a heptagoat if we had an echo for every time that was said. And thats’s after converting the echoes to fate (somehow)to get the max BDR possible for half of the current playerbase!

sigh Alright I’m calm again.

Seriously though, if your going to denounce the Princess the least you can do is say why your canidate is better. Debates as a social action may be gone this year but we can still do the social construct here on the forums. I’m starting a thread tomorrow. Let’s start doing this right in these final few days.

Also I did all of this in quick reply.
Life is pain.

EDIT: Formatted bold, italics, and underline wrong.
edited by lukeskylicker on 6/29/2018

[quote=lukeskylicker]the least you can do is say why your canidate is better.[/quote]Does not own a garden of slaves tortured for his pleasure.

VOTE The Jovial Contrarian!

Does he torture people for pleasure? Probably not!

Is he a cannibal? Probably not!

Did he do the ol’ Constables’ Ball joke? He sure did!