Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6747057" data-attributes="member: 37579">Except that &quot;warlord&quot; does denote a military position, albeit not a specific rank. Actually, it has both a military rank and government position in that it is in charge of both. It's effectively &quot;commander-in-chief&quot;. Warlords always have a position of authority. There's NO warlord who does not posses authority, either legitimate or illegal.As for negativity, &quot;rogue&quot; is barely negative. It's up there with &quot;scoundrel&quot; as a term that's not good but could apply to a stereotypical bad boy. &quot;Warlock&quot; was negative in the same way as &quot;witch&quot; or even &quot;wizard&quot; and isn't nearly as negative in a modern sense. The worst is &quot;barbarian&quot; but that's mostly for using it to apply derisively to other cultures and less the term itself. I would rather they change it to &quot;berserker&quot; but it's been around for 35 years so it gets grandfathered in.Warlords was a term that used to be okay. They're a good term for feudal lords and the local rulers of medieval China and Japan. Historically it's fine. But the modern connotations are extremely problematic. I don't remember &quot;rogues&quot; or &quot;barbarians&quot; being used to describe someone who practiced cannibalism, committed genocide, used child soldiers, or addicted followers to drugs. Warlords are horrible, horrible people who commit atrocities and war crimes in the modern world. It's the term used to describe the leaders of terrorist cells in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, and potentially Syria. Naming a class a &quot;warlord&quot; is akin to as calling a class a &quot;terrorist leader&quot;. It's really not okay. The Wikipedia artice on Warlords tells you to &quot;See also&quot;: Anocracy, Despotism, Feud, Outlaw, Plutocracy, Strongman (politics), Violent non-state actor, and List of countries by Failed States Index. And a google image search for the term &quot;warlord&quot; is some serious nightmare fuel.The name &quot;warlord&quot; is seriously, seriously not worth defending. Why? Why defend it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6747057, member: 37579"] Except that "warlord" [I]does [/I]denote a military position, albeit not a specific rank. Actually, it has [I]both[/I] a military rank and government position in that it is in charge of both. It's effectively "commander-in-chief". Warlords always have a position of authority. There's NO warlord who does not posses authority, either legitimate or illegal. As for negativity, "rogue" is barely negative. It's up there with "scoundrel" as a term that's not good but could apply to a stereotypical bad boy. "Warlock" was negative in the same way as "witch" or even "wizard" and isn't nearly as negative in a modern sense. The worst is "barbarian" but that's mostly for using it to apply derisively to other cultures and less the term itself. I would rather they change it to "berserker" but it's been around for 35 years so it gets grandfathered in. Warlords was a term that used to be okay. They're a good term for feudal lords and the local rulers of medieval China and Japan. Historically it's fine. But the modern connotations are extremely problematic. I don't remember "rogues" or "barbarians" being used to describe someone who practiced cannibalism, committed genocide, used child soldiers, or addicted followers to drugs. Warlords are horrible, horrible people who commit atrocities and war crimes in the modern world. It's the term used to describe the leaders of terrorist cells in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, and potentially Syria. Naming a class a "warlord" is akin to as calling a class a "terrorist leader". It's really not okay. The Wikipedia artice on Warlords tells you to "See also": Anocracy, Despotism, Feud, Outlaw, Plutocracy, Strongman (politics), Violent non-state actor, and List of countries by Failed States Index. And a google image search for the term "warlord" is some serious nightmare fuel. The name "warlord" is seriously, seriously not worth defending. Why? Why defend it? [/QUOTE]

Verification