Sits in his favorite Chess Chair awaiting a worthy combatant



Okay so here is what is on my mind today, Civilians - Wise Guy's being used as scapegoats in one conversation but coveted in another. Often times we hear

This Earner doesn't know the meaning of his own words

or

Why should we listen to just another Civilian

and as one final example

Looks like just another angry thug upset that their mom or dad died

These are not the end all be all or directed at any one person individually although some were recently made. Just examples of how we discount people based on rank from time to time. Now what has me a little perplexed is the polar difference we as a whole tend to have when dealing with a younger criminals words vs. importance to a particular family.



How is it that we can pretty much all or at least the majority stand up and discount a Gangster's right to speak on subjects yet two minutes later take orders from one as a Right Hand? How do we justify as a community telling an Earner to understand and know his place, when a Thug sits in a Godfathers or Mothers family? I could go on with examples but at this point I would assume my question, topic or debate is pretty well understood. I can explain my point of view if asked or anyone even cares to hear. In a second I will give my theory or idea behind this.

begins to wonder if he will have to play himself for ever or if someone will actually sit across and move a piece



Okay, I think we tend to get caught keeping things as comfortable as possible and for obvious and good reasons. It is easier to take in a Civilian that is tied or related to a close family friend rather than step out of the box and put trust sometimes blindly in someone else. This isn't bad or good just the way it is. I also believe 110 % when it comes to speech when we do not want to believe or hear what someone is saying the easiest way to deflect or discredit the person speaking is to attack their experience and age in our world. The issue of less experienced and younger criminals into the highest families (Godfathers) is a tad more difficult to navigate; I guess it depends on how you look at those spots. To me they should be the most coveted. They should be where we all wish to end up, earning our way in tribute and loyalty into one of those 10 spots. They are after all limited to only 10, which to me means those are the top 10 people to emulate and follow in your city. Given that understanding, you are bestowing upon someone lower than made the greatest honor someone can have besides being a Godfathers themselves. Just curious as a community how we can justify discrediting someone based on rank AND bestow our greatest honors regardless of rank? Most of us are guilty as charged in our family lines from one time or another. So any one really can weigh in that has been around the block sort of speak.



keep in mind this is not meant to be a discussion on whether or not lower, younger criminals should hold coveted positions. That has been hashed about well with the flogging stick and dead horse

~HF~

I liked:)Very interesting mate.

I am sorry, maybe I didn't understantd.

But If we are not supposed to discuss that, what is the focus of this speech?  Try to point out we should treat the lower ranks more fairly and respectfully? 

Because if we start going about how High Ranks should be rewarded with these kind of positions we will be talking the same in different nouns. And the same arguments we use for the discussion you do not want to have are valid for why we treat some low gangsters, thugs, etc, differently from the rest.

assumes the timer has started on his chess game and begins surveying the board



We can discuss the topic at large with out hammering in on that one aspect over and over. The larger picture encompass's more than just RH/Thug relations. It comes down to acceptance as a community, what we covet important, living by what we say in all aspects etc.

are you gonna move any of those pieces
~HF~

This critique of the contradictions of our complex, conflicted convictions confirm that which coalesce with a considerable amount of collaboratively, coercive corroborators who through careful cooperation have convoluted the capacity of our comprehension under circumstances contributing to the collectively corrosive and careless command of coherence. 

The only clearly, conceivable conclusion is a comprehensive contract of convictions among our coalition, without contrite for the compassion's of those who dare cry as a consequence, 'this is but coincidence.'

Puck notices HF' eagerness to play chess so he decided to do the move..Sitting at the chair facing the board and HF.Puck grins and started to move the pawn 2 steps away from the king.. 

"Ranks..indeed is a complex thing here in our world. A mere civilian can do or said the right thing but because of his rank his moves or words are forgotten.."

"In my very own opinion , it is normal for a mafioso to put his ears on the speaker if he is someone on his rank or probably higher or a family member.Its how we live and its hard to change"

Puck waits for HF's move and reponse about the given discussion"

-Puck-

If you're going to come out into the Streets with some complex alliteration in order to prove your point, I would recommend you understand all the words you plan on using before you say them.

Grin.

~R~

Grin,

Not entirely sure what you mean.  I do understand each word I utilized each to their potential.

Then again, you replied so quickly, how could you have possibly taken a considerable amount of time to read and re-read it? 

I thought not. 

Rourke sits down for a grammar lesson.

"Contrite" is an adjective. One cannot be "without contrite."

"Collaboratively" is an adverb. One cannot have a "considerable amount of collaboratively."

"Clearly" is an adverb. A "solution" cannot be defined as "clearly."

Have a pleasant day.

Rourke knocks over the King and declares himself the winner.

Puck glares at rourke..

"With all due respect sir but we have started to play chess.."

Puck still waits for HF's move and pick the king in place

Rourke bows politely to pucky_returns.

My apologies, I did not mean to interrupt your chess game. I'm trying to help this discussion avoid ending up flaccid and unused like the previous "Running Numbers on the Block w/ Clause" business venture by Mr. Flamegoo.

My apologies on the grammatical usage of those 3 adjectives.  I made the necessary changes below. 

This critique of the contradictions of our complex, conflicted
convictions confirm that which coalesce with a considerable amount of collaboration among coercive corroborators who through careful cooperation
have convoluted the capacity of our comprehension under circumstances
contributing to the collectively corrosive and careless command of
coherence. 

The only clear, conceivable conclusion is a comprehensive contract
of convictions among our coalition, without contrition for the
compassion's of those who dare cry as a consequence, 'this is but
coincidence.'

Again my understanding of these words is evident, yet my mastery of their use in a complicated paragraph was regrettably overlooked while I rushed to complete it in a timely fashion. 

Genius takes time Mr. Rourke,

-GF

Rourke you know how to play chess? Im dumbfounded.

Anyway this little conversation we are having is a little confusing, maybe I'm just not the smartest cookie in the jar...mmmm cookies...but from what i understand we are talking a little bit about how young ranks are treated. What i believe is, that if you are unsponserd and low ranked you have no say in anything and you should be looked down on at first until you earn some respect.

Secondly whenever you become a part of a family only the family you are apart of has the rights to look down upon you while you are still young.

I know it sounds stupid but its what i think, you need to earn respect and you need to work your way up the ranks just don't expect an easy go of it in this life, we are the mafia not those doughnut eating piglets.

Grassboy,

You are correct.  I was simply stating that once again, the criticism of these contradictions illustrates a serious flaw in our logic. 

How can we be so quick to assume that someone is unworthy of certain qualities at a low rank, but at the same time - make them an RHM to a family.

If this were the case, than many leaders would be assumed to be "poor" decision makers.  However, we all understand why the goomba son of a former Capo is now the RHM of an entire syndicate.  As I stated in another debate, is the problem really that we deny the lower ranks the respect they deserve...

Or do we hand out promotions too freely? 

Decides to give a few cents on the issue.  She walks in and seats herself. 

I may be alone in this, but I do not necessarily see a problem with the supposed double standard.  What I mean is this, the gangsters and Earners and such who are berated are often carriers of Oocitis or Itchytriggeritis and as such, we have a right to disparage them.  And some, through hard work and family ties have gained unheard of honors as mere children.  And that is not a double standard.  Each according to their ability.  If your father was a RHM and you show yoursef to be cut of the same cloth, why should you not ascend to the same even if you are young?  If you lead like your mother or father, is it not better to give you their position, and get back to the way things were, than to have to change everything because someone was unfortunate enough to be standing in front of a gun when it went off?

Dismissing an argument because of rank is an ad hominem attack, plain and simple.  In my opinion, a civilian straight off the boat is on equal logical footing as a Godfather.  Of course, when that person starts with a false premise, or a poor understanding of the game, they'll draw bad conclusions.

Anyways, I guess what I'm begging you all to do is to attack the argument.  If the only response you can come up with is "You don't know anything, you're just a Goomba" then you've been bested in that argument as you have failed to rebut any of the points that Goomba has made.

Vito what do you mean by logical footing? - Are you trying to say that a civillian and a godfather should be treated as equals?

Makes me wonder what a silver tongued guy like GoodfeIIa over here is doin' eking out a life in our thing. Son, you could be earning a pretty packet as one of these so called politicians who says a lot of things without sayin' nothing at all, eh? I never seen so much self involved nonsense since I last saw Ma Levenstein over at the old folks home, Oy Gevalt!

Hazelspoon, I think it's a pretty simple scenario yous' got over here. I'll stop to chat for a while but that kosher deli closes at 9 so I'll pass on the chess, though I prefer the ol' backgammon anyway. The thing is Hazelspoon, dis ain't no place for consistency. It ain't how our thing works. You see, I'm 'bout two things. I'm about profit and I'm about family. If totally contradicting myself from one day to the next means my wallet is thick and our boys are happy, then it suits me just fine. '

'This bum? Yeah, he knows fuck all. Oh, he's a Sotto Capo now? I guess I was wrong about that I'm real sorry.'

We do what we can over here to keep people happy, keep the envelopes coming, and keep ourselves out of pine boxes. Compared with some other business ventures I'm into, inconsistency and contradiction don't seem all that jazz.

Well Grass, sort of, but to say "[they] should be treated as equals" is painting it will too broad a brush.

I'm saying that an argument should not be dismissed or accepted based on the rank of the individual presenting it.  That's no way to examine an argument.  Obviously, other factors come into play when the argument is libelous or disrespectful.  But from my point of view a logical, well developed argument presented by a Wise Guy holds more water than a logically fallacious argument from the mouth of a Don.

No one should be dismissed based on rank.  If someone has other means of countering their argument, present them.  If the only counter-argument one can muster is "You're only a civilian" then, well, you haven't addressed the argument at all, you've only attacked the person presenting it.

Marley smiles, pulls a joint from behind his ear, and pulls out his lite.

Speaking with his joint hanging from his lip

It's amazing how identical this day and age is to the ones of yester-years.  I've read so many journals from my greatest of grandfathers that mention these exact debates going on in the streets in their era.

One thing we must understand people, is that, this will never change. People will trust who they damn well please and it doesnt matter who runs out to the street corner and states a worthless opinion about a decision some GF/GM or Made guy made on their upper structure.

It's not our place. As I've said on several occasions, people should just play their role, keep their nose clean, and show how worthy you are to be respected by the fat cats running this thing of our!

Just my humble opinion though. I'm nothing more than a WiseGuy trying to be a friend of theirs and not just a friend of his.

Lites his joint and slaps his whore