Talk:Functionism - Revision history

Battlemaster at 19:17, 9 October 2016

2016-10-09T19:17:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 9 October 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Outliers (edit: I am forever mixing up Outliers with Point One Percenters for some reason). [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Outliers (edit: I am forever mixing up Outliers with Point One Percenters for some reason). [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
	:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
			:: That's really more of the Senate than the Functionists (after the Functionists were mostly toppled in the core timeline and before the cut-off with the Functionist timeline), but I guess it's the best information available so far? [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 15:17, 9 October 2016 (EDT)

Battlemaster at 19:09, 9 October 2016

2016-10-09T19:09:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 9 October 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:I admit I'm only putting this page together from snipets of dialogue, but my impression was that ratioism was a subset of the functionist doctrine. In ''[[Before & After]]'', Chromedome mentioned the rise of the functionists and their Grand Cybertronian Taxonomy, i.e. a classification into ordered categories. He then went into how Rewind was defined as one of the disposable class. Ratioism, therefore, appears to be a mechanism by which the functionist's taxonomy was applied. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 22:46, 27 December 2012 (EST)		:I admit I'm only putting this page together from snipets of dialogue, but my impression was that ratioism was a subset of the functionist doctrine. In ''[[Before & After]]'', Chromedome mentioned the rise of the functionists and their Grand Cybertronian Taxonomy, i.e. a classification into ordered categories. He then went into how Rewind was defined as one of the disposable class. Ratioism, therefore, appears to be a mechanism by which the functionist's taxonomy was applied. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 22:46, 27 December 2012 (EST)

	Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Point One Percenters. [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Outliers (edit: I am forever mixing up Outliers with Point One Percenters for some reason). [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
	:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)

Emvee at 10:57, 9 October 2016

2016-10-09T10:57:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:57, 9 October 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:

	Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Point One Percenters. [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Point One Percenters. [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
			:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)

Battlemaster at 06:34, 9 October 2016

2016-10-09T06:34:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 9 October 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I think we may be confusing Functionism and Ratioism a bit here. Functionism is that your altmode determines your lot in life. Ratioism to my recollection is sometimes a corollary, but is the specific notion that the more common altmodes are effectively disposable, while the rarer ones are more valuable. Both of them were bucked by the Decepticon movement that practiced a taboo of wholly refitting yourself into a new purpose, with Megatron's gladiatorial refit being the most prominent example. The forged versus constructed cold debate sometimes gets lumped in with this as well, but only insofar as it's yet another damaging notion prewar society had towards class and station based off of how you were built.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 22:34, 27 December 2012 (EST)		I think we may be confusing Functionism and Ratioism a bit here. Functionism is that your altmode determines your lot in life. Ratioism to my recollection is sometimes a corollary, but is the specific notion that the more common altmodes are effectively disposable, while the rarer ones are more valuable. Both of them were bucked by the Decepticon movement that practiced a taboo of wholly refitting yourself into a new purpose, with Megatron's gladiatorial refit being the most prominent example. The forged versus constructed cold debate sometimes gets lumped in with this as well, but only insofar as it's yet another damaging notion prewar society had towards class and station based off of how you were built.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 22:34, 27 December 2012 (EST)
	:I admit I'm only putting this page together from snipets of dialogue, but my impression was that ratioism was a subset of the functionist doctrine. In ''[[Before & After]]'', Chromedome mentioned the rise of the functionists and their Grand Cybertronian Taxonomy, i.e. a classification into ordered categories. He then went into how Rewind was defined as one of the disposable class. Ratioism, therefore, appears to be a mechanism by which the functionist's taxonomy was applied. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 22:46, 27 December 2012 (EST)		:I admit I'm only putting this page together from snipets of dialogue, but my impression was that ratioism was a subset of the functionist doctrine. In ''[[Before & After]]'', Chromedome mentioned the rise of the functionists and their Grand Cybertronian Taxonomy, i.e. a classification into ordered categories. He then went into how Rewind was defined as one of the disposable class. Ratioism, therefore, appears to be a mechanism by which the functionist's taxonomy was applied. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 22:46, 27 December 2012 (EST)

			Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Point One Percenters. [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)

Xaaron at 03:46, 28 December 2012

2012-12-28T03:46:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 28 December 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I think we may be confusing Functionism and Ratioism a bit here. Functionism is that your altmode determines your lot in life. Ratioism to my recollection is sometimes a corollary, but is the specific notion that the more common altmodes are effectively disposable, while the rarer ones are more valuable. Both of them were bucked by the Decepticon movement that practiced a taboo of wholly refitting yourself into a new purpose, with Megatron's gladiatorial refit being the most prominent example. The forged versus constructed cold debate sometimes gets lumped in with this as well, but only insofar as it's yet another damaging notion prewar society had towards class and station based off of how you were built.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 22:34, 27 December 2012 (EST)		I think we may be confusing Functionism and Ratioism a bit here. Functionism is that your altmode determines your lot in life. Ratioism to my recollection is sometimes a corollary, but is the specific notion that the more common altmodes are effectively disposable, while the rarer ones are more valuable. Both of them were bucked by the Decepticon movement that practiced a taboo of wholly refitting yourself into a new purpose, with Megatron's gladiatorial refit being the most prominent example. The forged versus constructed cold debate sometimes gets lumped in with this as well, but only insofar as it's yet another damaging notion prewar society had towards class and station based off of how you were built.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 22:34, 27 December 2012 (EST)
			:I admit I'm only putting this page together from snipets of dialogue, but my impression was that ratioism was a subset of the functionist doctrine. In ''[[Before & After]]'', Chromedome mentioned the rise of the functionists and their Grand Cybertronian Taxonomy, i.e. a classification into ordered categories. He then went into how Rewind was defined as one of the disposable class. Ratioism, therefore, appears to be a mechanism by which the functionist's taxonomy was applied. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 22:46, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Rosicrucian: New page: I think we may be confusing Functionism and Ratioism a bit here. Functionism is that your altmode determines your lot in life. Ratioism to my recollection is sometimes a corollary, but is ...

2012-12-28T03:34:38Z

New page: I think we may be confusing Functionism and Ratioism a bit here. Functionism is that your altmode determines your lot in life. Ratioism to my recollection is sometimes a corollary, but is ...

New page

I think we may be confusing Functionism and Ratioism a bit here. Functionism is that your altmode determines your lot in life. Ratioism to my recollection is sometimes a corollary, but is the specific notion that the more common altmodes are effectively disposable, while the rarer ones are more valuable. Both of them were bucked by the Decepticon movement that practiced a taboo of wholly refitting yourself into a new purpose, with Megatron's gladiatorial refit being the most prominent example. The forged versus constructed cold debate sometimes gets lumped in with this as well, but only insofar as it's yet another damaging notion prewar society had towards class and station based off of how you were built.--[[User:Rosicrucian|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 22:34, 27 December 2012 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 9 October 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:
	Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Outliers (edit: I am forever mixing up Outliers with Point One Percenters for some reason). [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Outliers (edit: I am forever mixing up Outliers with Point One Percenters for some reason). [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
	:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
			:: That's really more of the Senate than the Functionists (after the Functionists were mostly toppled in the core timeline and before the cut-off with the Functionist timeline), but I guess it's the best information available so far? [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 15:17, 9 October 2016 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 9 October 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:I admit I'm only putting this page together from snipets of dialogue, but my impression was that ratioism was a subset of the functionist doctrine. In ''[[Before & After]]'', Chromedome mentioned the rise of the functionists and their Grand Cybertronian Taxonomy, i.e. a classification into ordered categories. He then went into how Rewind was defined as one of the disposable class. Ratioism, therefore, appears to be a mechanism by which the functionist's taxonomy was applied. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 22:46, 27 December 2012 (EST)		:I admit I'm only putting this page together from snipets of dialogue, but my impression was that ratioism was a subset of the functionist doctrine. In ''[[Before & After]]'', Chromedome mentioned the rise of the functionists and their Grand Cybertronian Taxonomy, i.e. a classification into ordered categories. He then went into how Rewind was defined as one of the disposable class. Ratioism, therefore, appears to be a mechanism by which the functionist's taxonomy was applied. --[[User:Xaaron\|Xaaron]] 22:46, 27 December 2012 (EST)

	Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Point One Percenters. [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		Has there been any mention of how triple-changers were treated under Functionist rule? Given the general nature of the Functionist government it seems like they'd be up for similar levels of discrimination as Outliers (edit: I am forever mixing up Outliers with Point One Percenters for some reason). [[User:Battlemaster\|Battlemaster]] ([[User talk:Battlemaster\|talk]]) 02:34, 9 October 2016 (EDT)
	:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)		:Two of them at least were recruited into the [[Triorian Guard]], which was described as a unit of multi-terrain triple-changers. --[[User:Emvee\|Emvee]] ([[User talk:Emvee\|talk]]) 06:57, 9 October 2016 (EDT)