57020 réponses à ce sujet

[andrastepreserveme]

ashyraine wrote...

kromify wrote...

mandamcmoo wrote...

kromify wrote...

you hope. hindsight is a wonderful thing  

YES IT IS!

:happy:

   

Do want MOAR

EDIT for ToP

From Chapter 4



By my beloved, currently absent Yamisnuffles

Modifié par mandamcmoo, 09 juin 2011 - 05:04 .

[kromify]

she represents the unwillingness to change. ignoring the problem isn't a compromise

[Sialater]

Addai67 wrote...

I shouldn't.  I really shouldn't.  But I guess I'm going to.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
"First they came for the mages, and I didn't speak out because I was not a mage.
Then they came for the elves, and I didn't speak out because I was not an elf.
Then they came for followers of the Qun, and I didn't speak out because I was not a Quinari
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." 

The problem is that you've conveniently located "they" outside yourself, in a monolithic mass, easily demonized.  Ask yourself when it is that they becomes you.

Let's recall that Anders doesn't take out Elthina because she's oppressing mages, but because she represents the possibility of a compromise between mages and templars.

And if "they" are the group doing the oppressing and the "coming after" individuals just for their race and philosophies, and you don't speak up how is that stopping them?

Nietzschean distinctions are all well and good, but in this case YOU cannot become THEM by the very definition of the term.

[ipgd]

kromify wrote...

she represents the unwillingness to change. ignoring the problem isn't a compromise

In this case, it is. The Circle is Anders's "separate but equal", a solution he finds unacceptable because he does not believe there can be compromise in matters of human liberty.

[Hill-Hurwitz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I question how willing the elves would be to get themselves into this, especially if the mages screw up in PR, which based on what we've seen is very likely to happen.

Mages need to have a good chance at winning for them to get these kinds of allies, and something that they can promise to give (unless the Dalish are just as stupid and blind). Another Dalish nation? Where? Should we kick the human settlers out to please the Dalish? What do you think 99% of humans will think?

*shrug* We're not privy to much post-game info other than the Chantry's lost the Circles, and the Templars have also defected, to either hunt on their own or in support of the mages (and perhaps both). Nor do we get much insight on whose involved in mage undergrounds, but just by healing in Darktown, Anders generated a lot of sympathy for his personal safety.

My opinion is that if there's an active mage underground (which tend to be only fostered in cities where the public gets personal interaction with the mages) there's already a good framework to build off. I certainly don't really see city elves acting overtly, as they don't wield that kind of power. Their strengths are in being the unseen, the crowd, and the forgotten. They'd be perfect conductors for an underground railroad, especially if your charges can repay you by healing your ills.

As for the Dalish, they're not blind and stupid, no, and I think because of that they can see the gain. The mages have dealt the Chantry a heavy blow. With its power broken, there's a lot of oppertunity. Regardless, it probably wouldn't be until all the Circles have rebelled that the Dalish lend their support. The romantic in me loves the renewal of Andraste and Shartan motif; the pragmatist in me loves the enemy of my enemy mentality.

It's certainly a possiblity. Considerably more potiental allies than the dwarves.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

ipgd wrote...

kromify wrote...

indeed. everyone has an opinion

And not all opinions are right and/or exempt from challenge or criticism by virtue of being opinions, and I disagree with your opinion because I feel that the attempt to distance Anders from the label of terrorism is done out of a desire to avoid the gravitas of the issue, transforming it into something more morally palatable and black and white to the disservice of a narrative specifically created in order to make the issue difficult and grey

I had a longer response to one of your replies to me going, but I felt like I was falling into the trap of tapdancing in circles around an issue, so I stopped. There is a quote you pulled from the Wikipedia article that I want to bring up again, as another example of the kind of stuff that gets me trapped and mired down in this argument.

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or political reasons, whereby—in contrast to assassination—the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.

See... here's a thing. In some ways I see the Chantry bombing as an assassination with massive collateral damage. But I do see the direct target of the blast (the Chantry and Elthina) as the main targets of the attack. So while the Chantry bombing fits most definitions of terrorism, I'm not sure how much it fits that one specifically.

To me, it was the functional equivalent of, say, destroying a space station where the Evil Emperor resides, even knowing that you will kill a lot of innocent civilians working on that space station. (The "contractors on the Death Star" scenario) Elthina and the Chantry were simultaneously symbolic of oppression and direct and defined enemies of the cause being fought for.

I'd consider it an assassination and symbolic destruction of a strategic target with unfortunate and unwanted collateral civilian casualties. Which is, yes, a form of terrorism. It's not a form that we see very often nowadays, however.

The problem with all the modern examples of terrorism that people cite to compare Anders to is that none of them are directly analogous. Most of the examples that people bring up are cases where a group sought to destroy a civilian target and cause the largest number of civilian casualties possible. Anders' attack was an attack on a specific military/government official and the building that was the head of their government... with collateral damage to civilians who were inside. If he could have gotten every non-military person out of that building, Anders would have. His aim wasn't to kill innocent civilians to cause fear, rather it was to destroy a specific military target that was both an actual military strategic target and symbolic one.

I don't think that this isn't terrorism. But it's not the same thing as the "try to kill as many people as possible in order to make the public afraid that an attack could come at any time" modern tactics that everyone is constantly equating it to. Anders wasn't deliberately using civilian deaths to cause fear, he was attacking a military target knowing that civilian casualties would very likely occur.

The problem with saying "the terrorist label is required for a shades-of-grey argument" is that, for the vast vast majority of people, it's a "shades of black" word. I agree that Anders is definitely grey, and that it's important to keep track of that any discussion of him. I acknowledge that you, personally, think that terrorism can be acceptable and understand the nuance of the term. I just don't think that most people do, and that it tends to bring up the same black tendrils of negative emotion in everyone that I would usualy hope to avoid.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 juin 2011 - 05:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Hill-Hurwitz wrote...
As for the Dalish, they're not blind and stupid, no, and I think because of that they can see the gain. The mages have dealt the Chantry a heavy blow. With its power broken, there's a lot of oppertunity. Regardless, it probably wouldn't be until all the Circles have rebelled that the Dalish lend their support. The romantic in me loves the renewal of Andraste and Shartan motif; the pragmatist in me loves the enemy of my enemy mentality.

And what do they want to gain?
And how will that not conflict with human states' interests?

I fear with this kind of strategy, that mages will only succeed in making more enemies.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 09 juin 2011 - 05:21 .

[kromify]

ipgd wrote...

kromify wrote...

she represents the unwillingness to change. ignoring the problem isn't a compromise

In this case, it is. The Circle is Anders's "separate but equal", a solution he finds unacceptable because he does not believe there can be compromise in matters of human liberty.

a compromise would have been removing meredith.

people who give up liberty for security deserve neither. to mangle an american quote. tut tut for giving up someone else's liberty for their own safety

[Sialater]

kromify wrote...

ipgd wrote...

kromify wrote...

she represents the unwillingness to change. ignoring the problem isn't a compromise

In this case, it is. The Circle is Anders's "separate but equal", a solution he finds unacceptable because he does not believe there can be compromise in matters of human liberty.

a compromise would have been removing meredith.

people who give up liberty for security deserve neither. to mangle an american quote. tut tut for giving up someone else's liberty for their own safety

They gave up their own liberty for everyone else's safety.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Addai67 wrote...

I shouldn't.  I really shouldn't.  But I guess I'm going to.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
"First they came for the mages, and I didn't speak out because I was not a mage.
Then they came for the elves, and I didn't speak out because I was not an elf.
Then they came for followers of the Qun, and I didn't speak out because I was not a Quinari
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me." 

The problem is that you've conveniently located "they" outside yourself, in a monolithic mass, easily demonized.  Ask yourself when it is that they becomes you.

Let's recall that Anders doesn't take out Elthina because she's oppressing mages, but because she represents the possibility of a compromise between mages and templars.

Honestly, I think Anders takes her out because she represents the illusion of the possibility of a fair compromise.

I think that the "there is no compromise" line has multiple layers of meaning.

The first and most obvious is that Anders himself is no longer willing to compromise on the ideals of human liberty.

The second, which we've experienced throughout the three acts, is that Elthina doesn't ever actually compromise. She doesn't work out a fair agreement that gets concessions from both sides. She gives lip service to compromise, but Anders knows that the Chantry has ZERO motivation to ever actually compromise, to ever actually change, to ever actually work with mages to create a system where everyone can be relatively happy.

There is no compromising with the Chantry. That has never been an option. The Chantry is not open to compromise, and claiming that it is... that's how they get you.

Elthina also represents the whole "false compromise" idea, or the "false middle." 

Say there are two advocates:

Advocate A: We should kill all kittens and eat them!
Advocate B: That's monstrous! Don't kill and eat all those kittens!

Compromise: Kill and eat half of the kittens. Or just kill all the kittens, but don't eat them.

When you're insisting that a perfectly equitable compromise between views is the ideal road forward, that just incentivizes extremism. Because if one person is extreme and the other is moderate, the "compromise" will end up favoring the extremist rather than the moderate. That's exactly what Elthina was doing.

[ipgd]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'd consider it an assassination and symbolic destruction of a strategic target with unfortunate and unwanted collateral civilian casualties. Which is, yes, a form of terrorism. It's not a form that we see very often nowadays, however.

Yes. I see it as primarily a symbolic attack with a secondary immediate tactical goal of removing Elthina from power in order to by-proxy authorize the Right of Annulment through Meredith to further his political aims.

The problem with saying "the terrorist label is required for a shades-of-grey argument" is that, for the vast vast majority of people, it's a "shades of black" word. I agree that Anders is definitely grey, and that it's important to keep track of that any discussion of him. I acknowledge that you, personally, think that terrorism can be acceptable and understand the nuance of the term. I just don't think that most people do, and that it tends to bring up the same black tendrils of negative emotion in everyone that I would usualy hope to avoid.

And that is precisely why I bring it up (or, rather, harp on it endlessly when other people bring it up). When I see someone say "Anders is not a terrorist", my point in arguing is that terrorists are not evil people with no goals beyond sewing chaos because they want to watch the world burn, and Anders does not have to be one of those people to be a terrorist, and I think trying to pretty up what he did to avoid those associations because you like him or agree with him is... undesirable, from the standpoint of narrative analysis.

[kromify]

Sialater wrote...

They gave up their own liberty for everyone else's safety.

how noble of them to consent  to be dragged off in chains  

[CulturalGeekGirl]

@ipgd

Ahhhh. Ok, finally all has become clear.

Have an Anders.



Source

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 09 juin 2011 - 05:37 .

[Sialater]

kromify wrote...

Sialater wrote...

They gave up their own liberty for everyone else's safety.

how noble of them to consent  to be dragged off in chains  

No one can oppress you without your permission.  Yes.  The mages with all their great cosmic power allowed themselves to be caged.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sialater wrote...

kromify wrote...

Sialater wrote...

They gave up their own liberty for everyone else's safety.

how noble of them to consent  to be dragged off in chains  

No one can oppress you without your permission.  Yes.  The mages with all their great cosmic power allowed themselves to be caged.  

Most didn't see it as being caged, that's the thing.

And I have a problem telling people that I think they are not free, when they either think the opposite or don't care.

[ipgd]

kromify wrote...

Sialater wrote...

They gave up their own liberty for everyone else's safety.

how noble of them to consent  to be dragged off in chains  

They did, funnily enough.

[Addai]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
There is no compromising with the Chantry. That has never been an option. The Chantry is not open to compromise, and claiming that it is... that's how they get you.

Well, then, I suppose you have all the justification you need for whatever done in the name of taking the Chantry down.

[Sialater]

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
There is no compromising with the Chantry. That has never been an option. The Chantry is not open to compromise, and claiming that it is... that's how they get you.

Well, then, I suppose you have all the justification you need for whatever done in the name of taking the Chantry down.

Yes, actually.

[Hill-Hurwitz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And what do they want to gain?
And how will that not conflict with human states' interests?

I fear with this kind of strategy, that mages will only succeed in making more enemies.

The Dalish are a tremendously risky ally, but I'm sure their arrows are good at hitting the weak points in Templar armor - that's really what my Hawke would be focusing on, and she's always been a friend to the Dalish.

As far as gain; existence is a powerful motivator. If the Chantry defeats the mages, how long will it take before they turn their gaze again on the Dalish? They only don't bother with them right now because they've got other concerns, and they're too much trouble otherwise. Why wait if you can strike the first blood against your old aggressor?

Again; it's not politically sound. And my Hawke isn't the most politically savvy either. But it's something she'd look into, when existence is on the line.

The end of WWI held the cataylst for WWII, and we know there's potiental war with the Qunari on the horizon. That's the key, really. Mages, especially educated mages, are the best defense Thedas has. If the Chantry wants to survive at all it has to change - so my Hawke's going to find as much pressures as she can throw at them.

[SurelyForth]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Most didn't see it as being caged, that's the thing.

And I have a problem telling people that I think they are not free, when they either think the opposite or don't care.

I see your point but! They've been taught from childhood that they are cursed with their magic, that they are too dangerous to exist with non-mages, so much so that all contact between them and their family is discouraged or outright forbidden.

Even Bethany, who was raised by a free mage and taught not to buy into the Chantry's line on mages, feels that way, simply from being an Andrastian. Mages in  the Circle are certainly and systematically being broken down so that they don't want to rise up agains the templars, or the Chantry. Then it becomes not not wanting to be free, but being so beaten down that they don't trust themselves to be free, or trust that they won't be punished for accepting freedom when it's offered. Or being afraid of freedom, because the world is scary and unstructured, which doesn't make the Circle a better option but a familiar one.
 
If that makes any sense.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 09 juin 2011 - 05:51 .

[Sialater]

SurelyForth wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Most didn't see it as being caged, that's the thing.

And I have a problem telling people that I think they are not free, when they either think the opposite or don't care.

I see your point but! They've been taught from childhood that they are cursed with their magic, that they are too dangerous to exist with non-mages, so much so that all contact between them and their family is discouraged or outright forbidden.

Even Bethany, who was raised by a free mage and taught not to by into the Chantry's line on mages, feels that way, simply from being an Andrastian. Mages in  the Circle are certainly and systematically being broken down so that they don't want to rise up agains the templars, or the Chantry. Then it becomes not not wanting to be free, but being so beaten down that they don't trust themselves to be free, or trust that they won't be punished for accepting freedom when it's offered. Or being afraid of freedom, because the world is scary and unstructured, which doesn't make the Circle a better option but a familiar one.
 
If that makes any sense.

Institutionalized brain washing. 

They never got to Anders.  (Or my Warden. )

Modifié par Sialater, 09 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[kromify]

Sialater wrote...

No one can oppress you without your permission.  Yes.  The mages with all their great cosmic power allowed themselves to be caged.  

:blink:

tell that to <insert race/ gender/ sexuality>


oppression isn't made of physical chains so much as convincing people they are worth nothing, and they don't deserve to be anything. it's a state of mind. chains can only turn people into prisoners. not every prisoner is oppressed and not all the oppressed are prisoners.

RL example - women before the suffrage and WW1 had the same legal rights as children and lunatics. because men believed we couldn't think for ourselves. the chance to change that only came out of a massive tragedy when there were no longer enough men

[SurelyForth]

Sialater wrote...
Institutionalized brain washing. 

They never got to Anders.  (Or my Warden. )

Exactly. It's the crux of my favorite line from his short story, in fact:  "I always knew I wouldn't submit. I could never be what they wanted from me -- compliant, obedient, guilty."

 

[Sialater]

kromify wrote...

Sialater wrote...

No one can oppress you without your permission.  Yes.  The mages with all their great cosmic power allowed themselves to be caged.  

:blink:

tell that to <insert race/ gender/ sexuality>

I will and I have.  I'm currently doing that on a different board right now. 

[Sialater]

SurelyForth wrote...

Sialater wrote...
Institutionalized brain washing. 

They never got to Anders.  (Or my Warden. )

Exactly. It's the crux of my favorite line from his short story, in fact:  "I always knew I wouldn't submit. I could never be what they wanted from me -- compliant, obedient, guilty."

 

Harrison Bergeron is also a good example.