57020 réponses à ce sujet

[ipgd]

It is rather true, though, regardless of the supposed justness or lack thereof of a movement. It's ultimately the moderates who determine what comes of it all, whether they're unconvinced or resistant or swayed or subdued. Making your side the (relative) moderates of your culture is when your movement has succeeded.

Modifié par ipgd, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:37 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea, many used the same arguments when they purged the "counter-revolutionary reactionist scum" from within their ranks. Very common rhetoric that by definition suffers from over simplification, nothing more.

I disagree. Not that it's common... I'm sure it's common among all sorts of revolutions and movements, just and unjust. But I disagree that it's "nothing more." (For one, it's a dude I respect rather more than pretty much any other revolutionary.) 

It's a reminder that pretty much every movement, timely or not, has always had people who say "Wait, it isn't time yet. To try it now is madness. Wait." You can pretty much always imagine a time when the opportunity is better.

You respecting him or not is not relevent. It's the same quote any other extremist revolutionist would have said. Rhetoriic like that is dangerous, regardless of the source. The fact that it emphasizes on "justice" makes it rhetoric in my eyes as well.

Most of the movements who ended up adopting this idea, that the "moderates" are the greatest enemy, ended up being self-destructive and idiotic.  If that's what you want mages to adopt, then I dread to think what they'd do with their revolution.

Likewise, many don't even try to work for a better time and rather lazily and impatiently, prefer to throw themselves in the wind because of some vague notions and that death is more preferrably anyways.
Waiting for a better time passively, or not waiting at all, are both immense flaws. Waiting and working to shape the times ahead to your advantage is what ought to be done. And yea, it was done before, in the Abassid Revolution. The only Revolution I actually like.  

But sadly patience is equated to inaction, or weakness, or worse, immorality (one of the best accusations one can use to murder a lot of people).

I'm going to stop tapdancing around attribution... I find this interesting because it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said it, and he's one of the few revolutionaries who are pretty universally well-regarded. And I don't feel that this particular quote was especially dangerous.

Honestly, all the successful civil rights movements I can think of have included people who decided to directly challenge moderates in this way: the civil rights movement, the womens suffrage movement, and the modern gay rights movement all share that philosophy to some extent. Right now in the media you're constantly hearing people say that the gay rights movement is irresponsible and immoral for trying to forward their cause during a time of economic stress, they should wait until the entire world economy is fixed before they attempt to gain equality. There will always be excuses, reasons why equality has to wait.

I've heard similar justifications for the mage revolution and the Qunari: it's irresponsible to do it while the Qunari are still a threat. Well, what if they're a significant threat for the next thousand years? Or forever? I see no sign on the horizon that the time is going to be any better anytime soon for mages, and no clear way for them to work to make it so, denied as they are the ability to assemble, and to communicate without a significant chance of their papers being intercepted and monitored.

When did justice become a dirty word? Truth, tolerance and justice used to be a battlecry, now it seems like all three are counted as weaknesses rather than strengths.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...

It is rather true, though, regardless of the supposed justness or lack thereof of a movement. It's ultimately the moderates who determine what comes of it all, whether they're unconvinced or resistant or swayed or subdued. Making your side the moderates of your culture is when your movement has succeeded.

Yes and saying that the moderates are an enemy, or "obstacle" is a decisively stupid thing to do (which is precisely what most revolutionary movements end up doing).
And I know Martin Luther King did not mean it this way and th context of his time was very different. I take issue however in taking vague quotes out of context, sticking them to situations that are different, and not calling it rhetoric (and a dangerous one at that).

Anyways, gtg sleep. Night!

[DreamerM]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm going to stop tapdancing around attribution... I find this interesting because it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said it, and he's one of the few revolutionaries who are pretty universally well-regarded.

Martin Luther King Jr. was also non-violent. Same with Ghandi. Those two men said that shedding blood would simply multiply everybody's suffering, and that violence inflicted upon you does not justify turning to it yourself. This is why we celebrate them so univerally today.

When it becomes a question of bloodshed, then Isabella's right: everybody gets dragged in and soon the fighting is all that matters. The cause gets lost in a haze of blood, grief, and rage.

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
I'm going to stop tapdancing around attribution... I find this interesting because it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said it, and he's one of the few revolutionaries who are pretty universally well-regarded. And I don't feel that this particular quote was especially dangerous.

I know who said it and I know the circumstances of his time, and what methods he used. Just telling you that I can take this vague quote out of context like you did and turn it into something dangerous.

Honestly, all the successful civil rights movements I can think of have included people who decided to directly challenge moderates in this way: the civil rights movement, the womens suffrage movement, and the modern gay rights movement all share that philosophy to some extent.

Not by saying they are the enemy, not unless they are willing to do a lot of massacring.

I've heard similar justifications for the mage revolution and the Qunari: it's irresponsible to do it while the Qunari are still a threat. Well, what if they're a significant threat for the next thousand years? Or forever? I see no sign on the horizon that the time is going to be any better anytime soon for mages, and no clear way for them to work to make it so, denied as they are the ability to assemble, and to communicate without a significant chance of their papers being intercepted and monitored.

We have already been through this and I already demonstrated that communaction is possible. Whether it worked or not in a specific example is irrelevent, comunication being possible is proven. And they can assemble, they aleady do and they even get to vote on secession and most mages didn't want it.

The fact that the unstable mage can't, doesn't mean the others can't.

When did justice become a dirty word? Truth, tolerance and justice used to be a battlecry, now it seems like all three are counted as weaknesses rather than strengths.

They are neither strengths nor weaknesses. Good tools to be used in speeches.
But words that have no objective meaning. Powerful and moving, but by no means absolute.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:49 .

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes and saying that the moderates are an enemy, or "obstacle" is a decisively stupid thing to do (which is precisely what most revolutionary movements end up doing).
And I know Martin Luther King did not mean it this way and th context of his time was very different. I take issue however in taking vague quotes out of context, sticking them to situations that are different, and not calling it rhetoric (and a dangerous one at that).

Anyways, gtg sleep. Night!

It's also effective, at least in this modern context. White liberal guilt, hell-oooooooo.

Insidious rhetoric or not, the people who just don't care that much are the biggest obstacle, often way more so than the most heated opposition. Making those people care, or at least inserting those cultural attitudes enough that it becomes the status quo those people want to defend, is the end goal of social movements. "If you're not with us, you're against us" is true enough to guilt a good amount of people into caring just a little bit more.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
Insidious rhetoric or not, the people who just don't care that much are the biggest obstacle, often way more so than the most heated opposition. Making those people care, or at least inserting those cultural attitudes enough that it becomes the status quo those people want to defend, is the end goal of social movements. "If you're not with us, you're against us" is true enough to guilt a good amount of people into caring just a little bit more.

Indifference is the obstacle. When you start saying the people are obstacles, expect extremists to see them as enemies. And expect them to want to deal with them.

I am not disagreeing with you. Just demonstrating the potential danger of the rhetoric. I don't like to see any rhetoric being over-glorified or used as arguments as a rule. Which is what I percieved CGG was doing.

Now I really gtg sleep. night everyone

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:56 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Well, I do believe it's persuasive language. I also believe it's effective writing. So yes it's rhetoric? Those are the primary definitions of rhetoric after all.

I'm being a little obtuse here on purpose. I think I gather what definition you meant, but I don't agree with that one, and I don't think that classifying any persuasive philosophical speech as simple bombast serves any useful purpose.

There's a difference between calling something an enemy and calling something a stumbling block. Here's another modified quote, this time from blogger digby, analyzing this particular passage: 

"It's the perennial problem that King elucidates so well in his letter: the unwillingness of the so-called moderates to put themselves on the line ... the endless admonishments to calm down, be quiet, don't paint with a broad brush, don't speak clearly about what you see before your eyes. And in doing that they validate the idea that there is no right and wrong, that 'both sides' are equally culpable, that the answer to irreconcilable principled differences is somewhere in the middle. The main result is a high sense of self-regard among the people who stay above it all and a continuation of a status quo which benefits only the privileged."

Bear in mind that I'm not arguing that Anders exact actions are justified, rather I'm saying that the time of mage freedom might as well be now, and if our warriors and rogues are unwilling to stand up and defend mages when they are about to be slaughtered, we cannot just sit back and smugly claim superiority to the issue.

Saying "wait for the right time" is no more helpful than explicitly siding with those who are already priviledged. That is the point that the quote makes directly, and I don't understand why you insist on interpreting it as an incitement to violence or extremism. Note that I associate it with defending the mages in Act 3, not with sparing Anders.

Regardless of what Anders has done, this is a perfect summation of the mage situation.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:33 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Not by saying they are the enemy, not unless they are willing to do a lot of massacring.

You're the one who said that, not I. Stumbling block =/= enemy.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I see no sign on the horizon that the time is going to be any better anytime soon for mages, and no clear way for them to work to make it so, denied as they are the ability to assemble, and to communicate without a significant chance of their papers being intercepted and monitored.

We have already been through this and I already demonstrated that communaction is possible. Whether it worked or not in a specific example is irrelevent, comunication being possible is proven. And they can assemble, they aleady do and they even get to vote on secession and most mages didn't want it.

The fact that the unstable mage can't, doesn't mean the others can't.

As far as I recall, you demonstrated only that Uldred was able to communicate with Loghain. That's not a level of communication that would allow multiple circles to work together to form a coherent plan. Also, was there indication that Uldred contacted Loghain first, or was it the other way around? The ability to respond when communication is initiated and facilitated by a powerful outside force is not the same as free and open communication. We do have some indication that circle leaders are able to send messages, but no indication that these messages are unread, outside the singular example of Uldred and Loghain. I'd be interested in hearing other examples you're aware of, if there are any, but my point is that communication is difficult and extremely risky if not initiated by an outside power with significant influence.

You say that "most mages" didn't want independence. That is inaccurate. Most of the enchanters who were able to vote did not want it. That's like saying "we held a vote, most people don't want women's suffrage" if the vote was only given to white male landed gentry. We have no idea what 'most mages' want. Enchanters are only harrowed mages, within the circle, who have been allowed to teach, and only Enchanters are allowed to officially join fraternities. We have no idea what percentage of mages this represents, or what the process is for a mage to become an Enchanter. The only thing we do know is that First Enchanters are not elected by the mages in their tower: they are appointed by Templars, though ostensibly with the approval of the mages in the tower. We don't even know for sure who all is allowed to vote in the College of Magi (I can't find a solid cite) is it only Senior Enchanters? Only Enchaters who manage to make the trip? What percentage of mages actually participate in the final vote? 

If Apostates, Seers, and Keepers were able to send delegates to the College, or assemble publically, then you might have a point. As it is, mages can not organize or communicate with even a fraction of the degree of freedom of any society that achieved change through peaceful resistance or organized revolution. The fact that mages cannot easily communicate with the outside world or assemble in public without being directly supervised by the Chantry is what makes organizing a cohesive unified movement for change virtually impossible without some event that allows for a coordinated loosening of the Chantry's control over their movment and communication.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:58 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Rebels are a very interesting group to study in the history.

Where they start off fighting for something great:
Freedom, rights, or even food.

They often times become something worse then what they fight.
The Communist party in both China and Russia.
The leaders of the French Revolution.
Fidel Castro, or Che.

Those are just a few of them. All to often in the past a rebel wins what they want.
They try and create their awesome new society.... and then things go off the rails.

Some people fight them, the economy does not go how they want, plans fail. Then instead of taking any blame for it they search for someone else to blame.

All to often its the members of society who they blame:
"Capitalist Elements"
"Non-believers"
"REBELS"

Then they do whatever they want to, to said people and bad things tend to happens.
Executions, witch hunts, exiles, show trials etc.

All to often in the past have rebels become the very monster that they sought to fight.
Was Russia that much better under the Communists, then it was under the Tzar?
Was China, or North Korea, or Vietnam, or Cuba?
Was France that much better because of the Revolutionaries, then it was under the King?

Its like Hegel said:
Something becomes a problem =Thesis
Something comes along to challange it =Antithesis
They have some conflict and create the SYNTHESIS.

In Dragon Age:
The Chantry and Circle are the THESIS.
Anders and his ideals are the ANTITHESIS.

We still have not seen what the SYNTHESIS is of this conflict. Fenris may have been foreshadowing a bit by warning that the mages may just create ANOTHER Tevinter empire.

Time will tell, but all the signs are there for a very bad outcome.

[Giggles_Manically]

There is another danger rebels also have issue with quite often:

The longer they fight the more desperate or fanatic they become.
This lets them more and more easily justify committing any act as long as they see a way to get closer to there goals. Anyone not with them by default becomes the enemy.

And no I am not referring to 9/11.
History has plenty of examples of this.

[maxernst]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Saying "wait for the right time" is no more helpful than explicitly siding with those who are already priviledged. That is the point that the quote makes directly, and I don't understand why you insist on interpreting it as an incitement to violence or extremism. Note that I associate it with defending the mages in Act 3, not with sparing Anders.

Regardless of what Anders has done, this is a perfect summation of the mage situation.

But defending the mages in Act 3 is not inherently related to desiring mage freedom.  If a plantation owner in the Antebellum South had decided that he was going to slaughter all of his slaves because an escaped slave and abolitionist from another state had blown up a church, his fellow plantation owners would certainly have opposed him.  That doesn't mean they were opposed to slavery, only opposed to the murder of innocent people (or semi-persons from their viewpoint).

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
There's a difference between calling something an enemy and calling something a stumbling block.

A stumbling block means an obstacle. An obstacle can be interpretted as an enemy.

Saying "wait for the right time" is no more helpful than explicitly siding with those who are already priviledged. That is the point that the quote makes directly, and I don't understand why you insist on interpreting it as an incitement to violence or extremism. Note that I associate it with defending the mages in Act 3, not with sparing Anders.

Because taken out of context, like you did, can make it an incitment for violence. Because that's how similar arguments were used.

I don't think it's useful to use vague speeches as anytthing concrete personally.

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
As
far as I recall, you demonstrated only that Uldred was able to
communicate with Loghain. That's not a level of communication that would
allow multiple circles to work together to form a coherent plan. Also,
was there indication that Uldred contacted Loghain first, or was it the
other way around?

That's why I said that the ones who are to form coherent plans are states, and not the Circles. If states are unwilling to help mages, especially considering how Circles are all in their cities, then the time is simply not right.

It's not relevent who contacted who first. The point is that Templars were completely oblivious to it and Uldred was able to organize a rebellion without them knowing about it. Loghain has little to do with actively organizing the rebellion.

EDIT: also, Godwin. He can contact a Lyrium smuggler in Orzammar.

You say
that "most mages" didn't want independence. That is inaccurate. Most of
the enchanters who were able to vote did not want it.

True, but fraternities represent mage interests and we see in Origins that non-enchanters can be affiliated to / supportive of fraternities. Furthermore, I wouldn't trust any non-harrowed mage to vote personally.

I think the vote in Cumberland is a strong indicator that most mages, would rather not secede. Enchanters were once normal mages and their affiliation to fraternities is an indicator, albeit far from perfect, of how fraternities are percieved.

And Templars appoint First Enchanters with the approval of mages. Not just any First Enchanter.

If
Apostates, Seers, and Keepers were able to send delegates to the
College, or assemble publically, then you might have a point. As it is,
mages can not organize or communicate with even a fraction of the degree
of freedom of any society that achieved change through peaceful
resistance or organized revolution.

Apostates, seers and Keepers are entirely irrelevent to the vote, they are not in the Circle.

Mages can organize, Uldred's rebellion was organized and mages were able to organize in the most militarized Circle in Thedas. And one does not need public freedom to be able to organize, the Abassids certainly didn't have that.

Not talking about peaceful resistance, it's niot feasible. Organized revolutions was possible on the otherhand, if states want it and the systemic level was favorable to it. If not, then the time is not right. "Justice" can wait.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 02:12 .

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's why I said that the ones who are to form coherent plans are states, and not the Circles. If states are unwilling to help mages, especially considering how Circles are all in their cities, then the time is simply not right.

For the states to ally with mages in this way, culture in Thedas as a whole would have to have a gigantic secular "revolution" of its own. It could quite possibly be hundreds of or another thousand years before anything like that is even possible, given how dominant and intertwined with law the Andrastian Chantry is.

It's unlikely enough that any head of state would even want to defy the Chantry at this point, and even if they did, they'd have to be practically suicidal or just really down with an Exalted March.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's why I said that the ones who are to form coherent plans are states, and not the Circles. If states are unwilling to help mages, especially considering how Circles are all in their cities, then the time is simply not right.

For the states to ally with mages in this way, culture in Thedas as a whole would have to have a gigantic secular "revolution" of its own. It could quite possibly be hundreds of or another thousand years before anything like that is even possible, given how dominant and intertwined with law the Andrastian Chantry is.

It's unlikely enough that any head of state would even want to defy the Chantry at this point, and even if they did, they'd have to be practically suicidal or just really down with an Exalted March.

And then that's how long they'll have to wait.

But I see signs that it's coming soon. We have Celene that is making education reforms that is pissing off the Chantry. Potentially, Anora is building a university.

And the balance of power is shifting from Orlais, the heart of the Chantry, to Nevarra. One possible outcome is the weakening of the Chantry as a whole.

It does't require a secular revolution, it can be a new form of Andrastrianism.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 juillet 2011 - 02:19 .

[River5]

DreamerM wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm going to stop tapdancing around attribution... I find this interesting because it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said it, and he's one of the few revolutionaries who are pretty universally well-regarded.

Martin Luther King Jr. was also non-violent. Same with Ghandi. Those two men said that shedding blood would simply multiply everybody's suffering, and that violence inflicted upon you does not justify turning to it yourself. This is why we celebrate them so univerally today.

When it becomes a question of bloodshed, then Isabella's right: everybody gets dragged in and soon the fighting is all that matters. The cause gets lost in a haze of blood, grief, and rage.

Except Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and all of these other "non-violent" resistance leaders will readily agree that violence is a better option than acceptance.  Given the choice between the two, it is better to fight back, using violent means if necessary, than to let oppressors go about their buisiness unhindered.

"Peaceful resistance" implies that you have to find a "non-violent way" to put the oppressors in a situation where they are forced to negotiate in order to protect their own interests.  The target of such non-violent resistance movement can be economical, political, etc.  But you ALWAYS need some form of leverage.

What Anders did brought the Chantry on the brink of collapse, and made them lose control not only over their Circles, but their Templars as well (one of their main military orders, and perhaps the most influential one)!!!

They are now losing power, they know it, and thus are sending Seekers to track down the only person (the Champion) that they believe have the influence required to help them avoid to lose everything!

The Chantry is forced to listen now if they want to protect their interests.

Since the end of the game, I have been racking my brain trying to find a single "non-violent mean" that Anders could have taken in order to destabilize the Chantry's hold on the world hard enough so that they would have been given no other choice than to capitulate.

Convince the dwarves to stop providing lyrium to the Chantry for their Templars until it would be willing to renegotiate the terms under which mages are living?  Dwarves are merchants, they don't have mages among them, and most of them certainly don't care what's happening with humans and elves topside.  So no, that wouldn't work…

What else?  It's all good and well to say that "Anders could have resorted to non-violent  means".  But how?  Please tell me how.  Perhaps if the Champion had decided to get more involved, Anders could have gotten more political leverage, but sadly, that wasn't given as an option.

The Circles in Ferelden were offered their independance ONLY if the Hero was a mage.  After having stopped the Fifth Blight, that warden mage gained enough recognition and socio-political power that the Chantry could have faced some serious opposition from the people had they refused to allow it to happen.

And even there, if you made Alistair king, you can see that this decision has cost him greatly on the political front, as Meredith now refuses to associate with him for having released the Circle from Chantry oversight (or having harboured apostates on his territory).

In Ferelden, if the Hero was a mage, than there was an opening, an opportunity for mages to gain rights non-violently through the heroic actions of one of their own.  But that's something that was allowed to happen very localy, the Chantry still wielding more power than the King (or Queen) of Ferelden, and probably waiting for another opportunity to get the control back over their lost Circle.

Is Anders supposed to wait for the next Blight to strike in the Free Marches, kill the Archdemon, and then go "Whoohoohoo!  I'm a mage and I did it!" before he can hope for things to change?

That makes me think that if the Champion was a mage, he really, but REALLY lost an opportunity to make his voice heard, and have a positive impact on Kirkwall.  If he'd actively gone after what Meredith was doing playing the card of "All of you Kirkwallers own me your lives", and push further by saying "Hey!  I never ever set foot in a Circle, and see how well I'm doing, while all these Circles escapees are turning to blood magic and going raving mad!" perhaps something else could have happened.

But no, all he does is say "Errr...  I think Orsino may be right...  Yeah...  Meredith you're a bad girl...  I...  Uh...  He has my support...  I just don't want to break a nail..."

Anders used the means and the leverage he had in order to put an end to the status quo, after having waited for 10 years for either someone with more leverage and power than himself to do it, or trying to rally people to his cause non violently (manifestos everywhere, anyone?).

Anders truly strikes me as an individual who would choose to use peaceful resistance above all else when given the choice.  He's a healer, someone who has devoted the last decade of his life trying to make things easier for both refugees and mages in Kirkwall, and is willing to sacrifice his life in order to give other people a chance to have the rights and opportunities that he was never given himself.

There is a great deal of anger and violence in him, but I don't see it as being what his revolution was ever about.  It was not about getting "revenge" over Elthina, or sating his anger or hunger for violence.  It was about creating a power shift strong enough to give other mages a chance to have their voices heard.

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And then that's how long they'll have to wait.

Or they could just blow up a few churches and have it done with now.

Writer prerogative is a variable in fiction that can't entirely be accounted for by real life equivalencies. This revolution is likely to succeed because it's not quite as interesting to have the beginnings of a revolution pathetically peter out and return to the status quo.

It does't require a secular revolution, it can be a new form of Andrastrianism.

Given Andrastianism is entirely predicated on the danger of magic, that will take a) an incredibly long time, an incredibly long time and enough secularism to ignore those passages, or c) a new religion (which could very well be what happens, if the revolutionary leaders play their cards/martyrs right).

[CulturalGeekGirl]

River5 wrote...

DreamerM wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm going to stop tapdancing around attribution... I find this interesting because it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said it, and he's one of the few revolutionaries who are pretty universally well-regarded.

Martin Luther King Jr. was also non-violent. Same with Ghandi. Those two men said that shedding blood would simply multiply everybody's suffering, and that violence inflicted upon you does not justify turning to it yourself. This is why we celebrate them so univerally today.

When it becomes a question of bloodshed, then Isabella's right: everybody gets dragged in and soon the fighting is all that matters. The cause gets lost in a haze of blood, grief, and rage.

Except Martin Luther King Jr., Ghandi, and all of these other "non-violent" resistance leaders will readily agree that violence is a better option than acceptance.  Given the choice between the two, it is better to fight back, using violent means if necessary, than to let oppressors go about their buisiness unhindered.

Ghandi's views on force are somewhat odd.  (I'm packing for a trip right now so my responses will be sporadic. Yay job interviews) 

Ghandi believed that the proper response to the Axis powers was for England to surrender all their lands and goods to them, and submit to execution. Here is his advice to the British people in 1940: 

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

Nonviolence is an interesting tool, however I do not believe it would have been the ideal one with which to fight the Axis. People forget that historically, oppositional forces whose best tool was violence have been encouraged not to take up that tool, as in the example above.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 juillet 2011 - 02:33 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ipgd wrote...
Writer prerogative is a variable in fiction that can't entirely be accounted for by real life equivalencies. This revolution is likely to succeed because it's not quite as interesting to have the beginnings of a revolution pathetically peter out and return to the status quo.

I know, but I am not arguing from a metagaming view.

Of course violent chaotic revolution is more fun for a game than slow transition and reform.
Were I living in Thedas however, I'd prefer the latter or an organized revolution that wipes out revolutionary leaders as soon as it succeeds.

Given Andrastianism is entirely predicated on the danger of magic, that will take a) an incredibly long time, an incredibly long time and enough secularism to ignore those passages, or c) a new religion (which could very well be what happens, if the revolutionary leaders play their cards/martyrs right).

It doens't really need a long time, especially if Andraste is shown to be a mage.
Of course I am not thinking of an Andrastrianism that would give mages complete freedom, far from it.

[River5]

CulturalGeekGirl, okay, I think this must be said...

First, I'm incredibly happy that I generally find myself agreeing with you because, seriously, your way with words just plain scares me sometimes!    And yes, I'm totally refering to what you just wrote on my thread...  Can I quote you in future discussions?

Second, marry me.  I know we're already technically in an open marriage...  But really, marry me... 

Because, according to my calculations and logical estimates, I think we have a 90% probability of being able to form a healthy partnership for the long term. Will you agree to establish such a relationship with me? 

Modifié par River5, 06 juillet 2011 - 02:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

River5 wrote...
Second, marry me.  I know we're already technically in an open marriage...  But really, marry me... 

Because, according to my calculations and logical estimates, I think we have a 90% probability of being able to form a healthy partnership for the long term. Will you agree to establish such a relationship with me? 

You didn't ask for permission to quote me

[River5]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

River5 wrote...
Second, marry me.  I know we're already technically in an open marriage...  But really, marry me... 

Because, according to my calculations and logical estimates, I think we have a 90% probability of being able to form a healthy partnership for the long term. Will you agree to establish such a relationship with me? 

You didn't ask for permission to quote me

LOL!  Only because you're already here dear...  

Does my quoting you makes you uncomfortable?  I could stop if you want...  

[ipgd]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It doens't really need a long time, especially if Andraste is shown to be a mage.

How would they show that, though? Moreover, how would they show that without being labeled a blasphemer, true or not?

Modifié par ipgd, 06 juillet 2011 - 02:48 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Feel free to quote me.

As for the relationship, you do fit the basic criteria: Nonharmful and interesting... however we'll have to see about the emergent meaning. I generally don't divine profound realizations on the first date.

In general I'd rather be discussing the fundamental nature of love, but hey... I also should be packing. I'll come back and condense my thoughts later if i have time.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:00 .

[beckaliz]

For some reason this discussion is making me think of Egypt this morning, more than other discussions of rebellions.
What could be the right time for anybody to have a rebellion? Having a rebellion at a "poor" time can make conditions so horrible that the "moderates" could say "ok WTF fine I'll get off my butt and do something". Economic stresses can be a good motivator. Also, a common enemy. Qunari as a common enemy would definitely be a better time for the mages to make their move, I think, to be more successful. Until the events in Kirkwall go down, however, that doesn't seem like it was close on the horizon. If I was being imprisoned and there were "beatings and rapings" etc, I wouldn't have the patience to wait for that. A rebellion during a "good" time might mean that more drastic actions have to be taken to get people to care.

But, of course, that depends on how each person defines "good" and "poor". Poor conditions are a good time to rebel. 

I assume that mages who pass their Harrowing are more or less the more intelligent ones, which means they're more likely to both make their own decisions, and also more able to scheme and manipulate others of their kind. I doubt all mages are equally knowledgable about what goes on even in their own tower, much less what's going on in the world. Enchanters being the teachers, I'd assume they're the more intelligent ones. They are also the more comfortable ones, who would be just fine for maintaining the status quo. That being the case, they'd be the ones to be able to gauge when a key time for a rebellion would be, but they are also less motivated to start one.

That being the case, it's more likely that your average mage, the majority, simply does not have the knowledge or the political skill to gauge when action should be taken.