638 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

TOBY FLENDERSON wrote...

He has one of the better voice acted parts, he tries for 7 years to get Dumar to man up and bring peace to Kirkwall, he only attacks out of desperation because it either ends with his rule under the Qun or with Hawke ruling in peace. This guy makes more sense than Meredith and Orsino combined.

Oh, right, bring total peace and harmony. That's not asking too much. He and his evil qun couldn't provide it either, they just cowardly deny the Tal-Vashoth are there because of them instead of having the balls to own up to their own failings.

dragonflight288 wrote...

Well, with Qunari you don't have to worry about hidden agendas or complicated motives. You get what you see.

And you don't have to worry about taxes if you're dead.

Speakeasy13 wrote...

Again, we need to go back to cultural relativism. We tend to value freedom over order, but not every culture does. We can always assume what works for us always work for other people. The Qunaris, save the Tal-Valshoth, simply don't value freedom. It's not that difficult to respectfully disagree.

It's funny, because you're glossing over the fact it's impossible to respectfully disagree because The Qun by Charles Manson demands that everyone convert to their way or die. The only reason they aren't trying to convert all of Thedas by force is because they know they can't. Yet.

Again guys, this isn't new. It's called "totalitarianism" and it's been tried. Google it. It's not an accident that the word is linked with two men: Hitler and Stalin.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You percieve it as a weakness, perhaps. Others might see it as a strength. Which is the basic idea of ideology.

Nobody ever called Stalin weak.  They called him a brutal monster.  Remember that time he referred to his armies as "having a little fun" after they committed one of the most widespread and horrific mass rapes in history?  A wonderful ideology, uh huh.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Qun doesn't really fit the description of Totalitarianism. Parts of it does, but parts of it also fits a caste system, and a theocracy, yet not fitting into either completely.

And the Qunari don't deny the Tal-Vasoth. Ever. They simply say they aren't Qunari, which is correct. They are always hunting down the Tal-Vasoth, so how is that denying their existance?

And what the flying f*ck does ideology have to do with atrocities commited by soldiers during a war? Try to play the stalin and/or hitler card all you want, but at least use some style and finese when doing so. If Stalin had come forth and decried what had happened, he could have severely hampered his own warmachine. At least he had the guts to admit it happened at all. You can bet your ass that if it had happened in modern days, our governments would deny it, and hide all evidence of it ever happening. Because it would severely damage their cause.

[Xilizhra]

They do deny that the Qun loses anyone, though, making some semantic excuse about how they lose nothing when "weakness abandons it."

Also, how would that damage Stalin's war machine? If I know my rapes, Rifneno was talking about Berlin, which was at the end of the war.

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Qun doesn't really fit the description of Totalitarianism. Parts of it does, but parts of it also fits a caste system, and a theocracy, yet not fitting into either completely.

Tell that to the designer who wrote it and called it that.

And the Qunari don't deny the Tal-Vasoth. Ever. They simply say they aren't Qunari, which is correct. They are always hunting down the Tal-Vasoth, so how is that denying their existance?

He denied that the suffering caused by kossith he brought with him is any of his or his people's doing, while at the same time condemning the entirety of Kirkwall because of Petrice and her merry band of morons. The only reason I think that **** has a brain is because all of his delusions must have a place to call home.

And what the flying f*ck does ideology have to do with atrocities commited by soldiers during a war? Try to play the stalin and/or hitler card all you want, but at least use some style and finese when doing so. If Stalin had come forth and decried what had happened, he could have severely hampered his own warmachine. At least he had the guts to admit it happened at all. You can bet your ass that if it had happened in modern days, our governments would deny it, and hide all evidence of it ever happening. Because it would severely damage their cause.

LOL. That's gold. You're implying the guy that held mass executions, killing nearly 700,000 people (most of whom just everyday civilians who simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time), actually cared that his troops were raping an enemy civilian population in celebration. But I digress. You think I'm "playing the Stalin/Hitler card" because it suits my case? Go actually read up on it. That's pretty much the only card in the deck. And I quote, "One of the first to use the term "Totalitarianism" in the English language was the Austrian writer Franz Borkenau in his 1938 book The Communist International, in which he commented that it more united the Soviet and German dictatorships than divided them. Isabel Paterson, in The God of the Machine (1943), used the term in connection with the Soviet Union and **** Germany." The word pretty much MEANS those two's brutal regimes. Let's see what wikipedia lists on its subcategories. Communism, fascism, ****sm, political repression, Stalinism. Huh. I guess you better get on wikipedia's case for playing the villain card.

But no, let's talk about how I'm just playing the villain card. Did you know that qunari don't have marriage? You don't have sex because you love or even like the person. In fact it's not even your choice at all. The government tells you who and when, for the purpose of producing generally superior offspring. Hmm... didn't some guy have a similar idea in the 40's?

Edit:  Oh, and yes, I was.  Good eye, Xilizhra.  

Modifié par Rifneno, 29 mai 2011 - 12:34 .

[Xilizhra]

Tell that to the designer who wrote it and called it that.

Which is slightly odd because most of those governments are under one dictator. You could say that the triumvirate is dictatorial, but I'm certain that it one of them stopped following the Qun, everyone else would turn on them. So it's at the most an unusual one.

But no, let's talk about how I'm just playing the villain card. Did you know that qunari don't have marriage? You don't have sex because you love or even like the person. In fact it's not even your choice at all. The government tells you who and when, for the purpose of producing generally superior offspring. Hmm... didn't some guy have a similar idea in the 40's?

Now that's unfair. You could apply this to a ton of societies for a very long time, except instead of "the government" it was "your parents," which was more or less the same thing for aristocrats. The concept of marrying for love is really quite new.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Qunari are definitely totalitarian, though not the same as the 1920-40s totalitarianism (all of them characterized by having the one leader).

But totalitarianism at its core is the state controlling all aspects of life (or having that inspiration) and essentially reducing if not completely annihilating the concept of "private life". Whether its ruled by an autocracy, Triumvirate or even a democracy (as in majority rule) is not really relevant to the concept of totalitarianism itself. All it requires is that the state aspires to control everything, usually by destroying private units like families.

That said, while they are totalitarian we have no indication that they are similar to the historic totalitarian regimes that we know of. Seeing how the Arishok has to abide by the Law like everyone else despite controlling the military, I think there is a case to be made that the Qunari are very dedicated to the Rule of Law (since it's the Qun). In USSR and to a lesser extent N@zi Germany and Fascist Italy, the leadership was above the law and not held accountable. One example under Mao is the Red Guard, who essentially acted like a group of violent anti-reactionary thugs who were above the law (and they broke it all the time). I very much doubt that Qunari leadership would ever deliberately allow its people to starve. Indeed, they surrendered d in the war because their people (humans actually) were being massacred by the Chantry in Rivain.

So objectively speaking, yes the Qunari are totalitarian. Indeed, they reached the ideal while those in our own past aspired to but did not. That does not mean they are equivalent however and I don't see it as necessarily "evil" (though I strongly reject totalitarianism). Plato's Republic is certainly totalitarian and I think the Qunari are closer to that than they are to Stalin's USSR.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 29 mai 2011 - 01:22 .

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

Which is slightly odd because most of those governments are under one dictator. You could say that the triumvirate is dictatorial, but I'm certain that it one of them stopped following the Qun, everyone else would turn on them. So it's at the most an unusual one.

You're looking at it wrong. The triumvirate doesn't lead the qunari, the qun does. They have to abide by it to the t just like everyone else. The triumvirate is assigned because they're judged the best in the ability to make decisions of the job's nature, but there's no hint that they could bring about real change to their society. They as much a slave to the qun as anyone else in their society. That is also in response to KoP, since his whole post was about the difference in leadership. Consider the qun the leader and it looks much different.

Which brings up another point I'd like to make. We don't know much at all about the qun. We assume it's a philosophy of day to day living. What if it's not just a philosophy? Sten specifically mentions qunari having a priesthood. Yet their philosophy precludes a third party religion because the basic point of religion is to give its followers rules to live by, something the qunari are already full up on. So what is their priesthood? Could the qun actually be a deity? If so, is it an absent one or is there some ancient sentient being sitting around Par Vollen pulling the strings?

Now that's unfair. You could apply this to a ton of societies for a very long time, except instead of "the government" it was "your parents," which was more or less the same thing for aristocrats. The concept of marrying for love is really quite new.

No it's not. The fact we're designed for a lifelong pairing is why marriage came about, not the other way around. The concept is millions of years old with many animals doing it. For example, I've heard many stories of people finding a birds like ducks whose mate died and they refuse to leave the body even if humans walk right up to them, completely violating every "omg, predator, run!" instinct they have. That's love, not just a reproductive instinct.

But anyway, it's not the same thing. You're talking about arranged marriage. The qunari don't have marriage, or anything even remotely similar. One of their horned paperpushers decides that A and B would make the best offspring, so they tell A and B to go have sex so they can get their master race. It's an arranged one night stand, not an arranged marriage. This is exactly why the qunari way wouldn't work for humans. The kossith must not be a pair bonding animal, so that system will work for them. Humans are, and it's arguably our strongest biological instinct.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rifneno wrote...
 That is also in response to KoP, since his whole post was about the difference in leadership.

Um no, it's not. It's about the difference in conduct of the leadership.

[Rifneno]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
 That is also in response to KoP, since his whole post was about the difference in leadership.

Um no, it's not. It's about the difference in conduct of the leadership.

You missed the part where the qunari think of outsiders as ignorants in need of conversion or simply animals for the slaughter if they don't?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rifneno wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
 That is also in response to KoP, since his whole post was about the difference in leadership.

Um no, it's not. It's about the difference in conduct of the leadership.

You missed the part where the qunari think of outsiders as ignorants in need of conversion or simply animals for the slaughter if they don't?

No. Doesn't change the fact that there are differences in conduct from what we know so far (which is very little)

And I was agreeing with you, that the Qunari are totalitarian, if that wasn't clear.

[Xilizhra]

But anyway, it's not the same thing. You're talking about arranged marriage. The qunari don't have marriage, or anything even remotely similar. One of their horned paperpushers decides that A and B would make the best offspring, so they tell A and B to go have sex so they can get their master race. It's an arranged one night stand, not an arranged marriage. This is exactly why the qunari way wouldn't work for humans. The kossith must not be a pair bonding animal, so that system will work for them. Humans are, and it's arguably our strongest biological instinct.

Oh, right. In that case... hmmm, it seems as though the Qun is racist in an odd way. Aside from the saar-qamek and all.

[Skilled Seeker]

We should slaughter them all, filthy kossith scum! I will drink the blood of their children out of the carved bossoms of their mothers!

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rifneno wrote...

LOL. That's gold. You're implying the guy that held mass executions, killing nearly 700,000 people (most of whom just everyday civilians who simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time), actually cared that his troops were raping an enemy civilian population in celebration. But I digress. You think I'm "playing the Stalin/Hitler card" because it suits my case? Go actually read up on it. That's pretty much the only card in the deck. And I quote, "One of the first to use the term "Totalitarianism" in the English language was the Austrian writer Franz Borkenau in his 1938 book The Communist International, in which he commented that it more united the Soviet and German dictatorships than divided them. Isabel Paterson, in The God of the Machine (1943), used the term in connection with the Soviet Union and **** Germany." The word pretty much MEANS those two's brutal regimes. Let's see what wikipedia lists on its subcategories. Communism, fascism, ****sm, political repression, Stalinism. Huh. I guess you better get on wikipedia's case for playing the villain card.

I never said Stalin cared what his soldiers did. He cared about his warmachine, that is what I said. Had he decried the acts of his own soldiers it could potentially have hurt morale a lot more, than letting it go. He could openly not care about it to the public, because he did not have to be afraid of losing power.

And if you think totalitarianism is equal to **** germany and soviet russia alone, then you don't even know what you are talking about. It is an ideology, and like so many others of its kind, it have many different ways of being enacted in practice.

Rifneno wrote...

But no, let's talk about how I'm just playing the villain card. Did you know that qunari don't have marriage? You don't have sex because you love or even like the person. In fact it's not even your choice at all. The government tells you who and when, for the purpose of producing generally superior offspring. Hmm... didn't some guy have a similar idea in the 40's?

Humans aren't made from nature's side to have lifelong relationships. Quite the contrary. The male is designed to be able to fertilize multiple women in a very short timespan, and equiped with the desire to do so. What makes us commit to lifelong relationships is our emotions and the cultures of our societies.

And where does it say that Qunari can't love eachother? All it says is taht they don't marry eachother, and that all conception of children is scheduled by the Tamassrans. A Qunari is free to love whoever he or she wants, they just don't go have children together. Only the strongest, the most clever, and generally just the best of Qunari gets to multiply. Survival of the fittest in its most basic form.

[Beerfish]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm, Tal Vasoth aren't Qunari. Qunari doesn't have the problems Kirkwall does.

Of course, because the Arishok just eliminates all problems of the Qun by saying, oh they aren't from the Qun,  (Even though they most assuradly were at one point in time.  I can play that game as well Arishok.  All of the liars and thieves in the city?  Thy are not of the city good sir, we have ostrasized them the only people of kirkwall are hard working decent people that follow the law.  See how easy that is?

Qunari does not submit to other authorities, but believe that all others should submit to theirs, he is consistent with that belief.

Yup for sure, which is not consistent behaviour at all from the examples I've shown.  I too can say, I'm right all the time you must submit to me being right all the time and then I can make one decision one day, a totally opposite on the next and still be seen as being 'consistent'.

Isabela is anything but simple. And have you ever had to try and find someone in a city of thousands with nothing to go on but the fact that they stole something that belongs to you? Not easy. He could've jsut razed Kirkwall to the ground when he arrived, but he felt that would cause too much death to the unenlightened. Instead he went on the most difficult path, to hopefully save lifes. He gets frustrated over the years partly because Isabela is hard to find, and because he is conflicted wether or not he should do something about the problems in Kirkwall.

Nonsense, Isabela is sitting in a bar in low town for years, she gets into the scrap right off the bat with Castillons men, this low level thief dude has the book for a long time,   Razing kirkwall would have abeen a good way to get the book?  That probably is Qun thinking all right.  Here he is, knowing full well thta kirkwall wants him gone, his book is in peril and not once does he try to use a diplomatic route to get it back.  The Viscount showed he was reasonable by letting them stay in the 1st place.  There was nothing in the game for years to suggest they were doing any kind of decent job at looking for the book.  (As in either a diplomatic way or by spying and or dealing with the lower elements of the city.)

To die for your purpose is glorious. If the Arishok died, fulfilling his duty, it would have been an honorable death. If you kill him and keep the tome, you will merely have obstructed the Qunari from fulfilling a demand of the Qun, and they will come again, sooner than otherwise.

Sounds like another Qun cop out.  To utterly fail in your quest and to die at the hands of a Bas in a crap town like Kirkwall, only they could claim that is an honorable way to go.  He died NOT fulfulling his duty, his duty was to get the book, not to teach kirkwall a lesson by killing half it's citizens.  He became the same thing he accusses kirkwall of being when he can't get his book. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Beerfish wrote...

Of course, because the Arishok just eliminates all problems of the Qun by saying, oh they aren't from the Qun,  (Even though they most assuradly were at one point in time.  I can play that game as well Arishok.  All of the liars and thieves in the city?  Thy are not of the city good sir, we have ostrasized them the only people of kirkwall are hard working decent people that follow the law.  See how easy that is?

Except that would be a blatant lie. Any criminal in our society is still protected by the same society's laws. Tal-Vasoth are NOT protected by the Qun. Tal-Vasoth are not Qunari.

Isabela is anything but simple. And have you ever had to try and find someone in a city of thousands with nothing to go on but the fact that they stole something that belongs to you? Not easy. He could've jsut razed Kirkwall to the ground when he arrived, but he felt that would cause too much death to the unenlightened. Instead he went on the most difficult path, to hopefully save lifes. He gets frustrated over the years partly because Isabela is hard to find, and because he is conflicted wether or not he should do something about the problems in Kirkwall.

Beerfish wrote...


Nonsense, Isabela is sitting in a bar in low town for years, she gets into the scrap right off the bat with Castillons men, this low level thief dude has the book for a long time,   Razing kirkwall would have abeen a good way to get the book?  That probably is Qun thinking all right.  Here he is, knowing full well thta kirkwall wants him gone, his book is in peril and not once does he try to use a diplomatic route to get it back.  The Viscount showed he was reasonable by letting them stay in the 1st place.  There was nothing in the game for years to suggest they were doing any kind of decent job at looking for the book.  (As in either a diplomatic way or by spying and or dealing with the lower elements of the city.)

Isabela is only in that bar whenever we enter for convenience sake. Lorewise she is suppsoed to have gone underground, then again, the Hanged Man is suppsoed to be one of those seedier kind of bars.
The Arishok knows fully that the book is a "collectible" to the bas, and that it won't be harmed in anyway, unless he goes on and raze Kirkwall, which would have been the fastest solution.
There is nothing in the game indicating that they didn't look for the book. On the contrary, they actually found the book, at about the same time Isabela did, so how is it that they are doing worse than her? She actually have contacts, and knows her way around in human society, which is completely alien to the Qunari.

Beerfish wrote...

Sounds like another Qun cop out.  To utterly fail in your quest and to die at the hands of a Bas in a crap town like Kirkwall, only they could claim that is an honorable way to go.  He died NOT fulfulling his duty, his duty was to get the book, not to teach kirkwall a lesson by killing half it's citizens.  He became the same thing he accusses kirkwall of being when he can't get his book. 

Except that if he dies in a duel, he did not "utterly fail", rather he was defeated by an honorable foe, which allowed the theif to stay in Kirkwall. If he died in combat (ie. not the duel) He would have failed, but not utterly, since the book was still located, and now the Qunari have the reason they need to come back in force.

What you fail to realize is that he arrived in Kirkwall with a duty. Get the book back. Nothing else matters. Then he sees the suffering and inequalities in Kirkwall, and realize that he has the power to correct it, but doing so would compromise his primary duty. The Arishok was conflicted between letting great suffering continue and compelte his duty or to do something about the sufferings happening in Kirkwall. And he doesn't kill "half of Kirkwall's population", actually it appears the only population which were in danger of being cut in half, was the nobles of Kirkwall.

[Heimdall]

In response to the title, I don't, not really. I consider him a crazed zealot.

[Get Magna Carter]

I initially respected the Arishok as he maintained his honour while the humans of note were weak, greedy, racist, excessively zealous or otherwise flawed.
Then the Qunari went on the rampage and I lost my respect for him

[Rifneno]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And if you think totalitarianism is equal to **** germany and soviet russia alone, then you don't even know what you are talking about. It is an ideology, and like so many others of its kind, it have many different ways of being enacted in practice.

Right.  There were lots of good and upstanding totalitarian societies led by great and compassionate men.  Like...  nevermind, I can't think of any.

Humans aren't made from nature's side to have lifelong relationships. Quite the contrary. The male is designed to be able to fertilize multiple women in a very short timespan, and equiped with the desire to do so. What makes us commit to lifelong relationships is our emotions and the cultures of our societies.

Didn't I just explain this?  Emotions are that natural programming.  What do you think the point of the duck story was?  It was that pair bonding animals show a degree of love for their mate that they're willing to stand up to massive predators they have no chance at all to beat but could very easily escape from.  Males can fertilize multiple females?  ...  Yeah, and?  How many species, both bonding and not, don't possess that ability?  The only ones I can think of off-hand are insects like black widows that are known for sexual cannibalism.  In which case the males only aren't able to because... well... they're dead.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except that if he dies in a duel, he did not "utterly fail", rather he was defeated by an honorable foe, which allowed the theif to stay in Kirkwall.

When their supreme military commander, the greatest warrior the qun has to offer, gets beaten in fair one-on-one combat by a "ignorant" human woman (I emphasis this because the qunari think women to be inherently inferior to men in combat to the point that they don't even consider them for fighting roles) upon whom he possesses massive physical advantages... that's New Coke levels of fail right there. I know "epic fail" gets tossed around a lot, but that truly is an epic fail. If the Arishok's fail could be harnessed as a power source, it would make nuclear power obsolete. The day the Arishok lost that battle, I bet the Rivani Seers could only get the message "SO MUCH FAIL" repeated over and over from the Fade.

My point is, yeah, fail.

And he doesn't kill "half of Kirkwall's population", actually it appears the only population which were in danger of being cut in half, was the nobles of Kirkwall.

So I take it you missed all the fighting in Lowtown?  They even attacked the Grey Wardens!  Are you just making this up as you go along or what?

[Crossroads_Wanderer]

I didn't have a lot of respect for the Arishok. Initially, I was impassive to him. I completely disagree with Qunari culture, as I think that freedom is good and necessary and the Qunari culture completely lacks it.However, I realize that people born into a culture with a certain way of thinking, no matter how wrong it is, are unlikely to change their views. So I saw the Arishok as someone who was wrong, but couldn't be changed, so I figured I'd just have to deal with him on his level. He didn't initially do anything especially egregious, so I tolerated his character.

However, when he started becoming a hypocrite, I started questioning his 'honor'. The situation with the fugitives was very multifaceted, but what it boiled down to was that both the city guard and the Arishok were wrong. The city guard should have been policed better (one of a few times that Aveline is remiss in her duties, IMO), but the Arishok, who professes to be a strictly law-abiding man, refuses to let justice take its course. He qualifies his devotion to duty, saying that he is only required to follow the laws of the Qun. If an American went to Afghanistan, that American would be required to follow the local laws during his time there, regardless of how he feels about those laws. The Arishok should have followed the laws of the land he was in, but he was too proud, intolerant, and set in his ways to behave properly.

Finally, when he attacked the city, he was being completely irrational and out-of-line. He knew that one person was responsible for the theft of the text and that people, such as Hawke, were working to retrieve the text and return it to its rightful owners, but he chose to take out his anger on innocent bystanders. Attacking the city would make him come no closer to his stated purpose in the city of retrieving the text. It was a tantrum. It was also ego. He believed that he had the right to judge and sentence the people of the city and to make the decision on behalf of his entire nation to go to war with Kirkwall. I think this supports the claim that power corrupts, even those dedicated to an orderly, rigidly structured religious/social order.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why do everyone presume that the elven converts won't be punished? The Arishok won't let the bas punish them because they are now Qunari, or close to anyway, and thus they will find their role within the Qun. The Arishok fully knows that they are murderers, and it is entirely possible that the elves have just jumped from the ashes into the fire.

[Speakeasy13]

Rifneno wrote...
Right.  There were lots of good and upstanding totalitarian societies led by great and compassionate men.  Like...  nevermind, I can't think of any.

That's a pretty ethnocentric viewpoint. In more ways than one:

1) Totalitarianism is not the dichotomic opposite of democracy. Every society is somewhere in between the spectrum. Hitler may be a totalitarian political leader, but his political rule was based on a highly successful, capitalist economy; Stalin became a totalitarian leader because free-market economy failed for his nation. Labeling something totalitarian alone does not make it bad, as it is a neutural term by itself, nor is it ever a precise and comprehensve description of anything.

2) Such negative connotation about totalitarian states are inherently a capitalist agenda, used to instigate the "blame the victim" mentality. Arguments like "Oh the Middle East is so poor because they have a totalitrian government" is total bull. They are so poor because they've been oppressed by a global market of capitalism, and they are totalitarian precisely because of global capitalism wouldn't allow them to fend for themselves economically otherwise. So pls stop throwing out that term like an insult.

3) The definition of "great" and "compassionate" is highly subjective. Not all totalitarian dictators are inherently evil or equally oppressive to everyone. If you've only lived on the opposing side of those people then of course the will be presented to you as such. Fidel Castro may be a dictator, but he also administered universal healthcare for his citizens decades before America even began to try. So if you're a Cancer patient who will be more compassionate to you, W. Bush or Castro?

Modifié par Speakeasy13, 30 mai 2011 - 10:34 .

[Lumikki]

Speakeasy13 wrote...

2) Such negative connotation about totalitarian states are inherently a capitalist agenda, used to instigate the "blame the victim" mentality. Arguments like "Oh the Middle East is so poor because they have a totalitrian government" is total bull. They are so poor because they've been oppressed by a global market of capitalism, and they are totalitarian precisely because of global capitalism wouldn't allow them to fend for themselves economically otherwise. So pls stop throwing out that term like an insult.

I actually disagree.

It's not oppressed by global of capitalism without reason. To be part of "capitalism" economy you need to follow rules of capitalism. That's doesn't mean you need to be capitalist, but you aren't allow to abuse it, that's why it's denyed, because they abuse it for they own benefit. Example respect "trade marks and copyrights" and do not create "illegal" copies of the product. Also it's capitalism it self that supports the "richer" economy, because it's based around "money". Meaning some other form of culture based economy doesn't really increase money flow so well, because they own culture design. Don't get me wrong , I don't judge one culture better than other. But I also don't blame other cultures for lack of they own culture accomplishment.

Of course I don't know how this is topic related?

Modifié par Lumikki, 30 mai 2011 - 11:57 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

It was related because Rifneno insist on using totalitarianism as a cause instead of a symptom. He uses it as an insult to decry the failures of certain states. Speakeasy was trying to point out that totalitarianism is not inheritly a bad thing, but that we as westerners with a highly valued personal freedom, may see it as the epitome of evil.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Speakeasy13 wrote...
2) Such negative connotation about totalitarian states are inherently a capitalist agenda, used to instigate the "blame the victim" mentality. Arguments like "Oh the Middle East is so poor because they have a totalitrian government" is total bull. They are so poor because they've been oppressed by a global market of capitalism, and they are totalitarian precisely because of global capitalism wouldn't allow them to fend for themselves economically otherwise. So pls stop throwing out that term like an insult.

Middle Eastern countries are not totalitarian. They are authoritarian.
Like I expained before, totalitarianism is the aspiration of the state to control everything and weaken if not completely erase the concept of private life. Authoritarian regimes seek to control public  life, but they generally do not aspire to destroy private units like families (indeed, they base their legitimacy on social conservatism). Furthermore, Totalitarian regimes thrive on mass popular movement and involvement in politics, of course under their guidance (see Red Guards for instance). Authoritarian regimes, more often then not, thrive upon popular apathy and not politicization.

MidEast regimes had the semblance of totalitarianism (but on a much lesser scale than other examples) in the 1950s-1970s. But they "liberalized" a bit after that. So it's inaccurate to consider them totalitarian.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 mai 2011 - 01:31 .

[Wulfram]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why do everyone presume that the elven converts won't be punished? The Arishok won't let the bas punish them because they are now Qunari, or close to anyway, and thus they will find their role within the Qun. The Arishok fully knows that they are murderers, and it is entirely possible that the elves have just jumped from the ashes into the fire.

Considering he murders Kirkwall guards for far less cause, punishing the elves would be pretty bad hypocrisy.