649 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

If people actually hate them as in not enough separation from reality hate them I think it is weird. If they "hate" them because the batarians are slaver douche bags in the game then who cares it is all fun and games. You "hate" the bad guys in movie X, you "hate" the annoying guy in comedy Y. It isn't real hate, so who really cares. If you are filled with anger and your blood boils when you see a batarian in the game, I think it is time to step away from the game console. If you "hate" them and love to shoot them and have fun hating their sleazy evil culture hey awesome, entertainment delivered correctly.

[lovgreno]

Perhaps BioWare are planning to make Shepard work for the batarians as it's the only way to beat the reapers? Heh. now that would set these forums on fire.

[SandTrout]

For the question of why most people dislike Batarians, Marsh made the point quite well.

As for why I dislike them, I consider people responsible for their government, even if they are somewhat separate. If the majority of Batarians were opposed to the Hegemony enough to actively oppose it and change it, it would not continue to exists and cause problems. Hell, historically, 30% of the population being actively opposed (with another 20% being passively opposed) is more than enough to overturn a government.

Batarian culture produced the Hegemony, and that culture is made up of the Batarian people, not the government. Denying responsibility for your government is the same as consenting to its actions as a whole. Even if you nominally oppose individual actions by that government, you are still saying that it is better than the alternative (whatever you perceive that to be).

[pfhorlorn]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

You're basically saying "I can see why you hate some, but please don't hate all of them!"

Not true. I don't hate anyone, not even in real life, so it's genuinely hard for me to understand how people could hate anybody. Additionally, my posts have largely been inquiries and "corrections" (see: koopa's pomposity) when regarding batarian hate. I don't love batarians; I don't hate them. As a race, they're neat and intriguing, but I'm not going to marry the entirety of their people.

Dislike and hate are two different concepts, as hatred is much stronger. Sort of like being somewhat into the Dark Side on the KotOR mortality meter in contrast with being 100% Dark Side.

Modifié par koopaonfire, 10 septembre 2011 - 06:15 .

[Yakko77]

Sajuro wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

 Literally every batarian you meet in the game is a jerk to some degree.

What's wrong with Marsh, the batarian merchant?  The fact that he's slightly reluctant to offer a discount (but does so anyway)?  Salkie wasn't particularly a jerk either (not exactly an upstanding citizen, sure, but he wasn't a ******).

Also the sick Batarian, who despite being mistrusting of humans (which is understandable since the plague didn't make humans sick while killing everything but Vorchas) he turns out to be a nice guy.

(Sgt) Cathka seemed genuinely helpful (if for the wrong reasons but whatever) but I still enjoyed shanking hiim in the back.  EVERY. TIME.

[Riknas]

SandTrout wrote...

For the question of why most people dislike Batarians, Marsh made the point quite well.

As for why I dislike them, I consider people responsible for their government, even if they are somewhat separate. If the majority of Batarians were opposed to the Hegemony enough to actively oppose it and change it, it would not continue to exists and cause problems. Hell, historically, 30% of the population being actively opposed (with another 20% being passively opposed) is more than enough to overturn a government.

Batarian culture produced the Hegemony, and that culture is made up of the Batarian people, not the government. Denying responsibility for your government is the same as consenting to its actions as a whole. Even if you nominally oppose individual actions by that government, you are still saying that it is better than the alternative (whatever you perceive that to be).

Alright everyone, stop the music, pause. Rewind. Don't change the channel, don't turn down the volume. Hold it.

While I wouldn't dare call this statement naive, this is simply an innaccurate statement, though it looks good on paper. While it would be nice to hold the people responsible for their government, that is only in ideal situations with non-fascist nations such as the North American continent and (most) of Europe (I'm still not sure I trust you yet Russia!)

But 30% is not always enough to overthrow the government. Look at the Middle Eastern nation of Syria at the moment, where there have been widespread protests amongst the people. The power is in the hands of the few, and the people are chafing under the government. However whereever protests began to show up, the Syrian military is there to outright gun the people down in cold blood. Unless the Syrianpeople were properly equipped, you would need at least half of the people to fight the hand-picked Syrian military and overthrow the nation.

Who knows what the gun laws are in the Batarian Hegemony? Are there unions? With a caste system like this its very possible that people are prevented from even congregating together.  People are slaves, and rarely do slaves support their distinct lack of freedom, especially considering the high mortality rate they suffer considering the work the Batarian Hegemony puts them through. More often than not there are far more slaves than there are slavers, but they simply are not equipped to properly overthrow their masters. This logic could be extended to the rest of the Batarian populace.

Others may be trapped in their homes, prevented from congregating to create plans to deal with this. a caste system is very difficult to break through violent revolution because of the natural distribution of power

Simply put, we can't guarantee its the fault of the batarian people if they are under an iron boot preventing protest or revolution.

-------------------------------------------------

That said, kudos to the OP for making such an interesting thread. I don't personally hate the Batarians, but I can understand the opinions of the people that do now. Clearly there is some success to this thread if it is able to stimulate this much discussion.

Shame to see you go!

Modifié par Riknas, 10 septembre 2011 - 06:17 .

[SandTrout]

Riknas wrote...

Alright everyone, stop the music, pause. Rewind. Don't change the channel, don't turn down the volume. Hold it.

While I wouldn't dare call this statement naive, this is simply an innaccurate statement, though it looks good on paper. While it would be nice to hold the people responsible for their government, that is only in ideal situations with non-fascist nations such as the North American continent and (most) of Europe (I'm still not sure I trust you yet Russia!)

But 30% is not always enough to overthrow the government. Look at the Middle Eastern nation of Syria at the moment, where there have been widespread protests amongst the people. The power is in the hands of the few, and the people are chafing under the government. However whereever protests began to show up, the Syrian military is there to outright gun the people down in cold blood. Unless the Syrianpeople were properly equipped, you would need at least half of the people to fight the hand-picked Syrian military and overthrow the nation.

Who knows what the gun laws are in the Batarian Hegemony? Are there unions? With a caste system like this its very possible that people are prevented from even congregating together.  People are slaves, and rarely do slaves support their distinct lack of freedom, especially considering the high mortality rate they suffer considering the work the Batarian Hegemony puts them through. More often than not there are far more slaves than there are slavers, but they simply are not equipped to properly overthrow their masters. This logic could be extended to the rest of the Batarian populace.

Others may be trapped in their homes, prevented from congregating to create plans to deal with this. a caste system is very difficult to break through violent revolution because of the natural distribution of power

Simply put, we can't guarantee its the fault of the batarian people if they are under an iron boot preventing protest or revolution.

While your point about gun-controlls and whatnot reducing the feasability of revolution, your point of Syria is not necessarily vallid. nowhere near 30% of the population was involved in the protests. If it were, the country would simply not function. Additionally, how did those dictators arise to power? People allowed it and/or encouraged it in the past. Also, the military is drawn from the people, and must be made up of those who value the current government over the percieved alternative. If there were not a significant portion of the population that is at least passively supportive of the governement, then it will cease to have a population from which to draw effective troops from and supply those troops, especially for use against their own people.

For a government to exist, it must have some basis for its legitimacy as well as certain percentage of the population which supports it. Otherwise, its authority falls on deaf ears, and orders to wipe out protesters are not followed, resulting in a complete meltdown of the perception of the governement's authority. It is infeasable for a government to phyisically oppress its entire population and still have enough people producing enough to support the oppressers. The people must at least tollerate the state of affairs and consider their government not worth removing.

Also note my numbers required at least 50% opposition to the government, either passive or active. 10% of the population protesting in Syria is more than enough for 'widespread' protests(And I don't know the numbers, but you shouldn't take "widespread" to mean more than it does), but this is far short of the numbers I am pointing out.

Modifié par SandTrout, 10 septembre 2011 - 06:59 .

[Riknas]

SandTrout wrote...
While your point about gun-controlls and whatnot reducing the feasability of revolution, your point of Syria is not necessarily vallid. nowhere near 30% of the population was involved in the protests. If it were, the country would simply not function. Additionally, how did those dictators arise to power? People allowed it and/or encouraged it in the past. Also, the military is drawn from the people, and must be made up of those who value the current government over the percieved alternative. If there were not a significant portion of the population that is at least passively supportive of the governement, then it will cease to have a population from which to draw effective troops from and supply those troops, especially for use against their own people.

For a government to exist, it must have some basis for its legitimacy as well as certain percentage of the population which supports it. Otherwise, its authority falls on deaf ears, and orders to wipe out protesters are not followed, resulting in a complete meltdown of the perception of the governement's authority. It is infeasable for a government to phyisically oppress its entire population and still have enough people producing enough to support the oppressers. The people must at least tollerate the state of affairs and consider their government not worth removing.

Also note my numbers required at least 50% opposition to the government, either passive or active. 10% of the population protesting in Syria is more than enough for 'widespread' protests(And I don't know the numbers, but you shouldn't take "widespread" to mean more than it does), but this is far short of the numbers I am pointing out.

Indeed, a government is the result of its people's past, but that argument could have been applied to any nation several centuries ago living under a monarchy, "Well, you walked into this, you guys clearly aren't that great." As we are witnessing in the Middle East, and even seen in the past (note the Russian, French, and American Revolution as simple examples).

Perhaps I jumped to conclusions when I guessed at the number of protestors, but I get the feeling neither of us have a specially strong grasp of the percentages in Syria. Your point on military support is a bit skewed though.

The Egyptian military, for example had a great number of conscripts, that everyone must serve in the Egyptian military at some point (or maybe just men, I don't recall). Because of this, the military was hesitant to execute its own protesting people.

However, the Syrian military is composed of people hand picked for support of their government, and are given special privileges to encourage their support of the government, which I can rather safely say is the minority of the people. Even so, they are heavily armed. Going back to my slaves argument, I suppose you could say that slaves tolerate their slavery because they have not had violent uprisings...or they were afraid of being shot to pieces.

I hardly think we can hold a fear of dying against any individual. Who's to say what we know of current Batarian culture? The Hegemony would certainly not broadcast civil unrest of a pending revolution. In fact, who knows what they're doing now that 300,000 colonists in another system have been wiped off the face of the galaxy? We simply od not have sufficient information to judge a people in this regard.

[Han Shot First]

SandTrout wrote...

For the question of why most people dislike Batarians, Marsh made the point quite well.

As for why I dislike them, I consider people responsible for their government, even if they are somewhat separate. If the majority of Batarians were opposed to the Hegemony enough to actively oppose it and change it, it would not continue to exists and cause problems. Hell, historically, 30% of the population being actively opposed (with another 20% being passively opposed) is more than enough to overturn a government.

You make a good point there.

I believe it was John Adams that said that during the American War of Independence about 1/3 of the colonists supported the rebellion, another 1/3 were loyalists and supported the British war effort, and the final 1/3 just wanted to go about their lives without being bothered too much by either side.

The fact that the Batarian Hegemony hasn't toppled yet may mean that those who are opposed to their government are a small minority.

[Riknas]

Han Shot First wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

For the question of why most people dislike Batarians, Marsh made the point quite well.

As for why I dislike them, I consider people responsible for their government, even if they are somewhat separate. If the majority of Batarians were opposed to the Hegemony enough to actively oppose it and change it, it would not continue to exists and cause problems. Hell, historically, 30% of the population being actively opposed (with another 20% being passively opposed) is more than enough to overturn a government.

You make a good point there.

I believe it was John Adams that said that during the American War of Independence about 1/3 of the colonists supported the rebellion, another 1/3 were loyalists and supported the British war effort, and the final 1/3 just wanted to go about their lives without being bothered too much by either side.

The fact that the Batarian Hegemony hasn't toppled yet may mean that those who are opposed to their government are a small minority.

Or, we don't know enough about the current state of the Batarian Hegemony...

[Yakko77]

Riknas wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

SandTrout wrote...

For the question of why most people dislike Batarians, Marsh made the point quite well.

As for why I dislike them, I consider people responsible for their government, even if they are somewhat separate. If the majority of Batarians were opposed to the Hegemony enough to actively oppose it and change it, it would not continue to exists and cause problems. Hell, historically, 30% of the population being actively opposed (with another 20% being passively opposed) is more than enough to overturn a government.

You make a good point there.

I believe it was John Adams that said that during the American War of Independence about 1/3 of the colonists supported the rebellion, another 1/3 were loyalists and supported the British war effort, and the final 1/3 just wanted to go about their lives without being bothered too much by either side.

The fact that the Batarian Hegemony hasn't toppled yet may mean that those who are opposed to their government are a small minority.

Or, we don't know enough about the current state of the Batarian Hegemony...

From what little I know, I think they're fairly brutal and oppresive to their own let alone other races.  Just speculation on my part but somehow I suspect the govt is barely clinging onto control.  Whether they maintain control through sheer brutality or just through very thorough and effective brainwashing I don't know.

Modifié par Yakko77, 10 septembre 2011 - 09:02 .

[sponge56]

SandTrout wrote...

While your point about gun-controlls and whatnot reducing the feasability of revolution, your point of Syria is not necessarily vallid. nowhere near 30% of the population was involved in the protests. If it were, the country would simply not function. Additionally, how did those dictators arise to power? People allowed it and/or encouraged it in the past. Also, the military is drawn from the people, and must be made up of those who value the current government over the percieved alternative. If there were not a significant portion of the population that is at least passively supportive of the governement, then it will cease to have a population from which to draw effective troops from and supply those troops, especially for use against their own people.

For a government to exist, it must have some basis for its legitimacy as well as certain percentage of the population which supports it. Otherwise, its authority falls on deaf ears, and orders to wipe out protesters are not followed, resulting in a complete meltdown of the perception of the governement's authority. It is infeasable for a government to phyisically oppress its entire population and still have enough people producing enough to support the oppressers. The people must at least tollerate the state of affairs and consider their government not worth removing.

Also note my numbers required at least 50% opposition to the government, either passive or active. 10% of the population protesting in Syria is more than enough for 'widespread' protests(And I don't know the numbers, but you shouldn't take "widespread" to mean more than it does), but this is far short of the numbers I am pointing out.

Well look at Libya as a better example.  It is very clear that the majority of Libians did not support Gaddaffi, but didnt outright oppose him becasue of fear.  People further away from Gaddaffi's power base were able to rebel and almost didnt suceed due to Gaddaffis use of mercaneries and some of his own army who remained loyal.  Also the american revolution is a good example.  Despite resisting the British, it was French aid which was the tipping balance in the rebels favour.  Without this aid, they would have lost- or the war would have stagnated so that the USA would be a very different place toaday.  Even with the support of a large part of the population, which is rare, it is hard to militarily overthrow your governemnt without outside help or a large sympathetic military (as in the Russian revolution).  This would make it incredibly difficult for those who are worse off in the hegenomy to overthrow those at the top, seeing how those at the top would most likely be goverment officials and military commanders- with a hell of alot of recources at their disposal

Modifié par sponge56, 10 septembre 2011 - 08:10 .

[CorruptAndrew]

Its hard not to hate a bunch of terrorists plus that batarian on omege didnt help either

[Eleinehmm]

Wait, I am having a déjà vu experience. Didn't we have a thread with exactly the same name?
Historical analogies, “I like killing Batarians” and "slavers deserve to be wiped out children included" are all included in the package .

Modifié par Eleinehmm, 10 septembre 2011 - 08:32 .

[1136342t54_]

SandTrout wrote...

For the question of why most people dislike Batarians, Marsh made the point quite well.

As for why I dislike them, I consider people responsible for their government, even if they are somewhat separate. If the majority of Batarians were opposed to the Hegemony enough to actively oppose it and change it, it would not continue to exists and cause problems. Hell, historically, 30% of the population being actively opposed (with another 20% being passively opposed) is more than enough to overturn a government.

Batarian culture produced the Hegemony, and that culture is made up of the Batarian people, not the government. Denying responsibility for your government is the same as consenting to its actions as a whole. Even if you nominally oppose individual actions by that government, you are still saying that it is better than the alternative (whatever you perceive that to be).

Actually Batarians have multiple nations on their home planet. The Hedgemony is either the lead government or a organization similar to the Systems Alliance. Also its a caste system. Usually the larger majority is either the slaves or the poor and they are hard pressed to be able to do much about the government.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I'll leave real world examples out of this and focus on ME universe.

We know so little of the Batarian race. The population on that world was 300,000. Only 90,000 were "civilians", meaning the balance were either slaves or military. Out of 300,000? Probably 10,000 military. leaving 200,000 slaves, most of which were other Batarians.

All we know about them is that they have a caste system. Born from parents who are slaves, you get to be a slave. Born of parents rich enough to own slaves, you get to be in the ruling class. Born of parents in the military? you're military. Born of people who cannot afford slaves? You either become a slave or become a merc. Such a society stagnates culturally and creatively. All caste systems eventually collapse.

You have one caste that gets water for the rest. You have one caste that does this other thing. Society does not draw the best and brightest into any given line of work. You are assigned at birth. Casteless? you're a merc.

In this regard they're like the Dwarves in DA. Rigid caste system. The only reason we didn't hate the Dwarves was because they didn't make raids on human and elf villages to take slaves. Yet humans kept elven slaves.

The only reason that there were revolutions on the earth was because the middle class got large enough to actually make a difference. The gun was the equalizer. It was always in the best interests of the nobility and ruling class to keep the middle class from growing and to keep them ill informed and uneducated. And it still is.

[Eleinehmm]

SandTrout wrote...

As for why I dislike them, I consider people responsible for their government, even if they are somewhat separate. If the majority of Batarians were opposed to the Hegemony enough to actively oppose it and change it, it would not continue to exists and cause problems.

Are you personally responsible for all the questionable things the USA has done since your birth?
Even for the things  you know nothing about due to, let's say, their classified status.
Ouch, without going into the “politics/BAD/close the thread" territory,I am pretty much sure it would earn you a couple of life-sentences, really.

The point is we do not know what the government tells the Batarians.
How about a terrorist from a hostile political entity just blew up a peaceful colony.
They do not have any Extranet access and can't check the story up.

Modifié par Eleinehmm, 10 septembre 2011 - 09:19 .

[1136342t54_]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I'll leave real world examples out of this and focus on ME universe.

We know so little of the Batarian race. The population on that world was 300,000. Only 90,000 were "civilians", meaning the balance were either slaves or military. Out of 300,000? Probably 10,000 military. leaving 200,000 slaves, most of which were other Batarians.

All we know about them is that they have a caste system. Born from parents who are slaves, you get to be a slave. Born of parents rich enough to own slaves, you get to be in the ruling class. Born of parents in the military? you're military. Born of people who cannot afford slaves? You either become a slave or become a merc. Such a society stagnates culturally and creatively. All caste systems eventually collapse.

You have one caste that gets water for the rest. You have one caste that does this other thing. Society does not draw the best and brightest into any given line of work. You are assigned at birth. Casteless? you're a merc.

In this regard they're like the Dwarves in DA. Rigid caste system. The only reason we didn't hate the Dwarves was because they didn't make raids on human and elf villages to take slaves. Yet humans kept elven slaves.

The only reason that there were revolutions on the earth was because the middle class got large enough to actually make a difference. The gun was the equalizer. It was always in the best interests of the nobility and ruling class to keep the middle class from growing and to keep them ill informed and uneducated. And it still is.

Basically this. I don't really get why people really think Batarians can revolt effectively. Their planet even has different nations anyway. Hell some may even not have a caste system but they aren't the most powerful. 

In DA the dwarves lowest caste could probably attempt to revolt but it may not work as effectively as they wish. They are fighting the Darkspawn and their lowest class aren't exactly the best fighters. The only way a revolt could be effective in both Dwarven and Batarian societies is if multiple castes decided to revolt which is unlikely.

[floccinaucinihilipilification]

If we're drawing political or social parallels, I would compare the Hegemony to the ex-Soviet Union. Though I don't think it's fortunate to go that far. They have their role in the ME universe, which has been profusely analysed and dissected by many others.

Personally, I neither love nor hate them. From a RP aspect, they can provide elements of depth for your Shep, especially for colonists. That's the main thing making batarians useful and interesting,

[RolandX9]

It's really simple: humans and batarians are in a pretty ugly situation in-universe, and "most players are human." I (and my proxy, my Shepards) try to take the attitude that I/they hate slavers, not batarians. Elanos Haliat? Human (or turian, as originally intended). Every species has its thugs, abusers and monsters. The Hegemony's tend to be front and center because a) a lot of the batarians operating outside Hegemony space are criminals and  the Hegemony itself appears to be a corrupt Soviet-style Orwellian government. However, if slavery is such a basic feature of Hegemony civilization, it's almost certain that a majority of Hegemony slaves -- and a large majority at that -- are themselves batarians. That's the sort of thing a lot of people won't consider, and many others won't care about. Ah, humanity.

Personally, I really, really hope we get some abolitionist batarians in 3, especially for the "take a third option" choice in the inevitable "save Khar'Shan/abandon the batarians" sadistic choice. Seemingly stuck with the decision of supporting the batarian Stalin or letting his/her entire species die? Back the heroic rebels and save them from both.

[Eleinehmm]

floccinaucinihilipilification wrote...

If we're drawing political or social parallels, I would compare the Hegemony to the ex-Soviet Union.

O_o. Wouldn't it be the Stalinist Soviet Union + a strong Caste/slavery system? 
They didn't have any kind of a political break down in the recent past.

Modifié par Eleinehmm, 10 septembre 2011 - 09:40 .

[SandTrout]

Eleinehmm wrote...
Are you personally responsible for all the questionable things the USA has done since your birth?
Even for the things  you know nothing about due to, let's say, their classified status.

Indirectly, yes. More importantly, I have an obligation to make sure that adequate oversight and the appropriate people are in charge of those operations so that I can reasonably expect that they will be within reasonable standards

Ouch, without going into the “politics/BAD/close the thread" territory,I am pretty much sure it would earn you a couple of life-sentences, really.

Under who's authority? And it's not a matter of guilt, it's a matter of responsibility. If you are managing a company and there are employees that are dealing drugs out of our store, then you are responsible to stop it as soon as it comes to your knowledge, and the responsibility to do due dilligence to make sure that you know what is happening on your property. You are not guilty of dealing drugs, but you are responsible for it happening on your property.

The point is we do not know what the government tells the Batarians.
How about a terrorist from a hostile political entity just blew up a peaceful colony.
They do not have any Extranet access and can't check the story up.

Linking a single act to a particular governement can be difficult, but we know that the Hegemony has a habit of funding pirates and slavers to raid human colonies.

[AlexXIV]

People love to hate.Give them the slightest reason or 'justification' for prejudice and they will use it.

[Sajuro]

Yakko77 wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

 Literally every batarian you meet in the game is a jerk to some degree.

What's wrong with Marsh, the batarian merchant?  The fact that he's slightly reluctant to offer a discount (but does so anyway)?  Salkie wasn't particularly a jerk either (not exactly an upstanding citizen, sure, but he wasn't a ******).

Also the sick Batarian, who despite being mistrusting of humans (which is understandable since the plague didn't make humans sick while killing everything but Vorchas) he turns out to be a nice guy.

(Sgt) Cathka seemed genuinely helpful (if for the wrong reasons but whatever) but I still enjoyed shanking hiim in the back.  EVERY. TIME.

I was going to include him but then I was like "he did want to kill Gare-bear" and most of the Batarians on Omega weren't that bad of people. We don't see much characterization of the Batarians in the mercenary companies so some may be decent people who don't want to be desperately poor while others may be the evil gr****s people want them to be. Heck, even the Batarians in Arrival were understandable characters instead of jerks.

[bucyrus5000]

1st, Batarians look like 4 eye sinister Abe Vigotas.

2nd, they are slavers and for Americans who live in a "free society" and having our history, we are not free to be kind or have mercy for slavers. Americans who genuinely despise slavers hate Batarians. Americans who can internally respect Batarian culture can't outwardly show any mercy for slavers. Americans who openly like Batarians, are rebelling from American culture. European and African cultures may also instill similar constraints on individuals of those cultures, but I can only speak as an American.

Modifié par bucyrus5000, 11 septembre 2011 - 07:17 .