1086 réponses à ce sujet

[Zine2]

Lethys1 wrote...

But you need the Crucible or the Reapers just win.  That's the way the story played out.  You needed the Crucible.  So here the Crucible is finally, except it's still in the enemy's control.  Is that necessarily a good thing from the perspective of someone who wants to make their own choice?

No.

But if you say, ignore the AI or just kill yourself or walk away, you're damning every living being forever until the next cycle.

Standing up for your principles as a heroic ideal requires sacrifice - perhaps even courting annihilation. It's why "Honor Before Reason" exists. It is not necessarily compatible with a Utilitarian view.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Zine2, I want to reiterate: brilliant post and good analysis. I've been trying to help you carry the weight of the people who TLDR'd your original post, but I want to voice my disagreement with your thesis now that I've given it a little thought. I'm going to assume that these are the real endings and not an indoctrination dream for the purpose of this post (because being indoctrinated complicates this whole thing).

I have to disagree with you somewhat about your rhetorical analysis of the end scene because I don't think that species has always been a perfect analog through the Mass Effect series. In fact, I would argue that one of the major questions that Mass Effect has asked repeatedly is "Is there a difference between being racist and being species-ist?" It is a valid question and one that the game allows players to answer rather than forcing them to take a side on, all the way up until the end of the game. It's the whole point of Ashley's "space racism": to make you think about whether species has anything to do with person-hood and natural rights. They adjust this question somewhat for synthetic life, because it is, essentially, another step down that path, "If all sentient organic life are persons and have natural rights, what about a sentient machine?" or, as Legion put it, "Does this machine have a soul?". Your perspective on the matter can make the whole quagmire on Rannoch heartbreaking, it might even change your mind if you thought one way before. That's the beauty of Mass Effect's story telling up until the ending.

Now, we agree that the thematic and rhetorical tone of Mass Effect 3 shifted beneath our feet at the end of the game, ruining all sense of exactly what we achieved in places like Rannoch. However, because I don't see the species and synthetic life questions as perfect analogs (rather, imperfect ones that are used to straddle both racism and sci-fi moral dilemmas) I don't think the ending's ideology is racist. I do think that has an intolerant ideology and it suddenly takes player agency regarding the answers to those questions out of the player's hands, saying "this is the answer: synthetics are not persons and they are inevitably prone to genocide, so commit genocide first against group Red, Green, or Blue".

So, again, the disagreement is small, just that because the story has not used them as perfect analogs so far means that I don't think the ideology is racist, per se. It just contradicts the themes and rhetoric of tolerance and unity contained in the rest of the game and forwards its intolerant ideology instead.

[NightHawkIL]

Lethys1 wrote...
Unfortunately there's no other options.  You aren't allowed to say, no, I don't like these options.  Is it racist?  No, I'm not the one who chose that all other synthetics need to be wiped out.  I'm looking at the options, realize that galactic genocide is a very real possibility with the other two but not the destroy option.

Are the options themselves racist?  Maybe, but they're being given to you by an entity who is racist in the Catalyst.

Additionally, the synthetics can be rebuilt, organic life is unique.  Killing organics entirely doesn't allow for them to be recreated exactly the way they were ever again, versus we can make new geth.

So either we allow for the option of everyone, synthetic or not to be killed, or we kill a group that can be entirely remade.  Of the three the latter is the clear best one.

You're right, those are the only options that the ending allows for Shepherd, but we are not questioning whether or not Shepherd is racist. He is what you create him to be. We are questioning whether or not the ending is racist, which in your post you have conceded that it is - In that, there are only 3 options, each with racist implications. There is no way to come through the other side of the three choices without compromising your integrity in a severe way, either enabling racism, bringing it to ultimate fruition through synthisis, or becoming racist yourself. Therefore, racist ending.

[Hendrik.III]

I wouldn't call it racist. The difference between organics/synthetics is in the core of our very existence... you could use the word 'race' for a lack of a fitting term, but I'd say it runs so very much deeper you'd need another term for it.

We could make a parallel with our current world or its history, but we're talking about fiction here - so that never really applies unless it was intended to. I moslty refrain from making these parallels because it takes the story out of context.

Plust, if you play a racism card here, you could also criticize violence, historical bias, murder, profanity and sexism in games. I'd rather not go there.

Modifié par Hendrik.III, 16 mars 2012 - 07:48 .

[NightHawkIL]

Hendrik.III wrote...
I wouldn't call it racist. The difference between organics/synthetics is in the core of our very existence... you could use the word 'race' for a lack of a fitting term, but I'd say it runs so very much deeper you'd need another term for it.

That is the exact oposite of what Mass Effect goes to great lengths to communicate through Edi and Legion. Regardless of whether or not you are correct in real life if our technology ever were to get there, by Mass Effects own rules it could very easily fall into the catagory of racism. If you chose to form your Shepherd in a way that does not see synthetics as life, that's up to you. But the choices that need to be taken to follow that ideology in the game are certainly not paragon.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Hendrik.III wrote...

I wouldn't call it racist. The difference between organics/synthetics is in the core of our very existence... you could use the word 'race' for a lack of a fitting term, but I'd say it runs so very much deeper you'd need another term for it.

We could make a parallel with our current world or its history, but we're talking about fiction here - so that never really applies unless it was intended to. I moslty refrain from making these parallels because it takes the story out of context.

Plust, if you play a racism card here, you could also criticize violence, historical bias, murder, profanity and sexism in games. I'd rather not go there.

Notice the OP didn't say the whole game was racist, yet, you make choices involving race, racists, and racism all the time in the game. The reason the ending is being analyzed as racist is because of its rhetorical structure, not because racism exists in it, it's because the ability to challenge the ideology of the star-child is left out. Without the abilty to challenge it even verbally through Shepard's dialogue and without a characterization that would make the star-child a devil character, the clear message of the ending is one of intolerance (whether you believe it is strictly racist or not).

[Kilshrek]

I don't think it's.... racist per se, but yes I'm not happy that the ending seems to colour genocide in the brightest of lights, and that the "true" path is to wipe out a race you had helped not too long ago.

Of course, if this is all a part of the indoctrination theory, then we still need more answers, because that can't be the end. It would be a rubbish ending to a story if it were truly ended like that.

[Lethys1]

Zine2 wrote...

Lethys1 wrote...

But you need the Crucible or the Reapers just win.  That's the way the story played out.  You needed the Crucible.  So here the Crucible is finally, except it's still in the enemy's control.  Is that necessarily a good thing from the perspective of someone who wants to make their own choice?

No.

But if you say, ignore the AI or just kill yourself or walk away, you're damning every living being forever until the next cycle.

Standing up for your principles as a heroic ideal requires sacrifice - perhaps even courting annihilation. It's why "Honor Before Reason" exists. It is not necessarily compatible with a Utilitarian view.

You're going against basic survival instincts by not allowing yourself to choose the options presented to you.  You're prepared to sacrifice all life of the cycle instead of machines, who can be rebuilt.  Organics can never exist again in this form once we're destroyed.

And you would enable countless other cycles to go on, killing countless numbers of people more than if you simply dealt with the options provided to you.

Modifié par Lethys1, 16 mars 2012 - 08:03 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

NightHawkIL wrote...

Hendrik.III wrote...
I wouldn't call it racist. The difference between organics/synthetics is in the core of our very existence... you could use the word 'race' for a lack of a fitting term, but I'd say it runs so very much deeper you'd need another term for it.

That is the exact oposite of what Mass Effect goes to great lengths to communicate through Edi and Legion. Regardless of whether or not you are correct in real life if our technology ever were to get there, by Mass Effects own rules it could very easily fall into the catagory of racism. If you chose to form your Shepherd in a way that does not see synthetics as life, that's up to you. But the choices that need to be taken to follow that ideology in the game are certainly not paragon.

I would argue that they're not even Renegade. Renegade has never been about being evil or bad for the sake of being evil or bad - it has been about being a hard-ass (vs. understanding), a bad-ass (vs. a hero), utilitarian (vs. Kantian), efficient (vs. egalitarian), and doing whatever it takes to win (vs. trying not to step on anyone's toes). In the end, you're not even allowed to do that, because, to the Renegade Shepard the ends justify the means, but he isn't just a racist for the sake of it. Now, would a Reneage Shepard kill the Geth to stop the Reapers, of course he would, but he wouldn't do it because he thinks Geth are a threat like the star-child says. Rather he'd do it because it stands between him and beating the Reapers. However, even Renegade Shepard isn't ever allowed to express that kind of sentiment or question the star-child logic in any way, so, again, we're left with the star-child and the three choices as the sole source of rhetoric in the last few minutes of the game.

[Lazarus Cricket]

kinda wish OP could show this to some press, there's usually someone willing to take the "do you know what video games are teaching your kids" controversy, might eventually force their hand to fix the end if it were to work, pretty solid argument imo.

[Zine2]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Zine2, I want to reiterate: brilliant post and good analysis. I've been trying to help you carry the weight of the people who TLDR'd your original post, but I want to voice my disagreement with your thesis now that I've given it a little thought. I'm going to assume that these are the real endings and not an indoctrination dream for the purpose of this post (because being indoctrinated complicates this whole thing).

Thanks, I'll try to answer your concerns as best I can.

I have to disagree with you somewhat about your rhetorical analysis of the end scene because I don't think that species has always been a perfect analog through the Mass Effect series. In fact, I would argue that one of the major questions that Mass Effect has asked repeatedly is "Is there a difference between being racist and being species-ist?" It is a valid question and one that the game allows players to answer rather than forcing them to take a side on, all the way up until the end of the game. It's the whole point of Ashley's "space racism": to make you think about whether species has anything to do with person-hood and natural rights. They adjust this question somewhat for synthetic life, because it is, essentially, another step down that path, "If all sentient organic life are persons and have natural rights, what about a sentient machine?" or, as Legion put it, "Does this machine have a soul?". Your perspective on the matter can make the whole quagmire on Rannoch heartbreaking, it might even change your mind if you thought one way before. That's the beauty of Mass Effect's story telling up until the ending.

From a personal perspective, I would say that a true "universalist" attempting to foster galactic understanding and unity (arguably the ultimate "Paragon" path) would not distinguish between Synthetics and Organics. 

Sentience is instead what defines personhood for them - which is why you can have Shep repeatedly contradict the Quarians trying to call Geth as machines or "it".

Now, we agree that the thematic and rhetorical tone of Mass Effect 3 shifted beneath our feet at the end of the game, ruining all sense of exactly what we achieved in places like Rannoch. However, because I don't see the species and synthetic life questions as perfect analogs (rather, imperfect ones that are used to straddle both racism and sci-fi moral dilemmas) I don't think the ending's ideology is racist. I do think that has an intolerant ideology and it suddenly takes player agency regarding the answers to those questions out of the player's hands, saying "this is the answer: synthetics are not persons and they are inevitably prone to genocide, so commit genocide first against group Red, Green, or Blue".

I did not actually mean to say that the specific choice - Red, Green, or Blue - was racist. What I am saying is that the Catalyst's premise was racist. He created the cycle as a solution to a "Synthetic vs Organic" problem.

My contention is that a truly englightened view of the universe would not define personhood by their component parts. Instead, it is again sentience which defines personhood. And under this definition - there should be no dividing line between Organics and Synthetics. Both have the right to exist and prosper.

However, the Catalyst (for whatever reason) made the presumption that there will always be a dividing line between Organics and Synthetics. The cycle was the first solution to it. The three choices are his alternate solution to it. Therefore, whatever your chosen ending, you are actually solving an (imagined) problem created by the Catalyst - because of its intractible (and wrong) belief that Synthetics and Organics are so fundamentally different that they must destroy one another.

This is simply false. The best resolution of the Quarian-Geth cycle shows Synthetics and Organics can co-exist. EDI shows this too.

In short, the Catalyst was asking a loaded question. It asks you "How will you solve the Organic-Synthetic problem?" without realizing that no such "problem" exists. And the reason why I term it "racist" is because it has the exact same parallels as in the real world. When you want to get People A fighting People B, you say that there is a "People A Problem". It's an ideology driven by hatred.

====

Moreover, it actually speaks well of the gaming population that the most popular alternative is the "Reject Catalyst" option. Even if they aren't able to articulate it on this level, it does show on an intrinsic level that most gamers are good people: Who believe in the themes of universal unity, rejection of the ideology of hatred, and the fundamental belief that genocide is never justifiable.

The reason why people reject the ending is because they could see clearly that there was no "problem". The "unavoidable" Synthetic-Organic conflict was something that was merely imagined by the Catalyst. It can be resolved just like any other "regular" conflict.

And given that the Catalyst has divested itself of all credibility by committing genocide to solve a non-existent problem - and furthermore demands that you solve the non-existent problem with three pre-determined solutions (one of which involves genocide of an allied race), then quite clearly the problem is not the Galaxy. It is not the non-existent Synthetic vs Organic problem. The "problem" is the Catalyst itself, for refusing to acknowledge that it has committed terrible crimes; and insisting that you solve a non-existent problem for it.

Defying it is thus the only reasonable and moral course of action. We refuse to do the work of a genocidal monster.

======

On that note, I'd like to point this out: If the AI Shepard encounters at the end of the game was instead a Prothean VI that was left there by the team that sabotaged the keepers (from ME1), I can guarantee you that there will be a much more positive reaction to the ending even if "Control", "Synthesis", and "Destroy" options remain. The conversation will eventually go like this:

<Shepard> You... you are?

<Prothean VI> I am Hope, Shepard. I was left here by the Prothean team that infiltrated the Citadel a long time ago. I was meant to be activated only when the Citadel has docked with the Crucible by some future race. As you can imagine, the Citadel is made of Reaper technology and would not dock with the Crucible willingly without some... sabotage.

<Shepard> A Prothean team...? They're the ones who sabotaged the Keepers! They gave their lives to give us more time to prepare for the Reaper invasion.

<Prothean VI> Yes. And now I am here to guide you on how to use the Crucible.

<Shepard> ... Dead for 50,000 years, and yet the Protheans are still trying to save the Galaxy...

=====

Thus, instead of being forced to cooperate with a genocidal AI with questionable motives, you instead find yourself working the last remnants of a race that gave everything to give the rest of the galaxy a fighting chance in the future. Instead of becoming a lackey of evil, you're instead working in parallel with long-dead heroes from the past - and further cementing the central theme that we are all in this together.

Modifié par Zine2, 16 mars 2012 - 08:14 .

[Sc2mashimaro]

I'm a communication major and my college specializes in journalism, PR, etc. Don't make this blow up in the press. It isn't likely to work to change the end of the game, television news doesn't cover stories in enough depth for people to understand the argument, and it will look bad for video games, gamers, and Bioware. This is really an academic argument because it centers around communication and rhetoric. It's fun to talk about and it really shows with painful accuracy why the ending felt so wrong to everyone, but it's hardly a thing the mainstream media could handle properly.

[RedTail F22]

My mind just got blown!!

[DyneEnigma]

You've made me see the Catalyst in another light that I had not before. That is a feat. I don't think the ending was racist. Its really only Synthetics vs Organics. Possibly racist towards Synthetics in the sense that the Catalyst says they will always eventually destroy Organics.

The thing you said that really got me though, was the comparison to various war criminals. Thinking about it you are exactly right. What the Catalyst has done to the galaxy is much worse than any of our war criminals (saying that this would be an actual situation).

In this light I despise the Catalyst even more and hold a reinforced hatred toward the forced choices I have to make at the end.

For better or worse, I definitely can't complete the game again until something is done about the endings.

I personally think, now, that we should be able to destroy the Catalyst. Not just have more options. To me the logic of the Catalyst is evil and I could not bring myself to choose any options it gives me.

[DyneEnigma]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

I'm a communication major and my college specializes in journalism, PR, etc. Don't make this blow up in the press. It isn't likely to work to change the end of the game, television news doesn't cover stories in enough depth for people to understand the argument, and it will look bad for video games, gamers, and Bioware. This is really an academic argument because it centers around communication and rhetoric. It's fun to talk about and it really shows with painful accuracy why the ending felt so wrong to everyone, but it's hardly a thing the mainstream media could handle properly.

I agree. This issue could completely ruin the game and company. 

I've looked at it from various ways and I don't see racism.

I would like another ending, not Bioware to be shut down because of terrible publicity that something like this could bring....

[Gruzmog]

I was planning to go in here and call you a fool that exegerates things. But looking at the cold comparison you are kind off right o.o

This is actually the first WW2 argument that I have seen on the internet that does not go totally overboard. although it does make me uneasy to compare fictional characters to a real world genocide. Real suffering versus virtual suffering is still a very different thing

[Hendrik.III]

NightHawkIL wrote...

Hendrik.III wrote...
I wouldn't call it racist. The difference between organics/synthetics in is the core of our very existence... you could use the word 'race' for a lack of a fitting term, but I'd say it runs so very much deeper you'd need another term for it.

That is the exact oposite of what Mass Effect goes to great lengths to communicate through Edi and Legion. Regardless of whether or not you are correct in real life if our technology ever were to get there, by Mass Effects own rules it could very easily fall into the catagory of racism. If you chose to form your Shepherd in a way that does not see synthetics as life, that's up to you. But the choices that need to be taken to follow that ideology in the game are certainly not paragon.

But I agree with you (and ME) that sentience makes a living being - but the defining line is in ME is between Synthetic/Organic, not so much racism as we know it - and that was the criticism in the OP. My criticism in that quote is that the situation isn't alike our definition of racism. I am aware that the definition of race does not apply to genetic codes only, but also to cultural groups - such as the Geth are in ME.

I do not argue that the Geth aren't a race, but whether being synthetic or being organic is a racial difference. Being Turian or Asari is, being Geth or a Reaper is. But organic/synthetic runs deeper, imo.

Exclusion of a group on the basis of race, is racism. Exclusion of a sentient group on the basis of being organic or not? I think a different term should apply. 

Modifié par Hendrik.III, 16 mars 2012 - 08:33 .

[Tven0]

This just in: evil Reapers harvesting all organic life may infact be racist.

[Sc2mashimaro]

From a personal perspective, I would say that a true "universalist" attempting to foster galactic understanding and unity (arguably the ultimate "Paragon" path) would not distinguish between Synthetics and Organics. 

I agree with you on a personal level and I think that the writers fundamentally agree, which is why if you choose to side with either Tali or Legion (instead of finding the win-win resolution) you have to deal with the other one dying in a truly heart-breaking fashion and then experience the anger of at least one crew member about your decision. *That* rhetoric is strongly inclusive.

My disagreement is that AIs and other species in Mass Effect are not strict analogs for race/ethnicity. So, while the rhetoric for most of the game is for tolerance and inclusiveness it is only "anti-racist" in the sense that it assumes ethnicity/race to be unimportant.

I did not actually mean to say that the specific choice - Red, Green, or Blue - was racist. What I am saying is that the Catalyst's premise was racist. He created the cycle as a solution to a "Synthetic vs Organic" problem.

I am agreeing with you that the rhetorical shift was to one of intolerance and that the Catalyst was the source of the shift away from the tolerance and unity themes of the rest of the game. What I am saying is that while the game has used synthetics and other species as analogs to explore racism issues, they didn't use them a pure analogs. That is, they also used race and the synthetic/organic divide to address ethical issues of artificial personhood and whether discrimination between species is any different than between race. Their thematic and rhetorical answers until the end of the game tended to be "no", but they also gave the player agency in those choices. The real violation here is that the player cannot object to the Catalyst's ideology and agency to use a different ethical framework is removed when it had been present for the rest of the game. My argument is only that the Catalyst is not strictly racist - the Catalyst is the embodiment of intolerance (which racism would be one expression of). I know it's a slight semantic difference, but saying that it is racism implies that the argument over sentient machines is settled. I happen to agree with you about the personhood of a sentient machine, but that does not mean that all would agree. To me, that disrupts the analog from being "perfect" and means that it would be preferable to call the ideology of the Catalyst "intolerance" rather than "racism".

In short, the Catalyst was asking a loaded question. It asks you "How will you solve the Organic-Synthetic problem?" without realizing that no such "problem" exists. And the reason why I term it "racist" is because it has the exact same parallels as in the real world. When you want to get People A fighting People B, you say that there is a "People A Problem". It's an ideology driven by hatred.

I absolutely agree. 100%. No question. I think this is a very valid point and one that has me thinking even as I write this reply. (Which is why I don't think the mainstream media is equiped to handle this discussion)

Now I'm not sure if you're right or I'm right about the semantics of it.... (I already agreed with you about most of it)

Well played.

And given that the Catalyst has divested itself of all credibility by committing genocide to solve a non-existent problem - and furthermore demands that you solve the non-existent problem with three pre-determined solutions (one of which involves genocide of an allied race), then quite clearly the problem is not the Galaxy. It is not the non-existent Synthetic vs Organic problem. The "problem" is the Catalyst itself, for refusing to acknowledge that it has committed terrible crimes; and insisting that you solve a non-existent problem for it.

Another reason I secretly (not so secretly?) hope the indoctrination theory is right. And this is totally right and supports what I was saying about one of the problems being the lack of agency to challenge the Catalyst on any part of what it was saying and forcing you to choose.

Enjoyed the debate, by the way (and I think you win...but I'm still thinking about it)!

[Zine2]

Re: Racism vs other terms...

Well, like I said, I'm not really overly concerned with the particular semantics.

As long as people understand that the fundamental issue with the Catalyst is that it attempts to divide "Synthetics" and "Organics, when there should be no dividing line between us as fellow sentient beings...

Then I think I've done my job. And it speaks highly of those who've played these games that they took this lesson to heart: All life is precious.

[EsterCloat]

I guess I never really thought about the ending like this. I suppose I did feel this way on a subconscious level but I never articulated it in such manner. Very nice write-up.

[Tireces]

You know, thinking it over, the OP is right. It's not racist against any specific groups that exist in reality(we don't have sentient machines), but the sentiment it's driven by is in fact one that fundamentally supports racism. Not to mention genocide as a solution to it. The way it's written really does do that. Shepard, squarely in the seat of the protagonist, scarcely attempts to refute spacekidhitler's logic. That's the real tragedy of it all. If Shepard at least got to air his two cents, call a spade a spade, it would've been okay at least. He'll pick one to save as many people as he can...but he still wants spacekidhitler to know he thinks he's a genocidal ****.

The "solutions" themselves are like plays from the book of a racist dictator.

Solution 1: Because it's been decided the two racial groups will never get along, let's wipe one out. Not just the ones that are causing the problem(reapers), but also the ones that are not(EDI, geth if you pull off epic success on Rannoch). Of course, they'll eventually spring up again and this will need to be re-administered, but it's surely impossible for these divides to be overcome!

Solution 2: Subjugation of one group by the other. Don't wipe 'em out, enslave them instead! Granted, the "control" option doesn't include other AI, but still represents the notion of a need to have direct control of everything, especially anyone who disagrees with you. "Reapers" in and of themselves, are technically a racial group, and this option is enslaving them.

Solution 3: Forced uniformity! People on either side of this divide here will never overcome their differences, so let's all make them exactly the same! Problem solved! Welcome to the borg collective bro!

Now, I'm not saying I think Bioware is intentionally sending us a message of racism and endorsing it. I don't know what the creative mindset was going into this thing to be honest, but I don't think everyone was grinning evilly and twirling their hitler-moustaches(as if those things were even twirlable). I'd guess it either just wasn't thought about much and the ending was some last minute shoddy decision, or it's designed to be so screwed up to make us hungry for something more. Maybe that long-shot "indoctrination theory" will turn out to be true. I'll say this though, the brief "he's still alive" cinematic looks more like he's in wreckage in that chamber on the citadel. The bits and pieces you can make out of the ground/floor look more like smooth, shiny curves(the citadel) than rugged asphalt(the ground in london).

[Iztiak]

As I've said before, it's made all the more horrible by the absolutely incredible message of tolerance the series has sent out since the first game.

[NightHawkIL]

After thinking about it a little more, I've decided I don't find this personally offensive. I don't think it was intended, and so it's not worth getting offended over in my opinion.

I have decided however, that this is the underlying reason why I so terribly hate the ending. While perhaps not offensive to me in real life, forcing the hero of the story to choose between, compromising with a genocidal kid through control, bringing racism to ultimate fruition through synthisis, or becoming genocidal himself, is the single worst ending of any game I have ever played. No matter what is chosen you're left morally bankrupt in the end.

I don't think this thought occurred to anyone in BioWare before release, so I don't hold it against them as intentionally promoting racist ideology. I do think this is something they need to be made aware of now that the connection has been made, and it would be absolutely unacceptable, and breach the line into offensive for me, if future DLC did not correct the issue now that it has been exposed.

[flaming arrows]

 The horrible ending forced atrocities on us and Casey Hudson said it was too make it unforgettable? Well I'm doing my best to forget it and move on but it's difficult so... mission accomplished? Just like George W. in Iraq, right?

Im particularly offended that they made me committ suicide when the taking of ones own life is extremely opposite my beliefs.