1256 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

No one has addressed the post about Fascism I made on the previous page. No one.

Touch it Synthesis people. Try it.

Feel it. Understand what you speak of.

Modifié par Taboo-XX, 14 juin 2012 - 08:42 .

[Zix13]

Taboo-XX wrote...

No one has addressed the post about Fascism I made on the previous page. No one.

Touch it Synthesis people. Try it.

Feel it. Understand what you speak of.

I don't know, I still think the fact that you fail to do the one thing you've been trying to do for the three games is the most provocative argument. 

[Taboo]

I'm ready for debate. But they won't touch it. I'm waiting.

Waiting.

[lillitheris]

The fascism argument is just so…tired. So. Many. Other. Things. Wrong.

[Taboo]

lillitheris wrote...

The fascism argument is just so…tired. So. Many. Other. Things. Wrong.

It's the most pressing. It's what Synthesis is in abstraction, before the choice.

The very GOAL is just that.

[Zix13]

Taboo-XX wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

The fascism argument is just so…tired. So. Many. Other. Things. Wrong.

It's the most pressing. It's what Synthesis is in abstraction, before the choice.

The very GOAL is just that.

Oh the concept of synthesis has many other fundamental problems. Like................... "Choosing your own path" and other themes that were never mentioned in the mass effect universe. 

[Taboo]

I need a nap. I hope something comes of this. These tacos...ugh.

The thematic material is what bothers me. It's the kind of thing I can't help but notice. The term is aesthetic, not the entire thing. It has fascist AESTHETICS. That's the issue.

No interference past the stopping of the Reapers was my goal here. Unfortunate results, but that is a result of Bioware not...being very clear.

[Heeden]

akenn312 wrote...
That is complete utter nonsense and you know it. Creating a new framework or a new DNA is a literal replacement of genetic material. You are replacing what was already there with something new. You are forcing genetic alliteration and that is eugenics.

It doesn't say "replace or alter existing material", it says "combine all organic and synthetic life in to a new framework". The "new DNA" is either an analogy or taken literally - meaning chains of DNA created from existing life-forms which I agree is nonsense. The thought of altering all life-forms by using a new form of DNA couldn't work because all synthetics and some organics don't have DNA.

You are changing the basic state of the universe. What the heck do you think destroying Relays and merging all synthetic life and all organic life is?  C'mon.

A rearrangement of matter and energy, not a subversion of basic universal laws.

Are you really serious? Awww poor Reapers. If I kill them i'm committing genocide? No I am not, they are attacking organics there is nothing wrong with organics defending themselves. The results have nothing to do with it, again it's the choice too destroy the Geth that makes it genocide. Which connects to the ethical implication just like in Synthesis. You are killing the Geth because of the fear they will destroy all organics that comes from the Catalyst's fallacy. You are killing them out of fear. You are playing god with synthesis out of fear. You are Controlling the Reapers out of fear.

If you kill the Reapers you are destroying a race of sentient AI, that is genocide.

Oh I agree there is not point in continuing, but here is a interesting fact, try googling the term fascist synthesis. The term and the word synthesis comes up in many discussions along with fascism. So maybe you are not all knowing about the fascism ideology and what words and symbols it contains. By your logic you stated you only saw the words Control and Destroy heavily in fascist ideology so that's why you consider those choices fascist, so by your logic that means Synthesis can be related in the same way since it is a word seen in fascism ideology just as much.

Firstly I do not consider any of the choices to be implicity fascist because none of them demand a ruling elite in a single-party state. However an argument based on the number of google results a search produces is not really relevant in any discussion.

I consider the themes of Control and Destroy in ME to have closer relationships to real-world ideas than Synthesis because as far as I know no political movements have attempted to integrate organic and synthetic life-forms.

Nope there is not a mandatory change. The Stargazer scene disproves this. You get the same result no matter what you do. There is not a Reaper return, no synthetic uprising, no need to subject synthesis on the galaxy. The boy and his grandpa are on the same planet and Shepard is still the same legendary figure.

Again you do this because you want to see everyone changed. Not because it's mandatory.

At the end of Mass Effect 3 you have 3 choices - Genocide, Enslavement or Change. If you do not choose one of those you do not get the stargazer ending.

Modifié par Heeden, 14 juin 2012 - 09:04 .

[Taboo]

YOU. COMMIT. GENOCIDE. AT. THE. END. OF. THE. SECOND. GAME.

This is no different.

All the endings have uncomfortable bearings on the real world, the only difference is that Synthesis gets the most romanticized version. I am taking these quotes from books sitting RIGHT HERE, at my desk.

I'd be more than willing to dig out my copy of "Friendly Fascism" just for you.

[aj2070]

I think the geth are more alive than the collectors. Just about everyone agrees in game(s) that the collectors at this point are not protheans anymore; they are pretty much husks.

[Ieldra]

Taboo, let it go. This claim is nonsense and you know it.

[Taboo]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo, let it go. This claim is nonsense and you know it.

No, it isn't. I'm looking at the pages of the book right now, looking at an oustretched Atlas, bearing the motif that the only thing we should strive for is "more power". Which is something you've talked about quite a bit.

I am not saying it is Fascist per se, but that it has Fascist AESTHETICS. Pay attention.

2001 is the same, but it isn't a choice in that film. I can dig out that literature if you want it too.

[jaktuk]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Taboo, let it go. This claim is nonsense and you know it.

No, it isn't. I'm looking at the pages of the book right now, looking at an oustretched Atlas, bearing the motif that the only thing we should strive for is "more power". Which is something you've talked about quite a bit.

I am not saying it is Fascist per se, but that it has Fascist AESTHETICS. Pay attention.

2001 is the same, but it isn't a choice in that film. I can dig out that literature if you want it too.

You really should learn when to shut up and start arguing not insult people personally. And yes saying that people has "fascist aesthetics" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is personally insulting. Many people including myself know people who has truly known what fascicm means in practice, and it is not pleasant. People are entitled to their own opinion about the ending stop insulting them.

Modifié par jaktuk, 14 juin 2012 - 09:29 .

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...
It doesn't say "replace or alter existing material", it says "combine all organic and synthetic life in to a new framework". The "new DNA" is either an analogy or taken literally - meaning chains of DNA created from existing life-forms which I agree is nonsense. The thought of altering all life-forms by using a new form of DNA couldn't work because all synthetics and some organics don't have DNA.

semantics and straw-manning...
Then you are placing DNA into the synthetics, either way it's still genetic modification

Heeden wrote...
A rearrangement of matter and energy, not a subversion of basic universal laws.

semantics...
You are still making a basic change to the universe.

Heeden wrote...If you kill the Reapers you are destroying a race of sentient AI, that is genocide.

utter nonsense...

Firstly I do not consider any of the choices to be implicity fascist because none of them demand a ruling elite in a single-party state. However an argument based on the number of google results a search produces is not really relevant in any discussion.

I consider the themes of Control and Destroy in ME to have closer relationships to real-world ideas than Synthesis because as far as I know no political movements have attempted to integrate organic and synthetic life-forms.

They have a fascist aesthetic and you just said a few posts ago you thought Control & Destroy had fascist meanings and of course Synthesis did not. This does not matter if it's sci-fi based, the theme is still in the choice & that is the issue. A political movement trying to integrate organic-synthetic life is irrelevant.  One man can still never force all life to change at his whim. People are not your property.

At the end of Mass Effect 3 you have 3 choices - Genocide, Enslavement or Change. If you do not choose one of those you do not get the stargazer ending.

First you said mandatory change now it's a change, just because you change it up doesn't mean you made it better.

Nothing changes. You have no right to force anything on anyone. All choices go to the same result so Synthesis isn't mandatory. It's playing god when you don't have to.

[Heeden]

jaktuk wrote...

You really should learn when to shut up and start arguing not insult people personally. And yes saying that people has "fascist aesthetics" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is personally insulting. Many people including myself know people who has truly known what fascicm means in practice, and it is not pleasant. People are entitled to their own opinion about the ending stop insulting them.

"Fascist aesthetics" refers to the fact fascist movements tend to favour certain forms of art, generally there is preference for "perfect" (strong, healthy, conforming to an ideal) human anatomy, a sense of grandiose etc.

It's basically an argument of association "if you like the same things as a fascist, you must share their ideals" or "if fascists like this it must be bad". There are similar arguments that declare anyone who likes the music of Wagner is a **** and usually it's best to just ignore them.

[Taboo]

It has nothing to do with the people who choose it. Fascist Aesthetics pertains to the content itself AS PRESENTED. The content. The content. The content. I don't care if people choose it, but it's MORE than valid to bring it up.

[Taboo]

Heeden wrote...

jaktuk wrote...

You really should learn when to shut up and start arguing not insult people personally. And yes saying that people has "fascist aesthetics" (whatever that is supposed to mean) is personally insulting. Many people including myself know people who has truly known what fascicm means in practice, and it is not pleasant. People are entitled to their own opinion about the ending stop insulting them.

"Fascist aesthetics" refers to the fact fascist movements tend to favour certain forms of art, generally there is preference for "perfect" (strong, healthy, conforming to an ideal) human anatomy, a sense of grandiose etc.

It's basically an argument of association "if you like the same things as a fascist, you must share their ideals" or "if fascists like this it must be bad". There are similar arguments that declare anyone who likes the music of Wagner is a **** and usually it's best to just ignore them.

WRONG. 

I said NOTHING of the people choosing it being fascists. The content has it. NOT the people.

[clennon8]

Death to Reapers! There shall be no weepers!

(sorry)

[Taboo]

Plenty of people like The Wild Bunch, but it does not make them fascist.

But the aesthetic is still there.

THAT is my point.

PAY attention.

[DirtySHISN0]

Im impressed, speculation about the consequence and implication of a decision that makes no sense usually doesn't last 37 pages.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 14 juin 2012 - 09:45 .

[Heeden]

semantics and straw-manning...
Then you are placing DNA into the synthetics, either way it's still genetic modification

There won't be any Synthetics because if you take the sentence literally you had to deconstruct them to make chains of DNA.

semantics...
You are still making a basic change to the universe.

But not to the basic nature of the universe, i.e. its physical laws and processes.

utter nonsense...

Citation needed.

They have a fascist aesthetic and you just said a few posts ago you thought Control & Destroy had fascist meanings and of course Synthesis did not. This does not matter if it's sci-fi based, the theme is still in the choice & that is the issue. A political movement trying to integrate organic-synthetic life is irrelevant.  One man can still never force all life to change at his whim. People are not your property.

Really your point is getting lost. It seems to run along the lines of "this thing has similarities with a bad thing and therefore it is the same thing and just as bad" which simply isn't true.

You don't like the fact a single person gets to make the choice. That's a fine position and I agree it is a less than ideal situation. However bleating that it's fascism without any consideration isn't contributing much to the discussion, just getting me to spam the same points continuously.

At the end of Mass Effect 3 you have 3 choices - Genocide, Enslavement or Change. If you do not choose one of those you do not get the stargazer ending.

First you said mandatory change now it's a change, just because you change it up doesn't mean you made it better.

Nothing changes. You have no right to force anything on anyone. All choices go to the same result so Synthesis isn't mandatory. It's playing god when you don't have to.

There are three choices at the end of the game - Change, Genocide, Enslavement. The change is just as mandatory as the genocide and enslavement, I omitted the word in my last post because it seemed to confuse you in to thinking that you have to pick that option.

To reitierate, you have three choices, if you choose Synthesis it becomes a mandatory change for all the galaxy.

[jaktuk]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Plenty of people like The Wild Bunch, but it does not make them fascist.

But the aesthetic is still there.

THAT is my point.

PAY attention.

Your argument for synthesis being facsist pretty much boils down to the fact that one justifies the means by the end, which in itself is not a special trait of fascism. It exists many in many other ideologies. You point out that Shepard in synthesis is making a decision that affects everyone regardless of the fact that they might disagree.

Guess what? In destroy which you have chosen and seem to like he exterminates an entire race and eliminates an entire form of life (synthetic life) as a means of saving another (organic life). That is a clear case of the end justifying the means. Is destroy also plagued with "fascist aesthetics". By your definitions I do not see why it should not be.

[Grimwick]

Zix13 wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

No one has addressed the post about Fascism I made on the previous page. No one.

Touch it Synthesis people. Try it.

Feel it. Understand what you speak of.

I don't know, I still think the fact that you fail to do the one thing you've been trying to do for the three games is the most provocative argument. 

I also think the fact that synthesis is not a solution is a major concern.

Modifié par Grimwick, 14 juin 2012 - 09:57 .

[akenn312]

Heeden wrote...
Really your point is getting lost. It seems to run along the lines of "this thing has similarities with a bad thing and therefore it is the same thing and just as bad" which simply isn't true.

You don't like the fact a single person gets to make the choice. That's a fine position and I agree it is a less than ideal situation. However bleating that it's fascism without any consideration isn't contributing much to the discussion, just getting me to spam the same points continuously.

Well you did start the spamming, Here is the only point worth mentioning from your last spam.

Yes the thing has similarities that are questionable, but the fact that people are romanticizing it as a wonderful choice with no drawbacks and a start of a amazing utopia is what I have the main issue with. This choice has consequences that are just as bad or even worse than the others. You might not want to see it in a bad way but someone else can see it. This choice to change all life because one person thinks is a better future is not just some fantasy land thing that has no repercussions it's a serious thing to do and it's not something to argue is a great and wonderful la la land result.

The choice does have a fascist ascetic to it and that is not something you just take lightly or fan-fiction away. Be honest with what it is about. If you think Destroy is genocide then stop covering up what synthesis is. That's all.

[Reorte]

jaktuk wrote...

Guess what? In destroy which you have chosen and seem to like he exterminates an entire race and eliminates an entire form of life (synthetic life) as a means of saving another (organic life). That is a clear case of the end justifying the means. Is destroy also plagued with "fascist aesthetics". By your definitions I do not see why it should not be.

It's hardly a good choice (none of them are) but it's the one with the least impact on the least number of people. Well, Control possibly is but it's simply too untrustworthy. The big difference between Destroy and Synthesis is that with the former you're trying to solve the Reaper problem and leave everyone else alone as far as possible. With the latter you've decided to impose a massive change on everyone (and still not solving the Reaper problem). Seeing an opportunity to do more than is necessary and force something that you alone has decided is good on everybody is unquestionably facist. You can only escape that accusation if it was the only choice available to stop the Reapers from killing everyone - and even then, because the Reapers don't attack every single species in the galaxy, that's debatable.