390 réponses à ce sujet

[78stonewobble]

geceka wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...
It happens to be a very, VERY dangerous moral (genocide, eugenics, slavery) conveyed to MILLIONS of young people.

SimonTheFrog wrote...
The horrendous morality only disturbed a very minor group of more observant players.

I think that if you have a genuine interest in supporting a more thoughtful, less inflammatory style of discussion on the BSN, it is quite advisable to abstain from such statements that are – intentionally or not – formulated in a rather provocative way.

As an example, you could argue that, say, "Synthesis" touches on topics that are tangentially related Eugenics, but stating as a fact that "Synthesis" promotes, justifies or glorifies Eugenics is just plain inflammatory. In the same vein, both pro- and anti-enders have repeatedly claimed to be the more observant, more sensitive, more whatever-positive-trait-you-can-think-of group of the two in a quite condescending manner, and this is just as counter-productive. These are just veiled ad-hominem attacks, and it's often enough to heat up the discussion to make it derail entirely.

The whole point is that if you want a discussion, it is extremely important to at least accept that others might not share your opinion, and that it is opinions you discuss, not absolute facts.

I'm a little confused here.

Why would the fact that someone makes a connection between synthesis and eugenics bother anyone?

As far as I can see he isn't claiming it as, as you say a universal fact. I presume that from his subjective point of view it is just the logical conclusion.

I mean, no matter how much someone claimed it to be a fact, it wouldn't necessarily be true from other points of view.

[CronoDragoon]

Paulomedi wrote...
It could be dangerous if many people interpret Synthesis as a glorification of eugenics and lack of diversity, a "pinnacle of evolution" kind of thing, and I don't see the story taking any effort to dismiss that. (The story) until that moment argued against this very notion, and in its final moments might defenestrated it

I've thought about this, mostly because of all the "you're a terrible person" stuff that flies around when people discuss their choice of endings, but I find there to be zero or almost zero chance of people extrapolating the ME endings to real life in any meaningful way. Each ending, and the reasons for choosing them, are so specific to the Mass Effect universe that any attempt to relate them to real life falls apart.

Moreover, some of the arguments against the endings, valid or not, are so abstract that I find it hard to believe any children are affected one way or another. I highly doubt that any child is going to watch Synthesis and glean from it the unintended meaning of "diversity conflicts can only be solved by a solution forced upon everyone." It's much more likely that a child will take from Synthesis the message that "robots are our friends and are cool too!"

Likewise, we've had discussions on this board about the Reapers and whether or not they carry with them a right to life. Whichever way you feel about it, the situation isn't analogous to abortion debates or euthanasia. There's simply too much qualification there that leads someone to play Mass Effect and feel one way or another while feeling differently about those real-life situations.

At the very least, any attempt to relate the ME endings to real-life would need to be limited within the scope of war ethics, since no one is picking any of those endings as they are unless they are pressured into it by the threat of extermination and the possibility of ending the Reaper war.

[78stonewobble]

@cronodragoon: But from someones perspective somewhere I probably am a terrible person and that person would be right. From that particular perspective.

That can allways happen, but doesn't necessarily make it a universal fact.

You can't go through life never stepping on people's toes or having your toes stepped on.

And the most we can hope on is that it stays on the level of a bruised toe.

[CronoDragoon]

78stonewobble wrote...

@cronodragoon: But from someones perspective somewhere I probably am a terrible person and that person would be right. From that particular perspective.

Actually, I don't believe that. By stating that I am not advocating absolute moral relativism, but rather dismissing the claim that what you choose in a highly, highly hypothetical situation that you were forced into with no consequence-free choice cannot make you a terrible person.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 21 janvier 2013 - 09:45 .

[geceka]

78stonewobble wrote...

You can't go through life never stepping on people's toes or having your toes stepped on.

This is most certainly true, but it does not absolve you from a responsibility to take care in the way you interact with your surroundings in order to minimize the instances of your stepping on someone's toe. "It can happen once" doesn't mean "It's ok to do it always".

I understand what you want to say when you claim that things don't become facts just because people say them, but I was talking about a style of discussion, not about what makes facts facts: Sure, if someone posts a blurb along the lines of "everyone who doesn't pick ending choice X is a sadistic/genocidal/stupid/insult-of-your-choice ******", it doesn't make it a fact, but you cannot dismiss that some people will a) be offended by it and that you cannot have a proper discussion if people feel or actually are attacked by your arguments. This example is, of course, an extreme, but it's good enough to illustrate my point.

[78stonewobble]

geceka wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

You can't go through life never stepping on people's toes or having your toes stepped on.

This is most certainly true, but it does not absolve you from a responsibility to take care in the way you interact with your surroundings in order to minimize the instances of your stepping on someone's toe. "It can happen once" doesn't mean "It's ok to do it always".

I understand what you want to say when you claim that things don't become facts just because people say them, but I was talking about a style of discussion, not about what makes facts facts: Sure, if someone posts a blurb along the lines of "everyone who doesn't pick ending choice X is a sadistic/genocidal/stupid/insult-of-your-choice ******", it doesn't make it a fact, but you cannot dismiss that some people will a) be offended by it and that you cannot have a proper discussion if people feel or actually are attacked by your arguments. This example is, of course, an extreme, but it's good enough to illustrate my point.

Agreed. Personally I also try to be quite carefull in not exclaiming something to be a "fact" as an example. Sometimes I even find it difficult to find room for enough disclaimers about something just being my oppinion.

I guess my point was a friendly reminder to not be too sensitive as a recipient as well. Since in my experience that can be equally disruptive to a good discussion.

A little "leeway" on either part is probably a good thing.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 21 janvier 2013 - 10:04 .

[78stonewobble]

CronoDragoon wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

@cronodragoon: But from someones perspective somewhere I probably am a terrible person and that person would be right. From that particular perspective.

Actually, I don't believe that. By stating that I am not advocating absolute moral relativism, but rather dismissing the claim that what you choose in a highly, highly hypothetical situation that you were forced into with no consequence-free choice cannot make you a terrible person.

That is one debate we will have to take elsewhere.

[Reorte]

geceka wrote...

I understand what you want to say when you claim that things don't become facts just because people say them, but I was talking about a style of discussion, not about what makes facts facts: Sure, if someone posts a blurb along the lines of "everyone who doesn't pick ending choice X is a sadistic/genocidal/stupid/insult-of-your-choice ******", it doesn't make it a fact, but you cannot dismiss that some people will a) be offended by it and that you cannot have a proper discussion if people feel or actually are attacked by your arguments. This example is, of course, an extreme, but it's good enough to illustrate my point.

How do you avoid it? If your issue with something is that you can see nothing about it that doesn't make it incredibly stupid it's just about impossible to put that point across without calling people who support it idiots, even if you don't say so directly.

[geceka]

Reorte wrote...

How do you avoid it? If your issue with something is that you can see nothing about it that doesn't make it incredibly stupid it's just about impossible to put that point across without calling people who support it idiots, even if you don't say so directly.

It is a question of what you want to achieve: Your arguments are always colored by your rhetorics, so this is important. If you simply want to point out your dislike, say "I do not like the endings", as a simple example. "Bad", "stupid", etc... are ultimately meaningless words of dislike that serve to offend participants of the discussion, but do not really add a new dimension to the discussion.

Now if you think everything is "stupid", then simply go ahead and formulate the individual, meaningful (plot) points that you find stupid. As an example, you could say "The catalyst says that organics will always build synthetics to advance themselves, but when it postulates that the created will always rebel, I find this to be a complete non-sequitur, rather than an obvious deduction".

One could argue that by dismissing the discussion with "it is stupid", you do not show the participants any respect by forgoing to put your (probably entirely valid) points into a meaningful, understandable form.

Of course, if your original intent is to vent, then this won't give you the satisfaction you want, but this thread was about "constructive discussions", not venting.

[Obadiah]

Paulomedi wrote...
...
It could be dangerous if many people interpret Synthesis as a glorification of eugenics and lack of diversity, a "pinnacle of evolution" kind of thing, and I don't see the story taking any effort to dismiss that. (The story) until that moment argued against this very notion, and in its final moments might defenestrated it

The problem whith Eugenics is that is selects certain groups with desireable traits, and encourages them to reproduce, and discourages other groups, so as to "improve" the overal human genetic composition. The ****s used that selection process to give "scientific" justification for their opproession.

Synthesis doesn't do any of that, it changes everyone - there is no discrimination or oppression. The label of Eugenics does not apply. The only thing Synthesis and Eugenics have in common is that they improved the genetics composition - which when humans select a mate, they're attempting to do anyway.

[Reorte]

geceka wrote...

Reorte wrote...

How do you avoid it? If your issue with something is that you can see nothing about it that doesn't make it incredibly stupid it's just about impossible to put that point across without calling people who support it idiots, even if you don't say so directly.

It is a question of what you want to achieve: Your arguments are always colored by your rhetorics, so this is important. If you simply want to point out your dislike, say "I do not like the endings", as a simple example. "Bad", "stupid", etc... are ultimately meaningless words of dislike that serve to offend participants of the discussion, but do not really add a new dimension to the discussion.

Now if you think everything is "stupid", then simply go ahead and formulate the individual, meaningful (plot) points that you find stupid. As an example, you could say "The catalyst says that organics will always build synthetics to advance themselves, but when it postulates that the created will always rebel, I find this to be a complete non-sequitur, rather than an obvious deduction".

One could argue that by dismissing the discussion with "it is stupid", you do not show the participants any respect by forgoing to put your (probably entirely valid) points into a meaningful, understandable form.

Of course, if your original intent is to vent, then this won't give you the satisfaction you want, but this thread was about "constructive discussions", not venting.

Just saying "That's stupid" does exactly what you say but it seems to get the same reaction if you say "That's stupid because..." Without that expression of value a criticism can simply be replied to with "So?" It's also a problem when there's simply nothing to work with - "There's no plausible mechanism for Synthesis" for example. Now try to explain just how absurd it is without sounding insulting to the idea. Going the other way you can always offer any ideas that may have occured to you to try to explain it, but not when arguing against it. Then there's also the odd-sounding but true (well, IMO at any rate) issue that some impossibilities are more impossible than others.

[78stonewobble]

Obadiah wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...
...
It could be dangerous if many people interpret Synthesis as a glorification of eugenics and lack of diversity, a "pinnacle of evolution" kind of thing, and I don't see the story taking any effort to dismiss that. (The story) until that moment argued against this very notion, and in its final moments might defenestrated it

The problem whith Eugenics is that is selects certain groups with desireable traits, and encourages them to reproduce, and discourages other groups, so as to "improve" the overal human genetic composition. The ****s used that selection process to give "scientific" justification for their opproession.

Synthesis doesn't do any of that, it changes everyone - there is no discrimination or oppression. The label of Eugenics does not apply. The only thing Synthesis and Eugenics have in common is that they improved the genetics composition - which when humans select a mate, they're attempting to do anyway.

There are a few "similarities" in what is problematic for eugenics and for synthesis.

What is desirable?
Who gets to decide what is desirable?
And is it ok to enforce it on everyone?
Or only to suggest it to people (volunteers)?

As far as I can see thats about it, but I haven't put much thought into that connection.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 21 janvier 2013 - 11:32 .

[geceka]

Reorte wrote...

Just saying "That's stupid" does exactly what you say but it seems to get the same reaction if you say "That's stupid because..." Without that expression of value a criticism can simply be replied to with "So?"

Yes, that's a valid point, but then again, I would not claim that the responsibility to make meaningful arguments is confined to the "contra" side: If you voice a criticism that is dismissed with a "So what?", that dismissal is just as pointless within the scope of the discussion as if you had formulated your criticism as "it's stupid" – The road goes both ways: Both sides of the discussion need to play along, so I'd call out the "So what?" person instead on not making any point themselves, rather than provoking/attacking them on an emotional level.

Reorte wrote...

"There's no plausible mechanism for Synthesis" for example. Now try to explain just how absurd it is without sounding insulting to the idea.

The question how Synthesis works technically is super-interesting, actually, since there are so many levels you could discuss this on, without needing to resort to "it's stupid": As an example, there's the whole idea of nano-machines that get broadcast – through the beam? or is the beam an intangible sort of energy that can spontaneously assemble nano-machines from inter-stellar dust particles, akin to the "grey goo" idea? etc... And then there's a wholly different level, namely that of dramatic effect: Let's not dismiss that the colored explosions spreading across the galaxy also serve as a dramatic way to visualize the propagation of the change - just showing a still of the galaxy with subtitles "not synthesized, but (click) now it is" wouldn't work in this medium, so the style of presentation needs to be factored in as well. Then let's not forget that Reaper tech is supposed to be extremely advanced, so even nano-machines might be way too trivial, way beneath them, and that could be a departure point for the most keen speculations that can arise collaboratively through a fan discussion... Remember the infamous "Tali's sweat" thread? I wonder if – given a more open climate for discussion – people wouldn't do stuff like calculate how much mass/energy the Crucible must contain in order to synthesize a sufficient amount of nano-machines for that theory to work, as an example... And the nano-bots are just one idea I've read on these boards (and, incidentally, it's also the explanation I had in mind when I first saw this ending, but maybe that's because I read the ME books, in which Paul Grayson's indoctrination process greatly addresses the Reapers' capabilities to harness nano tech).

Then again, a different level of discussion would be the ways in which the missing scientific explanation of "Synthesis" affects the narrative: I guess some might argue that it not being explained also adds to the mystery, the God-like state of the Reapers, whereas addressing how things getting all too advanced, too "magical" can make the recipient feel disconnected from a game universe they thought to understand...

Anyway, I'm getting lost a bit, but the point is that something is going on in your head that brings you to a point where you are convinced that Synthesis is entirely absurd, but the interesting contribution to the discussion is that what is going on in your head. It's like with mathematical theorems, where it's not really interesting to simply write "holds" or "doesn't hold" under it, the whole thought process going in there (the mathematical proof) is the interesting part. If you write that down and then close it with "And for this reason, I believe it to be absurd", it's perfectly fine by my standards at least, as long as you are open to others picking up on your line of thought and maybe showing possible errors, invalid steps, missing information, unwarranted (e.g. not lore-conformant) constraints, etc...

Or, put differently, if in doubt, write down your whole thought process, not just the final conclusion, and be ok with people discussing it from there. Many of the best threads here have been made by people who disliked something about the game, but wrote very witty and thoughtful OPs, from which the discussion could sprout along both ways of the argument.

[Obadiah]

Paulomedi wrote...
...
You are extrapolating and oversimplifying human behavior.

Yes, that is what heppens when one makes a general statement. I'm not going to engage in a conversation of one individual's emotions or rationale - that's just too personal.

Paulomedi wrote...
...
On another note, Synthesis and Eugenics share more things in common:

Both are devised as the "best" solution for generating "better" beings.

Both remove "undesirable" traits from people.

Both are forced. Or did newborn babies have the choice not to be "uplifted"?

Both are created as a solution for conflict, but not by tolerance and acceptance, but by forced leveling.
...

Yes, but those similarities are largely irrelevant to the "problem" with Eugenics. Any genetic cure that is inheritable (to, say, a form of breast cancer) would fall into this list.

Modifié par Obadiah, 22 janvier 2013 - 12:18 .

[Clayless]

Paulomedi wrote...

The problem is, a cure for breast cancer is a WANTED trait, seeked by many individuals.

Did everyone want Synthesis?

Synthesis is a cure to mortality itself.

I think you'd be able to find quite a few people that would like a cure for death.

Modifié par Robosexual, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:03 .

[Iakus]

Edit:  nvm, this isn't really the thread for it.

Modifié par iakus, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:05 .

[MegaSovereign]

Robosexual wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...

The problem is, a cure for breast cancer is a WANTED trait, seeked by many individuals.

Did everyone want Synthesis?

Synthesis is a cure to mortality itself.

I think you'd be able to find quite a few people that would like a cure for death.

Overpopulation and resource depletion would become a huge issue.

EDI talks about eventually transcending mortality but I think all synthesis really does is extend people's life expectancy.

[Obadiah]

Paulomedi wrote...
...
The problem is, a cure for breast cancer is a WANTED trait, seeked by many individuals.

Did everyone want Synthesis?

Exactly - one problem with Synthesis is consent. I think it is fair to say that everyone who has thought about what Synthesis is, largely has this as one of its problems. That does not make Synthesis a form of Eugenics.

Also, I don't want to have a justifcation for Synthesis in this thread - but using "Eugenics" to descibe Synthesis is part of the problem I see with having a constructive discussion about the ending. It immediately puts anyone who defends the choice of Synthesis (weighed the problem of consent and did it anyway), as being party to a philosophy of **** Germany, forcing them to parse the philosphy so as to defend Synthesis, all the while being tarred by the attack.

To me, it is pretty easy to see why people would use Eugenics to descibe Synthesis, and I think the back and forth would be fairly predictable by the writers and devs. So, I'm not really sure how they expected the discussion around Synthesis to be different.

Modifié par Obadiah, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:15 .

[drayfish]

Obadiah wrote...

Paulomedi wrote...
...
It could be dangerous if many people interpret Synthesis as a glorification of eugenics and lack of diversity, a "pinnacle of evolution" kind of thing, and I don't see the story taking any effort to dismiss that. (The story) until that moment argued against this very notion, and in its final moments might defenestrated it

The problem whith Eugenics is that is selects certain groups with desireable traits, and encourages them to reproduce, and discourages other groups, so as to "improve" the overal human genetic composition. The ****s used that selection process to give "scientific" justification for their opproession.

Synthesis doesn't do any of that, it changes everyone - there is no discrimination or oppression. The label of Eugenics does not apply. The only thing Synthesis and Eugenics have in common is that they improved the genetics composition - which when humans select a mate, they're attempting to do anyway.

This is an utterly specious way to muddy the definition.

You appear to be confusing the theory with the tools used to bring that theory about.  That's like arguing that there is a difference between slowly colouring a canvas red with a brush, and dipping it in the paint. One is gradual, the other instantaneous, but both achieve the exact same end.

The purpose of eugenics is to reach toward the perpetuation of desirable genetic traits, to ultimately 'better' the human species through a genetic pruning process.  Breeding programs, selective sterilisation and wholesale genocide are merely the tools necessary to bring that goal into being.  Were those who embraced the philosophy of eugenics able to use a magical button you can press that will change everyone immediately and leapfrog all the nasty stuff, they no doubt would have.  The 'discrimination and oppression' you skipped over occurs in the exact moment that button is pressed.  (And likening two people having a baby with the systemic denegration of some for the 'betterment' of others is farcical.)

And that's precisely the principle that Mass Effect 3 presents in its synthesis ending, it's merely dressed up in a shiny pseudo-science veneer.

Who exactly is to argue what genetic composition is appropriate for all?  Who gets to dictate what attributes are lesser than any other?  After all, red hair is a recessive gene - no doubt we'll have to get rid of that...  And too bad anyone whose entire belief system is geared around the premise that the flesh is sacred and should not be perverted by technology...  Your dumb beliefs have no place in the world that has been inflicted upon you, guy. 

What a disgustingly arrogant notion.

Modifié par drayfish, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:18 .

[Clayless]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Synthesis is a cure to mortality itself.

I think you'd be able to find quite a few people that would like a cure for death.

Overpopulation and resource depletion would become a huge issue.

EDI talks about eventually transcending mortality but I think all synthesis really does is extend people's life expectancy.

Overpopulation and reasource depletion wouldn't be possible in the galaxy, and definately not the universe. It's just too big, the universe would end before this galaxy made an impact.

[Reorte]

geceka wrote...

Reorte wrote...

"There's no plausible mechanism for Synthesis" for example. Now try to explain just how absurd it is without sounding insulting to the idea.

The question how Synthesis works technically is super-interesting, actually, since there are so many levels you could discuss this on, without needing to resort to "it's stupid": As an example, there's the whole idea of nano-machines that get broadcast – through the beam? or is the beam an intangible sort of energy that can spontaneously assemble nano-machines from inter-stellar dust particles, akin to the "grey goo" idea? etc...

I've heard ideas like that put forward but they really don't work when you consider what's involved. Being able to put forward some explanation doesn't cut it terribly well.

And then there's a wholly different level, namely that of dramatic effect: Let's not dismiss that the colored explosions spreading across the galaxy also serve as a dramatic way to visualize the propagation of the change - just showing a still of the galaxy with subtitles "not synthesized, but (click) now it is" wouldn't work in this medium, so the style of presentation needs to be factored in as well. Then let's not forget that Reaper tech is supposed to be extremely advanced, so even nano-machines might be way too trivial, way beneath them, and that could be a departure point for the most keen speculations that can arise collaboratively through a fan discussion...

Dramatic effect still only has a little leeway against what's shown contradicting with what could possibly happen before it completely breaks suspension of disbelief. The idea of that level of technology (being able to manipulate matter at the molecular level, in detail, right across the galaxy) , as well as being unconvincing would also mean that the Reapers are so high-tech they would have absolutely no need to act as they do. A nano-machine would have to be able to arrive at an organism, deduce everything about how it functions, not only directly but the impact that particular DNA-level functionality has across the rest of the organism, and come up and implement a new design that achieves the same functionality, plus extra, without breaking the balance of the rest of the organism, thus killing it. All this packed into a nano-machine, which itself will have to be made up of atoms and molecules. It's almost certainly physically impossible to pack that much processing into them, even if millions of them are communicating with each other.

Even if that were possible why would anything with that level of technology bother with crude husks?

Then again, a different level of discussion would be the ways in which the missing scientific explanation of "Synthesis" affects the narrative: I guess some might argue that it not being explained also adds to the mystery, the God-like state of the Reapers, whereas addressing how things getting all too advanced, too "magical" can make the recipient feel disconnected from a game universe they thought to understand...

Unforunately it is simply magic unless there is a possible explanation; if the writers didn't have one it definitely is. A little amount of magic is necessary for setting the scene in a game like Mass Effect - we can't do FTL travel in reality after all, but suddenly giving the Reapers genuinely god-like powers at the end is just a step too far. If there's no sign of an explanation, no hint that a plausible within-universe one exists, then that is a massive disconnect and I find it pretty much impossible to avoid the conclusion that the writers started plucking things out of thin air and simply didn't care. That's probably an example of the type of criticism you're arguing against (trying to bring this around back on-topic!)  but it's where a thoughtful consideration of the issues leads me.

Anyway, I'm getting lost a bit, but the point is that something is going on in your head that brings you to a point where you are convinced that Synthesis is entirely absurd, but the interesting contribution to the discussion is that what is going on in your head. It's like with mathematical theorems, where it's not really interesting to simply write "holds" or "doesn't hold" under it, the whole thought process going in there (the mathematical proof) is the interesting part. If you write that down and then close it with "And for this reason, I believe it to be absurd", it's perfectly fine by my standards at least, as long as you are open to others picking up on your line of thought and maybe showing possible errors, invalid steps, missing information, unwarranted (e.g. not lore-conformant) constraints, etc...

Something is absurd when there is no possible half-rational explanation, simple as that. For me to argue futher is the equivalent of being asked to prove a negative.

Or, put differently, if in doubt, write down your whole thought process, not just the final conclusion, and be ok with people discussing it from there. Many of the best threads here have been made by people who disliked something about the game, but wrote very witty and thoughtful OPs, from which the discussion could sprout along both ways of the argument.

There have been such threads and I've taken part in some of them but there comes a point where it breaks down. Let's invent a clear example - we defeat the Reapers by running up to them and headbutting them, and it works! I'm sure it would be possible for someone to invent some explanation as to why it does.

Modifié par Reorte, 22 janvier 2013 - 01:31 .