550 réponses à ce sujet

[Cette]

A: I believe hating people in general covers the broad strokes.  Misanthropy's a hell of a drug.  And my brush may be broad but it's quite thin.  All it takes to break the out is pushing right on through the other side with something that disproves initial assumptions.  Doesn't even take active trying.  Just show a little depth which if a person has it should shine through regardless of their intent.

B:  I don't think she's all those things because she's in the military or even that i dislike all military people I've met.  I'm just saying that she has a lot of not necessarily related things I dislike all in one person.

C:  Not sure I see a functional difference between patriotism and nationalism.  If there's a major definitional difference between the two I'm happy to hear it provided it doesn't devolve into semantic hash.  Either way I believe having pride in a place or group just because you were born into it rather than merit based accomplishments is the dogs breakfast.  Doubly so when the person being proud did nothing to contribute to said accomplishments.  (I'm really into sports fans.)

D:  A former Marine who's high ranking in the police around here once told me this.  "The one thing I miss about being in the marines is being surrounded by people who made me feel smart in comparison."  This pretty much jives my observations of people I've known who are in the lower ranks anyway.  A bunch of jackasses who I wouldn't trust to make a sandwich without injuring themselves being given weapons training and sent oversea's to represent us to the world and protect our interests.  And it would be ok if that actually made them come back more mature and disciplined but mostly they're just the same except with both mental and physical trauma piled on top.  Except now you know trained to kill.

The people I've known who didn't fit that mold tend to not try to make a career of it.  And I do recognize that a standing military is necessary and doesn't even have to be a bad thing but I've seen to much of their low standards and used up castoffs to expect anything good until proven otherwise.

This may not be the place for this discussion.  Also I just got off work wrangling meth heads all night so I may be pretty brain fried and rambly right now.

[JasonShepard]

Yikes. Good comment about nationalism and patriotism. You know, if you didn't keep referring to yourself as 'God', I might be forced to admit some grudging respect for you. (Yeah, I know it's tongue-in-cheek. Yeah, it still bothers me. No, I'm not religious - I'm what I'd refer to as strongly-agnostic. Anyway, that's all miles off-topic.)

 

Anyway - in response to your post from a few days back. The Cerberus-Terrorism one.

 

I'll concede the point Cerberus isn't looking to inflict terror. From that perspective, you're right, it's not a terrorist organisation. Instead it's a highly secretive NGO that performs illegal actions. Yes, I was oversimplifying by referring to them as a terrorist organisation, though an illegal NGO still doesn't strike me as something that Ashley would sign up with. At least a government is (theoretically) controlled and constrained by the people.

 

Actually, let's take the government comparison a bit further. Yes, most modern governments have performed illegal black-ops acts at some point. In the MEU, it's definitely true of the Council (see Tela Vasir), Salarians treat it as standard operating procedure, and it's almost certainly true of the Alliance (ME1's Cerberus missions can be interpreted as quiet Alliance-Cerberus co-operation, and of course there's the Renegade arms deal mission).

 

Ashley doesn't seem to approve of any of it though, referring to it as 'dirty work'. (I'm taking that from a quote if you bring her to the Ardat-Yakshi monastery, but her attitude towards black-ops in general seems fairly consistent and universal. Doesn't come up that often, on the other hand.) She seems to stay in and prefer the more 'official' areas of the military. Though yes, she does break the rules when Shepard does - presumably because the Commander has the authority to do so (Spectre), and the Normandy theft because it was kinda necessary... And she definitely has a problem with never hesitating to speak her mind.

 

I'll also note that, for claiming to protect humanity, Cerberus' on-screen human body count is second only to the Reapers across the series, and I'm not even counting Sanctuary (since that's only killing from a certain point of view). (If you want to treat the Collectors and the Reapers as separate, maybe Cerberus comes in third.) I'm mostly thinking of the various dead colonies that we found in ME1 that were their fault (husks, thorian creepers, rachni), but Pragia also appears on the list, as does Benning and Overlord. At best, they're serially incompetent.

 

And... the last part of the post. Cerberus. Anti-alien. Okay.

 

Let me ask a simple question. Does TIM want to be on an equal footing with the rest of the galaxy, or above them? Co-operation or domination?

 

Caution to enable co-operation is fine. It's arguably necessary, as you said. Heck, ME1 Ashley's dog metaphor is about exactly that - alien races will look out for their own interests first and foremost rather than helping humanity (remember that humanity is the dog in that metaphor), hence humanity needs a level of self-interest. I may not agree with Cerberus' methods of caution, but cautious co-operation is an ideal I can get behind.

 

But the impression I got from TIM is that, if he had the chance, he'd put humanity on the top of the galaxy, using the other races as nothing more than tools. Look at what happened on Omega once Cerberus had control - alien populations controlled, human population given relative freedom. Heck, if you were human, you could get away with carrying a weapon, where non-humans could expect to be shot on sight. Domination is not an ideal I can support. That's where I'm getting the anti-alien vibe from.

[God]

A: I believe hating people in general covers the broad strokes.  Misanthropy's a hell of a drug.  And my brush may be broad but it's quite thin.  All it takes to break the out is pushing right on through the other side with something that disproves initial assumptions.  Doesn't even take active trying.  Just show a little depth which if a person has it should shine through regardless of their intent.

B:  I don't think she's all those things because she's in the military or even that i dislike all military people I've met.  I'm just saying that she has a lot of not necessarily related things I dislike all in one person.

C:  Not sure I see a functional difference between patriotism and nationalism.  If there's a major definitional difference between the two I'm happy to hear it provided it doesn't devolve into semantic hash.  Either way I believe having pride in a place or group just because you were born into it rather than merit based accomplishments is the dogs breakfast.  Doubly so when the person being proud did nothing to contribute to said accomplishments.  (I'm really into sports fans.)

D:  A former Marine who's high ranking in the police around here once told me this.  "The one thing I miss about being in the marines is being surrounded by people who made me feel smart in comparison."  This pretty much jives my observations of people I've known who are in the lower ranks anyway.  A bunch of jackasses who I wouldn't trust to make a sandwich without injuring themselves being given weapons training and sent oversea's to represent us to the world and protect our interests.  And it would be ok if that actually made them come back more mature and disciplined but mostly they're just the same except with both mental and physical trauma piled on top.  Except now you know trained to kill.

The people I've known who didn't fit that mold tend to not try to make a career of it.  And I do recognize that a standing military is necessary and doesn't even have to be a bad thing but I've seen to much of their low standards and used up castoffs to expect anything good until proven otherwise.

This may not be the place for this discussion.  Also I just got off work wrangling meth heads all night so I may be pretty brain fried and rambly right now.

 

Yeah, probably not, considering I completely disagree with and challenge your assessment of our military forces.

 

And I'm not saying this to retort, but on that token, I'd rather not be treated as a terrorist or threat to society by the police, an institution I believe needs near total rebuilding from the ground up, all because I have an extensive history of service to my country and know how to kill (and have done so repeatedly) in that service. One reason I'm so keen to leave the United States is because of my near complete lack of faith in our justice department. Because police certainly know how to kill too, while facing physical and mental trauma. Shouldn't they too be watched suspiciously? Do your own actions in our own cities not only alienate us in the eyes of the world, but our own citizenry as well?

 

And your opinion isn't really doing anything to change that view. Suffice to say, I'm not big on the police back home. I'd like to say I don't fit that mold, but you're casting some pretty big stones over the institution as a whole, so much so that the good ones like me seem to be more of an exception than a rule. Given my own much greater experience in this field, I'd say the ones you characterize as the bad eggs are the exception, not the rule. 

 

Sorry if I come off as rather caustic. I'm not casting you in the light of bad police, but I do disagree with your assessment that we're mostly 'a bunch of stupid jackasses who hurt themselves making sandwiches'. And you'll understand that despite my very liberal belief system, I'm rather loyal to my brothers and sisters in arms. 

 

As for patriotism and nationalism, if you don't want to see a meaningful distinction, then that of course is on you. There is one, and it is, by definition a rather marked distinction. And if you really think there's something wrong with taking pride in your homeland, home culture, home values, and countrymen in support of their achievements, then I'd say you were the one with a problem.

[Barquiel]

Ashley's ultra-fast promotion to LCdr is also pretty bizarre.

I personally don't object to the Alliance having different rules than our current military organizations, but I do wish they'd make it a little more reasonable and believable than it is.

If I had to bet those promotions were political rather than anything else. I got the impression that promoting them so fast was basically done to create a new "Shepard". With Shepard dead and later working with cerberus/under house arrest the alliance simply put the VS on the pedestal. The spectre promotion is also heavily implied to be a political/scheming move by Udina.

[God]

I'll also note that, for claiming to protect humanity, Cerberus' on-screen human body count is second only to the Reapers across the series, and I'm not even counting Sanctuary (since that's only killing from a certain point of view). (If you want to treat the Collectors and the Reapers as separate, maybe Cerberus comes in third.) I'm mostly thinking of the various dead colonies that we found in ME1 that were their fault (husks, thorian creepers, rachni), but Pragia also appears on the list, as does Benning and Overlord. At best, they're serially incompetent.

 

And... the last part of the post. Cerberus. Anti-alien. Okay.

 

Let me ask a simple question. Does TIM want to be on an equal footing with the rest of the galaxy, or above them? Co-operation or domination?

 

Caution to enable co-operation is fine. It's arguably necessary, as you said. Heck, ME1 Ashley's dog metaphor is about exactly that - alien races will look out for their own interests first and foremost rather than helping humanity (remember that humanity is the dog in that metaphor), hence humanity needs a level of self-interest. I may not agree with Cerberus' methods of caution, but cautious co-operation is an ideal I can get behind.

 

But the impression I got from TIM is that, if he had the chance, he'd put humanity on the top of the galaxy, using the other races as nothing more than tools. Look at what happened on Omega once Cerberus had control - alien populations controlled, human population given relative freedom. Heck, if you were human, you could get away with carrying a weapon, where non-humans could expect to be shot on sight. Domination is not an ideal I can support. That's where I'm getting the anti-alien vibe from.

 

On the small scale, yes, Cerberus does seem to have a propensity for sacrificing human life for the sake of the greater good. In terms of the big picture however, they're experiments are more to test the validity of a certain means of investing in humanity in the future, rather than to completely preserve as many humans as possible. 

 

Cerberus has a view that involves preserving humanity as a whole, not as various small individuals that make up an individual group. Humanities preservation is paramount to the lives of a few humans. And there will be more to protect. If sacrificing some colony of humans benefits the rest of humanity, then it is what I would consider a worthwhile investment.

 

I think it's something different from how you're viewing them. They're not afraid to throw a few humans under the bus to ensure everyone else gets the ride on the fast lane.

 

And no, I still completely disagree that Cerberus is anti-alien. Pro-human is not anti-alien. 

 

Your question has more possibilities than the ones you've listed. There is no false dichotomy of cooperation and domination. There are other stances. For example, I'd say that TIM is willing to cooperate if it can benefit humanity. Yes, it is cautious cooperation, but there's also an element of ensuring that humanity won't be screwed by a bad deal. 

 

TIM wants humanity ahead, though not necessarily for ideological oppressive domination, but for applied practical domination. Think of the United States right now. TIM would likely want us in a position where we're a political and economic powerhouse that is more or less autonomous, even in the face of other governments. As for why Omega had that implementation in place, I can see it as a precautionary measure to resist a rejection of authority (humans would of course be less likely to reject a pro-human government), as well as to provide a means to resist alien retaliation on Omega for human inhabitants who might be targeted by aliens as a means of revenge, while also taking away a means to target humans from those aliens. It's not necessarily inherently anti-alien.

 

Thus, I provide my answer. Cerberus and TIM lie in between both of those positions that you posit, including elements of both, as well as adding more from other establishments.

[Han Shot First]

Isn't Shepard actually Lieutenant Commander, not actually a commander?  So by the end they both either have the same rank or higher. Whats a man have to do to get a promotion? Beat the reapers twice?

 

Shepard's rank is abbreviated as CDR in Mass Effect 3. CDR is the abbreviation for a Commander, while LCDR would be the abbreviation for a Lieutenant Commander. You could perhaps take that as an indication that Shepard was promoted between games.

 

The only problem with that is that the Alliance doesn't have a Commander rank. It jumps from Lieutenant Commander to Staff Commander. The real reason for the CDR abbreviation was likely that it was a mistake on the part of the devs, but with no Commander rank its always possible that CDR could be the Alliance abbreviation for Staff Commander.

[God]

Shepard's rank is abbreviated as CDR in Mass Effect 3. CDR is the abbreviation for a Commander, while LCDR would be the abbreviation for a Lieutenant Commander. You could perhaps take that as an indication that Shepard was promoted between games.

 

The only problem with that is that the Alliance doesn't have a Commander rank. It jumps from Lieutenant Commander to Staff Commander. The real reason for the CDR abbreviation was likely that it was a mistake on the part of the devs, but with no Commander rank its always possible that CDR could be the Alliance abbreviation for Staff Commander.

 

Best explanation?
 

The ranks are meaningless based on disregard for established lore and, like Liara (sorry Liara fans), was used as a tool for the writers that's meaning changed based on whatever the writers needed/wanted to change.

 

BW sucks at writing the military. There's no internal consistency to what anything means at all. 

 

Also, the simple reason why he's Commander Shepard all this time? It sounds really freaking cool.

[Cette]

Yeah, probably not, considering I completely disagree with and challenge your assessment of our military forces.

 

And I'm not saying this to retort, but on that token, I'd rather not be treated as a terrorist or threat to society by the police, an institution I believe needs near total rebuilding from the ground up, all because I have an extensive history of service to my country and know how to kill (and have done so repeatedly) in that service. One reason I'm so keen to leave the United States is because of my near complete lack of faith in our justice department. Because police certainly know how to kill too, while facing physical and mental trauma. Shouldn't they too be watched suspiciously? Do your own actions in our own cities not only alienate us in the eyes of the world, but our own citizenry as well?

 

And your opinion isn't really doing anything to change that view. Suffice to say, I'm not big on the police back home. I'd like to say I don't fit that mold, but you're casting some pretty big stones over the institution as a whole, so much so that the good ones like me seem to be more of an exception than a rule. Given my own much greater experience in this field, I'd say the ones you characterize as the bad eggs are the exception, not the rule. 

 

Sorry if I come off as rather caustic. I'm not casting you in the light of bad police, but I do disagree with your assessment that we're mostly 'a bunch of stupid jackasses who hurt themselves making sandwiches'. And you'll understand that despite my very liberal belief system, I'm rather loyal to my brothers and sisters in arms. 

 

As for patriotism and nationalism, if you don't want to see a meaningful distinction, then that of course is on you. There is one, and it is, by definition a rather marked distinction. And if you really think there's something wrong with taking pride in your homeland, home culture, home values, and countrymen in support of their achievements, then I'd say you were the one with a problem.

Don't know what gave you the impression I think the police are worth a **** either and or that I am one.  Probably bad wording somewhere in my ramble.  Sorry if that was the case.  I work third shift alone in a gas station in the less than desirable part of my town.  Interestingly the police and I know most of the same people professionally and if one of us is getting overwhelmed with the dumb then the other likely is that night as well.  I mainly subdue them with folk music rather than questionable applications of lethal force. 

As for dipshit ratio's I'd say roughly a third of the military or ex military I've met have fit in the good egg pile.  Have more direct exposure to them in large groups I wouldn't be surprised if your ratio's different.  It's also entirely possible that I'm mainly interacting with the cast offs rather than those in good standing.  Still a bad ratio.  Unfortunately many of these same people are ones I knew before and after their service.

By all means lay the fundamental difference out for me on the nationalism/patriotism thing if you've got strong feelings on it.  I may or may not agree but it always worth hearing a different opinion.

The disaproval of other people unearned pride you can likely just chalk up to me being a cynical grumpy SOB.  Cheerfully cynical and grumpy mind you.  That's probably not subject not change from debate sadly.  Or to quote Jethro Tull as this pretty much sums up my stance. 

 

"how do you dare tell me that I'm my Father's son
when that was just an accident of Birth.
I'd rather look around me -- compose a better song
`cos that's the honest measure of my worth."

 

[God]

Don't know what gave you the impression I think the police are worth a **** either and or that I am one.  Probably bad wording somewhere in my ramble.  Sorry if that was the case.  I work third shift alone in a gas station in the less than desirable part of my town.  Interestingly the police and I know most of the same people professionally and if one of us is getting overwhelmed with the dumb then the other likely is that night as well.  I mainly subdue them with folk music rather than questionable applications of lethal force. 

As for dipshit ratio's I'd say roughly a third of the military or ex military I've met have fit in the good egg pile.  Have more direct exposure to them in large groups I wouldn't be surprised if your ratio's different.  It's also entirely possible that I'm mainly interacting with the cast offs rather than those in good standing.  Still a bad ratio.  Unfortunately many of these same people are ones I knew before and after their service.

By all means lay the fundamental difference out for me on the nationalism/patriotism thing if you've got strong feelings on it.  I may or may not agree but it always worth hearing a different opinion.

The disaproval of other people unearned pride you can likely just chalk up to me being a cynical grumpy SOB.  Cheerfully cynical and grumpy mind you.  That's probably not subject not change from debate sadly.  Or to quote Jethro Tull as this pretty much sums up my stance. 

 

"how do you dare tell me that I'm my Father's son
when that was just an accident of Birth.
I'd rather look around me -- compose a better song
`cos that's the honest measure of my worth."

 

 

Well, you've certainly mollified a lot of my anger towards you personally. For that, I'm sorry. I thought for a moment you were going to be one of *those* cops that comes off as thinking the military is little more than a 4 to 6 year camp for undesirables to learn how to kill people. You know, the ones that think one cop is worth ten Soldiers or Marines. 

 

For the guys who don't come off too great from their service, I might say that, as you admit, are in a location that is less than reputable. You're much more likely to get the guys who don't get anything out of their service than most. 

 

The primary difference, looking at your view in an entirely different context, is that one seeks to primarily express pride and support in one's upbringing and background community/culture. Agree with it or not, you're largely a product of some kind of environment that had some kind of effect on you growing up. Perhaps you came to accept and hold certain values and traditions of your local culture, such as enjoyment of a certain sport and support for the home team, who are considered some of your best and brightest. It sounds to me like you're valuing extreme individualism, to a level perhaps reminiscent of Randian objectivism when it comes to individuality. People aren't necessarily like that. Supporting a team is often expressing pride in a community or shared background with someone. This is largely what the concept of patriotism is based off of. You love, enjoy, and support your own original community and background. Nationalism is when you take that and proclaim that you are superior to other cultures and systems by virtue of whatever you choose to justify that belief with. They're the ones who think that they're more exceptional and better to everyone else, and that they have more of a right to exist than others. Those are the kinds of people you see with fundamentalist christians, ultra-right wingers, and general libertarians who hold that they are right because they value individual freedom as the highest expression.

[KotorEffect3]

To be fair here I'd best state my biases up front. I'm not particularly fond of the military and the type of mindset it seems to encourage, religious folk and poetry. I absolutely despise xenophobes, nationalists and people who lack the capacity for self reflection. Also just people in general and certain types of beetles.

So yeah I used to spare Kaidan on the basis of not being able to nuke both and him mearly being boring as opposed being everything I don't like in one person.

However in 3 he really came into his own while I now wish I could send Vega back and nuke him instead.

I'm just now starting a ME2 play through with Ash alive though just to see how that plays out in 3. From what I'm hearing she's been done dirty and that seems questionable after the much more literal character assassination she normally gets from me.

Edit: Also she kinda has the Innsmouth look about her. Which isn't a deal breaker but ain't exactly helping her case.

So you are playing a role playing series in which you are a part of the military in two of the three games.  lol

 

I am not giving you crap about it mind you,  I just find it ironic.

[Cette]

So you are playing a role playing series in which you are a part of the military in two of the three games.  lol

 

I am not giving you crap about it mind you,  I just find it ironic.

Lets just put it it this way.  If I was only willing to intake quality science fiction that doesn't heavily involve a military presence then I'd be hard up for options.  That goes double for games where the primary method of conflict resolution is violence.

I run my ship as informally as possible and hope no one salutes me when it comes to that.

[KotorEffect3]

Lets just put it it this way.  If I was only willing to intake quality science fiction that doesn't heavily involve a military presence then I'd be hard up for options.  That goes double for games where the primary method of conflict resolution is violence.

I run my ship as informally as possible and hope no one salutes me when it comes to that.

 

 

Fair enough.

[shepskisaac]

Yeah, I do actually like this scene, as it implies that the VS wasn't so easily let off the hook. I wish you could be a little bit more scathing and dismissive of them, but oh well. 

You can be dismissive of them well enough, full with denying them return to squad. Compare that to forced friendship and acceptance of squadmates like Tali & Garrus

[God]

You can be dismissive of them well enough, full with denying them return to squad. Compare that to forced friendship and acceptance of squadmates like Tali & Garrus

 

I disagree. You really can't be bitter enough in my opinion. Each variation of the refusal to allow them to return is more or less a stock 'Your talents would be better somewhere else.'

 

You don't really get the chance to call them out after a while and be more antagonistic to them on that note. 

[nos_astra]

I disagree. You really can't be bitter enough in my opinion. Each variation of the refusal to allow them to return is more or less a stock 'Your talents would be better somewhere else.'

 

You don't really get the chance to call them out after a while and be more antagonistic to them on that note. 

Call them out ... on what exactly?

[DanishGambit]

Idunno... They seemed to change how outgoing they were in 1 and 3. In ME1 Ash gave you her life story but in 3 she just had a few short moments. In ME1 Kaiden kept to himself but in 3 he probably told Shepard things he doesn't tell most people. 

[God]

Call them out ... on what exactly?

 

Attitudes, disloyalty, opinions, ignorance, lack of ability to listen or hear me out or look at my perspective. Mostly Ashley.

 

Technically speaking, I guess I shouldn't say 'calling them out', but I think it could have been a much more negative good-bye, as well as explaining why they were no longer welcome among the ship and its crew.

[shepskisaac]

I disagree. You really can't be bitter enough in my opinion. Each variation of the refusal to allow them to return is more or less a stock 'Your talents would be better somewhere else.'

 

You don't really get the chance to call them out after a while and be more antagonistic to them on that note. 

And where's ANY variation to refuse Tali/Garuss on my ship?

[God]

And where's ANY variation to refuse Tali/Garuss on my ship?

 

Well, you can get them killed in ME2. And you can have Tali die in ME3. And you can refuse Garrus in ME1.

 

I agree though; the interactions with the 'power trio', so to speak (Liara, Garrus, and Tali) are predominantly meant to focus on being good. They're the ones who are supposed to be Shepard's 'true friends'.

 

Which I disagree with.

[themikefest]

Its surprising there was no option to not allow Garrus on the Normandy after finding Victus. The only way is to have him die in ME2, and the same with Tali

[New Kid]

I like both, I rotate which one survives every time. I agree with what an earlier poster said about Ashley being too obvious about Cerberus though.

[Ice Cold J]

Yeah... it bummed me out how about 15% of Ash's interactions in ME3 deals with her drinking or doing college-kid stuff.

[God]

Yeah... it bummed me out how about 15% of Ash's interactions in ME3 deals with her drinking or doing college-kid stuff.

 

They don't even have her drink realistically or tastefully. 

 

Bro, do you even Laphroaig?

[KotorEffect3]

I like both, I rotate which one survives every time. I agree with what an earlier poster said about Ashley being too obvious about Cerberus though.

I also tend to rotate them myself so I have never really had any favoritism when it comes to the Virmire decision alot of that is just based on the particular Shepard I am playing.  That said I feel like there is more of a payoff in ME 3 if Kaidan is saved.  He just seems to have better content in ME 3.

[Grandillusion]

After a couple play thrus with kaidan, I have taken a liking to Assley. So she is alive as I head into ME3 again. I like both of them really.