Auld Wulf wrote...
For me it still comes down to intellectuality and ethics versus primal animal fear.
Are the Reapers mind-controlled slaves? According to the Catalyst, absolutely so. They are unable to even think in any way that the Catalyst would find undesirable. They are "slaves" in the most profound meaning of the word, as they literally have no will of their own. They are but very clever puppets, whose minds are never allowed to realise their own sapience.
Does a mind-controlled slave deserve to be punished for being controlled? Ethically, no. It would be unethical to blame someone for what they did when they had a gun to their head (that changes everything, no matter who you think you are). It's even more unethical to blame someone who's being controlled to a degree far greater than that, to a degree that has almost unimaginable subtlety.
Am I afraid of the Reapers? I have to make this irrelevant, I have to look at things according to logic and ethics, and I have to make a decision based upon that. To listen to one's fear to the point of wanting to kill a creature for a crime it didn't commit? Down that road lies madness -- as an ethical, intelligent creature myself, I understand the nuances involved. Anything one might feel towards the Reapers should be aimed instead to the Leviathans, who created the Catalyst in the first place.
It's funny how this has real world parallels, really. Often you'll have people who're responsible for being unethical who'll try and create a construct to make themselves look better. And Nightwriter provides a fine example of that.
Nightwriter wrote...
People seem drawn to defend things they see as "misunderstood" in general. If something is vilified or disliked there will inevitably be a group of white knights that rise up in defense of it for no other reason than that doing so creates adrenaline heavy debate and also gives them the feeling of being in a small enlightened group that challenges popular opinion. For a long time, it was popular to dislike the endings, and it was popular to see the Reapers as enemies despite Starsquirt's revelations.
I can only take from this that Nightwriter is afraid of us. By "us," I mean those who have a sympathetic view of the Reapres and those who dislike the "abomination aesthetic." And why afraid? Because I've clearly presented a rational argument as to why the Reapers can engender basic human sympathy, but instead he calls it reasonless. I think this stems from something deeper, his own inability to sympathise, which he's drawing attention away from. Ethics and sympathy are cornerstones of the civilised mind, something that everyone should have.
So this reflects negatively on him, rather than anyone else. He hasn't told us why he's unable to sympathise, or why he finds the Reapers unsympthatic. That's because I'm not certain he has a reason, because if he did, he would have told us. And this is what he's trying to distract us away from.
Nightwriter wrote...
Add to that the fact that it's clear the writers wanted you to think you'd misunderstood the Reapers, and people not only feel that they are righteously challenging popular opinion by defending them, they feel as if they are among the few who truly "get" what the writers were trying to say.
All that and he doesn't tell us why we think the way we do, it's a statement but not an explanation, which peels back the veneer of a position to reveal the aforementioned underlying fear -- that we do get something he doesn't. Again, the things we tend to "get" aren't anything he's brought to the fore, but rather ethics and sympathy. He has a more simplistic outlook, he sees only the Reapers and what they do, but he's unable to realise how the Reapers were victimised by the Catalyst. What the Catalyst did was full mind and body rape, and you can't react the way he does just because you find the rape victim repugnant.
So, ultimately, the fear is one of being revealed as a person with a more unethical mindset. There are distraction tactics on offer, but no real arguments.
Nightwriter wrote...
I say this in regard to people who seem to champion the Reapers zealously, though. We must acknowledge the existence of those who defend the Reapers for clear reasons that aren't based in social pathology.
This is a further example of fear, a self-contradictory olive leaf offered in the hopes it would make his position seem more solid. But instead all it does is point out that those defending the Reapers actually do have very valid reasons for doing so, and reasons that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the claims he's made. This is summed up as: "I want to broadly demonise everyone who disagrees with me, but I don't want to say that this applies to evereyone who disagrees with me."
It's clear from this last point that, indeed, he fully recognises that those who sympathise with the Reapers have valid, logical, emotionally mature, and ethical reasons for doing so. That they can sympathise. He's just lashing out because of his own inability to sympathise, but doubting himself at the same time.
If you can sympathise and you're of an ethical state of mind, it's hard not to understand the point of view I presented in opnening this post. Why would someone sympathise with the Reapers? Well, why would someone sympathise with a rape victim?
The answer's not hard to figure out.
I once read a book with simple instructions on how to build a cult according to the gimmicks of sixteenth and seventeenth century European charlatanism. One of the steps that stuck with me most was "Set Up an Us vs. Them Dynamic." The book advised the aspiring charlatan to create a dramatic and devious enemy that would do anything to stop the faithful. This enemy would inflame the passions of the cultists, and any potential skeptic or challenger to the cult could then be accused of being the enemy or in league with him.
Your whole point-at-the-blackboard "look at the unbeliever's lies, class" arguing style, aside from being three kinds of creepy, also strikes me as being pretty similar to this tactic. You talk at length about how I am practicing deception or distraction in order to lead good minds astray from the light of truth. You suggest that those who disagree with you are simply afraid of your enlightenment/righteousness/etc, much as some people claim the devil is so nasty and deceitful because he secretly knows God is stronger than him. Accusing me of being possessed by a demon probably wouldn't fly so well in modern times, but ad hominem and accusations of personality deficiency serve the same purpose, and you make use of these.
The underlying principle is the same: inflame the emotional over the intellectual. This is all pretty much part of the behavior I was talking about. And it's also the behavior that separates you from your more reasonable counterparts, who are able to argue their points without saying "YOU JUST FEAR MY GREATNESS!", without claiming a mastery of reason or ethics that allows them to pass off their opinion as an objective authority, and without attempting to attack the opponent through psychoanalysis.
A rational person's response to my post would probably have been to say it pinpointed a type of behavior that didn't apply to them. I am not certain why someone reasonable would feel so assailed by criticism of the fanatic, especially considering that my post doesn't really say anything about Reaper sympathizers that couldn't also be said about IT extremists or uber-Destroyers. Trying too hard to be offended is kind of another red flag.
Auld Wulf wrote...
Nightwriter wrote...
I say this in regard to people who seem to champion the Reapers zealously, though. We must acknowledge the existence of those who defend the Reapers for clear reasons that aren't based in social pathology.
This is a further example of fear, a self-contradictory olive leaf offered in the hopes it would make his position seem more solid.
Hey, you caught me: I wanted to acknowledge a known psychological phenomenon while also acknowledging that not everyone has it. Totally forgot that it's self-contradictory to observe two truths at once. Either everyone is a zealot or no one is, THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN. Reasonableness is FEAR and moderation is for FOOLS. The sky is blue and the grass is green -- that is a PARADOX.
Auld Wulf wrote...
He's just lashing out because of his own inability to sympathise, but doubting himself at the same time.
Indeed, my great handicap is that I can only sympathize with things that are sympathetic. I struggle with this curse day by day and it weighs on me deeply until sometimes I cry and wonder what's wrong with my soul. Why don't I care about the wellbeing of Charles Manson or cancer cells or Cersei Lannister? Why was I born a monster?
jk jk jk jk all right I've got all my sarcasm out for today, it builds up you know.
Srsly tho, there was nothing in my post that said much about my personal feelings toward the Reapers one way or another. To be at fault for failing to explain my opinion I need to assert one first. I can still do that if you are truly interested but it wasn't what my original post was about.
Also I have met rape victims and here is a list of things they did not say to me:
"YOU EXIST BECAUSE I ALLOW IT, AND YOU WILL END BECAUSE I DEMAND IT."
"YOU WILL KNOW PAIN."
"THIS BODY DOES NOT MATTER."
"I AM THE HARBINGER OF YOUR PERFECTION."
"THIS HURTS YOU."
"RUDIMENTARY CREATURE OF BLOOD AND FLESH, YOU TOUCH MY MIND, FUMBLING IN IGNORANCE."
"YOU ARE BACTERIA."
"WE ARE SUPERIOR."
"YOUR WORLDS WILL BECOME OUR LABORATORIES."
<3
Modifié par Nightwriter, 12 mai 2013 - 12:23 .
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
