Frank

Main.

My first impression is HELL TO THE FUCK YES

The first think you see in the menu is a person with a machine gun wearing a red bandana and standing next to a bunch of Red/Black posters with cog wheels and labor slogans on them. 10/10 and I haven't even started the game yet.

Figured I'd pass it on.

Getting bahn mi as the most bodega bodega. Also, i would like to present the following; bodengist

I don't have anything else to post but i've already read the entire internet today and i'm bored to tears.

Came across this while I was looking for the MDC version. I wasn't able to get a working Invidious link for some reason. Look up the Haluci Nation, formerly A Tribe Called Red. Real cool.

I don't understand the appeal of a revisionist history that absolves the SPD of paving the way for Hitler. Doubly so a revisionist history that somehow, after all the sacrifices and all the horror, pretends that the Nazis could have been defeated with electoral politics.

The very basic premise just sounds like a revisionist re-writing of history to pretend the SPD didn't have a critical role in destroying the "Good Future". It promulgates the idea that fascism can be defeated with liberal electoral BS in what was, historically, the most stern rebuke of liberal democracy in history. I don't get it. Who is this for?

NOTE The guys I did not respond to; https://libreddit.kavin.rocks/r/fallacy/comments/mq7a6s/about_the_theremian_argument/

Bro is saying "Uhh, The witcher is either racist because it depicts racism, or it's not racist because there were no black people in fantasy poland" which is just the most example of how chuds have no idea what is actually being critiqued when people talk about racism and represenation in media. rant follows;

The Witcher isn't racist because the author uses the story to explore racism as a system of violence and a hierarchy of power. Geralt, himself a minority subject to bigotry and violence from a hateful majority, stands in for the player as he encounters numerous people; Squirrels, dwarves, various "monsters" who are subject to the systemic violence of a fearful and ignorant majority.

Geralt himself has strong ideals that demonstrate his awareness of racism as a concept and his refusal of it; He won't hunt anyone who is intelligent without a good reason. A fat purse and fearful peasants aren't sufficient for him to turn his sword against a person whose only crime is being different.

The Witcher provides an example of a story where the author does not hide behind the Thermian Argument.

Likewise, the Elder Scrolls has always critically engaged with racism and imperialism. It's never hidden behind "the lore" or "That's what the characters would do".

Dunmer culture was notorious xenophobic, insular, and contemptuous of other peoples. Even after the armistice some Dunmer continued to enslave Betmer, and the non-Dunmer residents of Morrowind were treated with contempt. Even Dunmer born outside of Morrowind were considered outsiders and not true Dunmer.

And the story critically engages with this. It openly questions where Hlalu's enthusiasm towards emancipation is based on any principles, or simply a desire to take advantage of integration in to the Septim Empire. The Redoran grudgingly go along with the Hlalu king, not out of any concern or compassion for enslaved people, but because they view their loyalty to the King as more important than adherence to custom, but only barely. Dres continue to raid for slaves an employ slave labor.

Meanwhile, the Twin Lamps organization is clandestinely fighting against the remaining slaver holdouts.

The story doesn't say "There's slavery because that's just how things are in the story". It creates a complex interplay of different factions with different beliefs and attitudes towards slavery. Some oppose slavery for utilitarian reasons, others out of principle. Slavery is officially illegal, but Dres slavery is ignored and no one is stupid enough to anger the Telvanni by interrupting their studies to tell them they have to free their slaves.

This continues in all subsequent entries. The Knights of the Nine is premised on the return of an genocidal Ayleidoon demigod seeking revenge for the crimes of the ancient Alysseian Empire. The story is very clear that Umaril the Unfeathered is a total monster, a murderous bastard. But at the same time, the player has to mantle Pelinel Whitestrake to defeat Umaril. And when you learn about Pelinel you find out that he was an equally monstrous genocidal maniac (and an unstoppable war-cyborg from the distant future but that's more of a /r/teslore thing). And, to further complicate things, extent history books in the game tell that while Umaril and Peninel represent absolutist genocidal extremes, the reality of the Nedic revolt against the Ayleids was much more complicated, with Ayelids and Nedes alike changing allegiances for both utilitarian and moral reasons. The conflict between the Ayleids and the Nedes is not presented as an inevitable clash of civilizations or a fascist race war, but rather a violent political struggle where individual people and factions chose their sides for political and moral reasons rather than race essentialism.

Moving on to Skyrim, the story depicts the brutal aftermath of the Red Year. Many Dunmer are forced in to exile in Skyrim by the cataclysmic destruction of Vvardenfell. They find shelter with their historic racial enemies, the Nords. And not just any Nords, but with Ulfric's Nord Supremacist Stormcloaks. The Stormcloaks are willing to extend refuge to the Dunmer in their time of extreme need. But they're still racist; They hold great prejudice against the Dunmer and largely confine them to ghettos. Their position reveals the complexity of racism and humanity; They maintain their bigotry, but their specific system of racism does not extend to exterminating or enslaving an ethnic group they hate. The Dunmer are treated as second class citizens, but the Stormcloaks aren't Nazis or even Americans. They're a complex, real society, and their contradictory stance on the Dunmer reflects the often contradictory and complex nature of systems of racism in real life. The Stormcloaks aren't just racist because of the story says so, they offer an exploration of the complexities of racism, of the status of refugees, of ethnonationalist movements.

Likewise, we've got the Thalmor. The nearest direct real world equivalent of the Thamlor would be genocidal ethnonationalists if they also wanted to unmake reality and plunge everything and everyone back in to primordial chaos. The Thalmor represent an extremely powerful mythofascist nation that claims to be a unified Merish ethnostate. But TES doesn't just reduce this to a race war, nor does it indulge in race essentialism. The Thalmor in no way represent all Mer, or even all Altmer. Their claim to racial unity is bogus. They display open bigotry towards Mer they consider "lesser". They're opposed by Men and Mer of all types, demonstrating that ethnonationalism is always built on shallow myths that aren't reflective of actual people.

And all of this is placed in contrast with the Mede Empire. The Mede Empire is a failing quasi-imperial state. The sad remnent of the once might Septim Empire, the Mede Empire is struggling to maintain control and legitimacy in the face of a disastrous military and mythopoeic defeat by the Thalmor. The Empire engage in imperialism and colonialism, but it is also a multi-ethnic and egalitarian state that rejects both racism and slavery as counter to it's goals of a united Tamriel. nontheless, it uses war and military occupation to achieve it's goals. In telling this story TES engages with the contradictory beliefs and actions of real-world Western imperialism; The Stormcloaks are bigoted ethnonationalists, but their national struggle to be free of an imperialist state has merit. The imperialist state opposes bigotry and slavery, but uses violence to impose it's will on others. The Thalmor are an openly and brutallity ethnonationalist state that engages in both ruthless imperialism and bigotry, and has the secret goal of killing everyone in the world and then killing the world. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? The Stormcloaks and Imperials are shown to be complex groups with justifiable goals and serious flaws. They're each contrasted with the Thalmor that represent an existential threat; The presence of the Thalmor motivates the Empire to invade Skyrim to retain control and prevent what is left of the Empire from fragmenting. The Stormcloaks desire for national liberation is justified in the face of Imperial occupation. The Thalmor are secretly manipulating the Stormcloaks in a plot to weaken the Empire.

None of this is shallowly justified by saying "that's just how the story is". The TES writers built a complex world of competing factions with competing goals. They created a war of brother against brother, of scheming nobility and shifting alliances, where two powerful factions are each fighting to achieve goals that cannot simply be dismissed as wrong or evil. The story does not give the player the luxury of picking a good guy and a bad guy. Whatever side of the conflict they choose to support there will be world shaking consequences where some will gain and others will suffer. And, further complicating matters, it seems that no matter what action the player takes or how the civil war in Skyrim ends, the greater scope villain of the Thalmor will be strengthened.

None of this is reductive "It's just this way because that's how the story is". All of these plotlines are structured not just to be consistent within the story, but also to investigate the nature of racism, power, violence, and empire. The Elder Scrolls is worthy of serious critique and consideration because it's stories are intended to give the player a space to explore, challenge, and justify their personal beliefs.

The storytellers openly invite the player to question and critique their story. They've created a space where important questions can be asked and wisdom can be nurtured. There's no need to say "That's just what happens in teh story" because they have consciously and deliberately refused the Thermian Argument. They're well aware that all stories are stories about ourselves, about humanity, about what we believe and why we believe it. They know that the story reflects the nature of the storyteller and the culture of which they are apart. They know that no one exists outside culture, and that no story exists alone, outside of history or culture and immune to critique.

That is why both The Witcher and TES are stories that engage with, discuss, and challenge racism.

I am once again calling for a Butlerian Jihad

Main

Seriously though no I've had it for a bit but I just loaded it up. Seems neat but I haven't gotten very far.

Stalin should not have agreed to spare the Nazi officer corps to appease Churchill /post

Wondering about this. Like "putin schill" gets thrown around so lightly, and what's being said is "you're not even wrong, you're just a brainwashed puppet making puppet noises at the behest of your sinister masters".

Like the libs don't even see it as an argument, it's just evil magic orc speech or something. Whatever we're saying is wrong because putin is making us say it, somehow

Thinking about how it ties in to ignorance or denial of various atrocities. Like " hey, Joe did this horrible thing" and getting back "no he didn't, and that didn't happen, and if it did you only think it's bad because putin mind controlled you" kind of thing.

Some folks were watching Colbert talk about the student debt crisis and I asked if Colbert mentioned that it was all Joe's fault. Joe championed the 2005 bill that made discharging student debts in bankruptcy illegal, which escalated the already dire tuition problems and created the student debt crisis.

To me, there's a pretty straight lne of causality there; joe does something horrible and then a few years later there is a massive predictable disaster.

Since Joe championed the bill and worked hard to make it happen, since he holds great political power, he's personally responsible for the student debt crisis. He is answerable, as an individual, for what happened.

The folks were like "nah, it's not joe's fault, it'd been happening since blah blah blah Reagan state colleges".

I don't really understand how people assign guilt and fault and responsibilty. For me - person with power does or supports bad thing, so they are at fault and can be made to answer for what happened. But lots of people get cross with me for treating Biden the same way i'd treat someone who reduced millions of people to debt peonage or murdered hundreds of thousands of people or whatever. Like kill one person you're a monster, but at some point ordering the murder of vast numbers of people creates no moral stain?

This all came to mind, really, bc I saw a picture of Jenny McCarthy. McCarthy going on Oprah to peddle anti-vax bullshit bc she hated her son is, afaik, where anti-vax really broke in to the main-stream. And the direct result is i have acne from wearing a mask to avoid long covid. McCarthy and Winfrey, as much as any two individuals can, hold responsibility for bringing that about by bringing McCarthy's anti-science hatred of autistic people and the related anti-vax bs to a vast audience. Someone else could have done it, it might have happened without them, but Winfrey did use her massive platform to throw open the gates of hell, so she's responsible.

It's always seemed pretty clear cut to me. You do a thing, what happens next, forseeable or not, is your fault and responsibiliy. You give an order and you are morally culpable for what your minions do next, regardless of whether they did what you intended. You assume an office and you're responsible, personally, for every single thing done in the name and on the authority of that office. That's just how power works. If you wield it then you did it, then it's your fault, even if you directed someone else's hand to wield the knife.