Moash, and the fans who hate him

[+Oltux72]

21 hours ago, therunner said:

I again disagree with that. Yes, if there is uprising army will be called out, but I don't think that means that government is fundamentally violence. Government can certainly use violence to impose its will, but it is not the only tool at its disposal. (this depends on how broadly do you interpret violence).

It must use violence. It is not the only tool, but it is an essential tool. There is no point in mandating what everybody would do anyway. Now, if you see that then you will see that people have diverging interests. So as soon as somebody acts on them in a way breaking the rules, you will have to deal with them.

21 hours ago, therunner said:

Ideally government should be consensual contract, you divest yourself of some power (i.e. to kill whomever you like, to steal, to start your own government) in exchange for some benefits (protection from actions of other people, use of public goods like roads, etc.).

People never all agree on anything. In fact we consider that unhealthy. And then you need a way to compel the dissenters or you get anarchy.

21 hours ago, therunner said:

In Alethar the nobility should protect their people from bandits, or other nations for example, and guarantee some help in case of natural disasters. In exchange, people can be recruited to army and give part of their harvest/goods/money to their lord. The system has some issues (light/dark eyes divide, limited social mobility, slavery), but it still afford people some measure of justice and protection

Yes, and what do you do if somebody then does not go fight? And if you do not execute him, what will you say to those whose sons went and never came back? And there you have the collapse of the Alethi system of government.

[Frustration]

28 minutes ago, Jash said:

Murder has reasoning behind it. It treats the person murdered as human

Uhm, no, no it doesn't

16 minutes ago, Jash said:

There is no such thing as a "truly good person". How society shapes us is how we know what is right or wrong. People can make moral judgements about their society by learning a different set of what is right or wrong, but...no, no one can truly be said to be absolutely and perfectly just/morally superior to others. That isn't existing. My hero, Martin Luther King, Jr. was an amazing, spectacular person, who stood against injustice. However, he was not perfect. No one is. Importantly, no one should have to be held to that standard to be called good. Stand for what is right. You mean, like standing against Parshman enslavement. Please point me to the part where people stood against that. I'd like to go ahead and see it. That would, after all, be what a "truly good" person would do right? Oh, how abut standing against slavery as a general rule. Please point to the part of the book where any alethi light eyes does that? I'd like to see that section of the book. It would make me feel so much better to know how good everyone was. Or, perhaps, are people all complex, and there is no such thing as a truly good person. 

Would you actually like me to break it down and adress this? Or are you just mocking me, because it deffinetly seems like the latter.

16 minutes ago, Jash said:

Ah yes, what fiction is famous for...not dealing with social issues or politcs...wait.....wait a second, are you saying TSA has a ton of politics and a lot of discussion of society and social issues in it? Wait, it does doesn't it. Already. Oh, and discussions on race and oppression aren't "politics", they are something that "a truely good person would stand for", you know...standing against injustice in society is a great example of something a truly good person should do (I quoted you by the way), so I do hope we get to see some truly good people fighting against injustice in our book.
In character as a light eyes : Sure as heck wouldn't want discussions on slavery to get in the way of our fashion magazines or what kind of wines will we enjoy in our storm shelters, ah good chum? 
For someone who seems set on what truly good people should or should not do, you are awfully callous about discussions on inequality or injustice in society. I personally think a truly good person would care about those things, and not dismiss them as politics. Just my opinion though. Yes, I repeated myself here, I couldn't quite get exactly what I said right. I didn't want to insult you or attack you, merely apply the same logic you had toward Moash and people like Moash toward people in power, and with the ability to ignore injustices becasuse they don't effect them. I would go ahead, and say the reason Moash is so angry, has a lot to do with a similar attitude among Alethi light eyes toward the injustice he experiences.

You say you don't mean to insult me, after writing one of the most sarcastic paragraphs I've seen in a good while?

Uh huh.

Can I just say I would like a couple of things to not eternally devolve into just politics? just a few?

And yes this is politics, don't try to spin it another way, this isn't about dealing with inequality this is you promoting your opinions.

Tell me something, what is the core of fantasy? why does it appeal to people?

Escapism, pure and simple, we want out of reality, if you want to deal with the real world go read non-fiction.

I have no problem discussing equality, and how people are individuals not members of groups, but not here, this is where I talk about SA and the various things going on there, if you want to discuss Alethi polotics, or Rosharan injustice, without trying to make it an allegory fro the real world then I'm more than willing to have that discussion.

If you want to have a discussion about politics go somewhere else, if you want to speak about politics here, be ready for me to speak my mind back.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Frustration

[therunner]

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

He did have a problem with it, he does say to himself that they were supposed to be better.

Moash only had issue with Singers enslaving other Singers, he did not have issue with them enslaving humans.

 

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

I agree, he could've gone to Dalinar. I'd still be a bit iffy about it because that still shows his lack of agency within the system due to not being established and sheer power gap.

It would have been a bit unpleasant due to systemic racism and his past as darkeyes, but it was still an option. There are power gaps even in our world, but that would not entitle me to kill someone just because reaching them through systemic measures is difficult. And again, Moash completely ignores Roshone in favor of Elhokar when it comes to his grandparents deaths, and Roshone would have been easily reachable for him even through legal means.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

That's an interesting way to look at it. How does Vorinism and it's dogma of "the fallen Radiants" fit into it, in your opinion then?

Heh, good point

At some point the eye color stopped being associated with Knights Radiant, I think? Kaladin did not expect to get lighteyes when he got Syl blade (but he feared it), suggesting that currently people no longer know the link between eye color and Radiants.

So Knights Radiants helped kickstart the system, and after Recreance the eyecolor slowly stopped being associated with Radiants and was only associated with nobility/positions of power. After recreance the Vorin church underwent reformations that saw Radiants falling out of favor (due to their perceived betrayal), but light eyes as favor of Almighty remained.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

The social mobility wasn't really much. How would one hope to defeat a Shardbearer? How would a Darkeyes hope to contest a Lighteyes that they were the one who claimed the Shards within that twisted power structure? It is all still very problematic because of the social strata, people's birth decide their station. I think you're seeing this as more meritocratic than it really is. It's just propaganda and false hope.

Again, good point. The shardblade as a method of social mobility would have mostly been a false hope, but amassing wealth would have been a viable way to achieve power de facto, if not de jure.

It is definitely problematic, I don't dispute that.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

Yeah, they were in prison without trial... that's a problem. Even our older cultures often showed more leniency to people accused of crimes if they had severe physical problems instead of throwing them into a dungeon.

Detention awaiting trial is not that unusual, even today. They should have been taken care of better, that is true, but we don't know the exact manner of their deaths so it is difficult to say how much was mistreatment and how much was old age + stress. Also we don't know if they had severe physical problems.

Again, I agree that what happened to them is definitely horrible and unjust, but I don't think it should carry a death penalty.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

And racism against Darkeyes still exists. Distrust against oppressors or people who have power over you isn't a sign of bad character, it's just common sense. And Kaladin did give them all a second chance and reflect on his reactions to them. This is problematic because we don't have a single scene of any of the many, many Lighteyed cast/caste members reflect on their inherent racism. Dalinar and Shallan have problematic reactions, and the readers are meant to notice it, but the characters themselves do not ever reflect on it. The fact that Kaladin was a freed slave is just completely glossed over. Why introduce this systemic racism in the narrative and tie so much of the first book and Kaladin's character arc around it, only to do nothing with it. It feels like invalidating all the discourse about inequality that the book itself raised.

I never said racism against Darkeyes does not exist, I just said that Kaladin was also racist against light eyes. He started giving them a chance only after being proded by Syl. And being prejudiced against someone solely based on their physical characteristic is a sign of bad character in my book. Does it make sense considering his trauma? Yes, but if he did nothing about it I would think less of Kaladin.

While Dalinar does not think about it much, he does elevate dark eyed slave into position that would normally come to light eyes of sixth dahn at least. That does not excuse his other actions or behaviors obviously, but he does seem to question at least somethings.

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

It isn't about a Lighteyes being good or bad. It's about someone being put into a position where their only available option is relying on their continued goodwill. That is a very demeaning position to be put into, to put it very lightly.

Being put in demeaning position does not justify murder. Moash was at that point high in social hierarchy (and Elhokar had no power over that social standing), had material wealth  and had other options to try and seek justice first.

1 hour ago, Jash said:

This is by far my biggest problem with what you said. What? Who has protected the Singers, at any point in these books? Kaladin. Moash. that's it. If your logic is, everyone who is okay with other people enslaving people, then indeed, every single light eyes in Roshar is bad. If every person who doesn't help singers in addition to humans is bad, then literally everyone except Kaladin in our entire book is bad. You are just being tribalistic with this sentence. Like come on yo. He chose the Singers over humans. He has the same logic as you, I guess, just he chose a different side.  Why does he have to help everyone? No one else does? No one else is given this same standard. Tell me about all those times Dalinar or Adolin stopped Sadeas or other bright lords from having slaves (other than when they directly knew those slaves and those slaves helped them live). Tell me about all those times Shallan stopped and helped every Parshman slave. Tell me about all those time that any single character in this entire series stood against the enslavement of Parshmen, storm, even Kaladin. Come on, that is a ridiculous standard to have. Ridiculous. If you give that standard to Moash, then apply it to everyone and realize apparantly, by your standard, except Kaladin in this story, flipping everyone isn't good enough. 

Yes people being okay with enslavement makes them morally worse, it is a mark against their character. Other actions and stances can count as marks for their character and then you need to balance all of it. Also dark eyes also use slaves, so they are also morally worse off on this.

In case of Moash he at that point internalized Singer racism against humans and was not bothered by enslavement of humans, i.e. he does not have problem with slavery per se, only what it happens to 'wrong' group. He chooses to step in to help slaves (good) but only because they are not humans (bad). Others who don't even try to help slaves are worse of in my view, at least along this particular moral line.

1 hour ago, Jash said:

Man, just when I think I'm done replying to you. .....Yo, this comparison is like saying "pull up your own bootstraps" to people of color in the States in the 1960's, and trust me MLK has a lot of quotes on that, if you'd like me to share them with you. Basically, it's ridiculous. You are just excusing inequality. Also, no, they don't. Just like rich black people in our own society still face racism, rich dark eyes will still experience racism in Alekhar,..that one was laughable..as obviously this society is more unjust than our own, and yet still people making an excuses for it. Another way up the social ladder lol. Societies shouldn't have social ladder yo. That is unjust. People having advantages from birth over other people because the color of their skin or eyes is....BAD. Do we need to pull up a elementary level textbook on why racism is bad here?

I...never said that racism is not bad? Nor did I say that inequality is okay? I just brought up points where I think eyesim in Vorin countries differs from real-life racism, because it does (you can't stop being some ethnicity just by getting particularly rare sword for example). And dark eyes can make good money by being traders, surgeons or craftsmen.

1 hour ago, Jash said:

Wowza. Woweeweewooo. Holy father of storms. Whew. Yeah, I don't know. This is shocking. I assumed most people reading these books would have at least some similarities about injustice to the author. Apparently not. How do I even begin? This is worse yo. This is worse. This is worse than murder. Improsining people without a trial and letting them die in jail ...is worse than murder. Murder has reasoning behind it. It treats the person murdered as human. This is callously treating human beings as animals...heck for me, not even animals, like weeds. to be plucked and disregarded. "It's not murder." Yes it is. I don't give a crap what Alethi or any other society has to say on this. It's murder. They were murdered. Maybe don't go try to justify someone murdering people. It's a bad look.

How is imprisonment worse than murder? Is death penalty preferable to imprisonment?

What happened to them was horrible, I never said it was not

1 hour ago, Jash said:

That's not racism. Racism involved systems of oppression. Kaladin is oppressed. He is from the an oppressed minority. He can't be racist. He can be prejudice, but not racist. A definition of racism for ya : prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. (take particular note of that last part) Oh, and of course he didn't want to be a light eyes. He didn't want to be one of the people who had so callously disregarded he and other dark eyes his entire life. Whew, there are so many problems with this, and I don't feel like diving into a lesson on systematic racism right now. So, I'm out on this topic. 

Notice the word 'typically' in that definition. Kaladin was racist and Kaladin can be racist, being part of minority does not change that. He was not particularly extreme in his views or his actions, but he did judge people based on their physical characteristic. Him being a minority means that his racism cannot effect others as it could had he had more power, he also cannot take part in systemic racism. But racism is not the same things as systemic racism.

Thought experiment: Take a neo-nazi, and then plant him in the middle of China let's say, does he stop being a racist just because he is now a minority?

37 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

It must use violence. It is not the only tool, but it is an essential tool. There is no point in mandating what everybody would do anyway. Now, if you see that then you will see that people have diverging interests. So as soon as somebody acts on them in a way breaking the rules, you will have to deal with them.

True, but at that point violence is not tool of government but a tool of any interactions of larger groups of people, government is not particularly special in that regard.

37 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

People never all agree on anything. In fact we consider that unhealthy. And then you need a way to compel the dissenters or you get anarchy.

True, but that compelling can be also through debate, discussion and education. Or enforced by social means, like ostracism.

37 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Yes, and what do you do if somebody then does not go fight? And if you do not execute him, what will you say to those whose sons went and never came back? And there you have the collapse of the Alethi system of government.

In that scenario, yes you would need to compel them. I do think that being able to recruit 'non-essentials' is wrong, and should be changed (professional armies tend to do better so it is also practical), but from what I remember that is not something that happens often and in fact people in Hearhstone were shocked that Amaram wanted to compel people to go to army.

Edited June 16, 2021 by therunner
removed oblique RoW reference

[Honorless]

32 minutes ago, therunner said:

Moash only had issue with Singers enslaving other Singers, he did not have issue with them enslaving humans.

That someone had time to change, Moash did not...yet at least. Maybe if we saw Moash in 10-20 years he would have time to grow into more nuanced character.

It would have been a bit unpleasant due to systemic racism and his past as darkeyes, but it was still an option. There are power gaps even in our world, but that would not entitle me to kill someone just because reaching them through systemic measures is difficult. And again, Moash completely ignores Roshone in favor of Elhokar when it comes to his grandparents deaths, and Roshone would have been easily reachable for him even through legal means.

Heh, good point

At some point the eye color stopped being associated with Knights Radiant, I think? Kaladin did not expect to get lighteyes when he got Syl blade (but he feared it), suggesting that currently people no longer know the link between eye color and Radiants.

So Knights Radiants helped kickstart the system, and after Recreance the eyecolor slowly stopped being associated with Radiants and was only associated with nobility/positions of power. After recreance the Vorin church underwent reformations that saw Radiants falling out of favor (due to their perceived betrayal), but light eyes as favor of Almighty remained.

Again, good point. The shardblade as a method of social mobility would have mostly been a false hope, but amassing wealth would have been a viable way to achieve power de facto, if not de jure.

It is definitely problematic, I don't dispute that.

Detention awaiting trial is not that unusual, even today. They should have been taken care of better, that is true, but we don't know the exact manner of their deaths so it is difficult to say how much was mistreatment and how much was old age + stress. Also we don't know if they had severe physical problems.

Again, I agree that what happened to them is definitely horrible and unjust, but I don't think it should carry a death penalty.

I never said racism against Darkeyes does not exist, I just said that Kaladin was also racist against light eyes. He started giving them a chance only after being proded by Syl. And being prejudiced against someone solely based on their physical characteristic is a sign of bad character in my book. Does it make sense considering his trauma? Yes, but if he did nothing about it I would think less of Kaladin.

While Dalinar does not think about it much, he does elevate dark eyed slave into position that would normally come to light eyes of sixth dahn at least. That does not excuse his other actions or behaviors obviously, but he does seem to question at least somethings.

Being put in demeaning position does not justify murder. Moash was at that point high in social hierarchy (and Elhokar had no power over that social standing), had material wealth and had other options to try and seek justice first.

Yes people being okay with enslavement makes them morally worse, it is a mark against their character. Other actions and stances can count as marks for their character and then you need to balance all of it. Also dark eyes also use slaves, so they are also morally worse off on this.

In case of Moash he at that point internalized Singer racism against humans and was not bothered by enslavement of humans, i.e. he does not have problem with slavery per se, only what it happens to 'wrong' group. He chooses to step in to help slaves (good) but only because they are not humans (bad). Others who don't even try to help slaves are worse of in my view, at least along this particular moral line.

I...never said that racism is not bad? Nor did I say that inequality is okay? I just brought up points where I think eyesim in Vorin countries differs from real-life racism, because it does (you can't stop being some ethnicity just by getting particularly rare sword for example). And dark eyes can make good money by being traders, surgeons or craftsmen.

How is imprisonment worse than murder? Is death penalty preferable to imprisonment?

What happened to them was horrible, I never said it was not

Notice the word 'typically' in that definition. Kaladin was racist and Kaladin can be racist, being part of minority does not change that. He was not particularly extreme in his views or his actions, but he did judge people based on their physical characteristic. Him being a minority means that his racism cannot effect others as it could had he had more power, he also cannot take part in systemic racism. But racism is not the same thing as systemic racism.

Thought experiment: Take a neo-nazi, and then plant him in the middle of China let's say, does he stop being a racist just because he is now a minority?

True, but at that point violence is not tool of government but a tool of any interactions of larger groups of people, government is not particularly special in that regard.

True, but that compelling can be also through debate, discussion and education. Or enforced by social means, like ostracism.

In that scenario, yes you would need to compel them. I do think that being able to recruit 'non-essentials' is wrong, and should be changed (professional armies tend to do better so it is also practical), but from what I remember that is not something that happens often and in fact people in Hearhstone were shocked that Amaram wanted to compel people to go to army.

We do see Moash's PoV during that point. He just saw some Darkeyes who were so used to the existing power structure that they congregated around a Lighteyes and helped him re-establish his position. It's not a nice reaction, and a bit unfair, but the complete distancing is still understandable.

I think that was just because Elhokar was right there, and Roshone wasn't. Also he might've seen Roshone more as a symptom, while Elhokar, as the king, was the cause, in his eyes.

Also why is Moash's act of vigilantism treated so differently from Jasnah's or Adolin's? Elhokar wasn't any different from those thugs or Sadeas in Moash's eyes.

By severe physical disability I meant their advanced age, that in itself can be pretty debilitating.

It's just very notable that in-book, Kaladin's racism is reacted against by other people, both Lighteyes and Darkeyes, including former slaves who're apparently all buddy-buddy with lower ranked Lighteyes, the same that walked across the bridges that they died carrying. But the same reaction does not happen with any Lighteyes character. We do not see anyone react to their racism, ever. It feels a bit like the author's social commentary at some points, and that makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Moash is himself human so I'll give him a pass on that one. That misanthropy is very unfair but just another expression of his self-hatred and disassociation & dissatisfaction from society.

I would still like to point out that the highest Nahn Darkeyes were comparable in wealth with lowest Dahn Lighteyes. We do see Shallan making a quip about still being a Lighteyes even though from a fallen house. Even the Tenners were comparable to high Nahn Darkeyes.

Also note, Darkeyes don't use enslaved humans, but Parshmen, they didn't know about the Parshendi.

Thank you for talking about racism vs systemic racism btw!

Edited June 16, 2021 by Honorless

[therunner]

Just now, Honorless said:

We do see Moash's PoV during that point. He just saw some Darkeyes who were so used to the existing power structure that they congregated around a Lighteyes and helped him re-establish his position. It's not a nice reaction, and a bit unfair, but the complete distancing is still understandable.

I understand the distancing, but I am disappointed in him helping only those of different race.  He did take on hard labour, so that can be considered a round about way of helping other humans.

1 minute ago, Honorless said:

I think that was just because Elhokar was right there, and Roshone wasn't. Also he might've seen Roshone more as a symptom, while Elhokar, as the king, was the cause, in his eyes.

I agree with the first reasoning, it was due to his proximity. But that does not make it right, even if it is understandable.

Also a good point on how he might have perceived the situtation. Sadly we are not in his head for WoR (Moash flash-backs when?) but from what I remember about his actions, I would not think this was his reasoning, but I can easily be wrong about that.

3 minutes ago, Honorless said:

I would still like to point out that the highest Nahn Darkeyes were comparable in wealth with lowest Dahn Lighteyes. We do see Shallan making a quip about still being a Lighteyes even though from a fallen house. Even the Tenners were comparable to high Nahn Darkeyes.

Are they? I know that socially speaking they were somewhat comparable, but Moash's grandparents were of second nahn, and yet economically were a  threath to Roshone who was at least 5th dahn (as being citylord is still a demotion for him). Again, I can be wrong on this part, but from what I remember and from what is on coppermind, i think that while socially any nahn goes over any dahn, when it comes to wealth higher nahns can be better off than low dahns. This WoB also seems to support that (https://wob.coppermind.net/events/395/#e13069)

I will have to pay more attention to this when I do my re-read.

10 minutes ago, Honorless said:

By severe physical disability I meant their advanced age, that in itself can be pretty debilitating.

That makes sense, and yeah I agree that advanced age can be debilitating.

11 minutes ago, Honorless said:

It's just very notable that in-book, Kaladin's racism is reacted against by other people, Lighteyes and Darkeyes. But the same does not happen with any Lighteyes character.

True, I think that is partly because for Kal that is part of his character arc. Also most lighteyes would not call out other lighteyes (as they see it as normal) and darkeyes could not afford to call out lighteyes. Kaladin is a 'safe' target in that sense (and man is this sentence expressing horrible sentiment).

12 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Moash is himself human so I'll give him a pass on that one. That misanthropy is very unfair but just another expression of his self-hatred and disassociation & dissatisfaction from society.

Oh, I understand why he would feel that way, and that self-hatred is a sad thing to see. But it is still disappointing to me to see him help some but not others solely on their species. Although in his defense, those Singers were treated worse than humans.

21 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Also note, Darkeyes don't use enslaved humans, but Parshmen, they didn't know about the Parshendi.

I thought that even dark eyes can use human slaves, it is just that they are more expansive so they don't get access. Anyone of tenth nahn is a slave and can be bought and sold, I am not aware of any restriction saying only lighteyes can use them.

27 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Thank you for talking about racism vs systemic racism btw!

I thought the distinction is important is all   Systemic racism is definitely worse one, but that does not mean other racists behaviors should get free pass.

[Jash]

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

Escapism, pure and simple, we want out of reality, if you want to deal with the real world go read non-fiction.

I have no problem discussing equality, and how people are individuals not members of groups, but not here, this is where I talk about SA and the various things going on there, if you want to discuss Alethi polotics, or Rosharan injustice, without trying to make it an allegory fro the real world then I'm more than willing to have that discussion.

If you want to have a discussion about politics go somewhere else, if you want to speak about politics here, be ready for me to speak my mind back.

Actually, I would argue a lot of fantasy and sci fi BETTER deal with political issues and social issues than fiction set in a modern world. I'll give a great example, have you watched Avatar : The Last Airbender or The Legend of Korra. Both exist within societies that are unjust. However, the injustice in Avatar is dealt with. We know it is wrong, it is a major and overwhelming theme within the narrative of the show. Even better, we see individual fire nations citizens have been brainwashed and are not, by their very nature, evil. I love it. However, Korra failed in this regard hard. Unable to deal with the fact that capitalism has a lot of issues with injustice, it just skirted those issues and instead had villains for a season (often being strawman like arguments for other modes of government) so to avoid dealing with the issue of injustice in Korra's world. ASOIAF, which I mentioned before, talks and deals with issues of injustice, in fact so do most of GRRM's books, which are both fantasy and sci fi books. Another of my favorite shows/books. The Expanse has heavy implications of what we do about injustice in society and definitely is meant to be compared to our very real society and the injustices happening here. Another series I'm currently reading, the Broken Earth series by N.K. Jemison, also deals with these topics heavily with a lot of allegory to racism in the real world. I would actually argue most of the people around me who enjoy fantasy and sci fi enjoy it for the exact opposite reason than what you have stated. They love that it deals realistically with injustice and social issues, something most things set in a modern world are unwilling to deal with because then they would have to admit something is wrong with our modern world, something Hollywood is heavily invested in not doing (Hollywood loves capitalism, lol). 
I actually don't think it is possible to talk about the injustice on Roshar without comparing it to the real world. Also, I think I've mostly stayed within the world of Roshar, and not talked much about real world issues. Am I wrong? Because I quoted Mohammad Ali, or mentioned MLK? I sincerely hope you, and everyone reading this, would see MLK as a hero, and that is politically controversial to say so.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Jash

[Honorless]

1 hour ago, therunner said:

(https://wob.coppermind.net/events/395/#e13069)

Oh my god, I forgot that the "Right to Movement" was also restricted to the middle dahns. They were basically serfs who were treated as property and near free labour.

Hmm... the lack of legal rights for rich merchant Darkeyes compared to their Lighteyes counterparts is also notable. Moash's grandparents probably weren't the only Darkeyes to get done in my jealous business rivals.

 

@Jash, definitely agree with fantasy & sci-fi authors feeling more free to explore societal themes than authors writing fiction set in the real world. Brandon talks about this too a few times when asked about these themes in Stormlight. A lot of contemporary literature seems to go out of its way to portray everyone being equal and socio-political arguments never rearing its head in even a diverse cast.

A lot of people aren't in a position to ignore this stuff, y'know? Because a large part of their lives are defined by these things. The fact that you can afford to ignore this stuff is a privilege.

Also, have you read Red Rising? It's not the best portrayal but it's one of the more well known for delving into race & caste in fantasy.

Oh yeah, Korra completely forgot about the Equalists...

Also relevant, Hermione and S.P.E.W. in Harry Potter, which is relevant because people like to talk about the part where the plot point addresses the fact that you have to listen to the people you are advocating for, but more importantly, jokes about the fact that the whole thing makes fun of people who advocate or talk about any societal issues. That's not cool. Just classifying people who speak for any social movement like racism, feminism or LGBT rights as annoying is not a good argument.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Honorless

[Jash]

7 hours ago, therunner said:

Notice the word 'typically' in that definition. Kaladin was racist and Kaladin can be racist, being part of minority does not change that. He was not particularly extreme in his views or his actions, but he did judge people based on their physical characteristic. Him being a minority means that his racism cannot effect others as it could had he had more power, he also cannot take part in systemic racism. But racism is not the same things as systemic racism.

Thought experiment: Take a neo-nazi, and then plant him in the middle of China let's say, does he stop being a racist just because he is now a minority?

First, I want to note I appreciated many of the points you made in your reply. I think I should acknowledge you made some good points. I don't agree with them all, but I can see your logic on many of them, even if I have a different opinion. To specifically mention something I agreed with you on, it would be Moash as it has to do with slavery. I think it is a complex issue, but I do think you made a good point there. I'm sorry, I"m being lazy to quote over and over. So much work. 

That however, does not include this section. You are correct that systemic racism and racism are different, however in a lot of dictionaries and encyclopedias it is becoming more and more common to consider racism as something that someone must have power, to be prejudice and inact injustice against, those they are being racist to. Your example of someone living in China is apt. I live in Korea, so I happen to have some very real world opinions on this. I have struggled with what I think personally, and also seeing how that is applied to society as a whole. So I guess I would say, I think that the neo-nazi could still be racist, because he is still not from China. He wasn't raised in China, and so has come from a different system. There is also an argument that because of Western culture and colonization that ....no matter what white people have benefits anywhere they go, which....is true. Here in Korea, there are just certain luxuries that white foreigners get that other foreigners do not, and I would guess that is the case in most countries in our modern world. I guess I personally think there should be a separation between the word for someone being prejudice based on skin color, and those who have power to make another person's life actively worse through injustice, which is why I would say Kaladin, as a dark eyes living in a completely light eyes control world, cannot be racist, but instead prejudiced based on eye color. Hmmm, but I do think it is fair, we could be talking about the same things, while simply using different definitions. So, from your perspective, racism means something different, and I will say the definition is currently a little unclear. Some things I read seem to suggest it must involve injustice and discrimination, and some seem more similar to your definition. Oh, and by the way, this is one thing I do disagree with the progressive side on (I think it's obvious I'm progressive here), which is I do think white people can experience racism in...a place like China, or Korea. They have to be in a situation where they are not in power though, so there are only a few countries in the world wehre I really think a white person can experience (my definition, not yours) racism. A note : I am married to a Korean woman, and we have had a lot of discussions on this very thing. It is so complicated, and I totally understand being confused. I feel confused too, about it. I just don't think Kaladin can be racist. Prejudice based on eye color, yes, but not racist. It's just different. As to your thought experiment by the way, I've traveled a lot in southeast asia (tickets are cheap from Korea) and boy, oh boy can white people still be racist in Asia lol. Acting like every southeast Asian is there servent, literally acting like characters of the light eyes like Sadeas in real life, they can definatily still be racist despite being in the minority. Power does funny thing, especially perceived power. Rich white tourists are seen as powerful, even if in reality they shouldn't be. Another note, minority has two definitions, one is less in number, but the other refers to a disadvantaged group. In other words, someone can be a minority despite being the majority in that country. Think : South Africa. I think people do usually say "minority group" or "disadvantaged group" instead of just minority, but in reality just being a majority does not make you the group in power. While as in Korea, I do feel very much disadvantaged, like a minority group, it did not feel that way in Thailand or the Philippines at all....they just...treat me respectively. It's uncomfortable actually for me. 

 

7 hours ago, therunner said:

How is imprisonment worse than murder? Is death penalty preferable to imprisonment?

What happened to them was horrible, I never said it was not

Oh one more, if you imprison someone, then forget about them and they die, than that isn't simple imprisonment. It is murder. For example, people hate me using ASOIAF, but let's say Tyrion jumped form the Sky Cells due to losing his mind, at the Eyie. I'd call Lysa a murder, too. Imprisonment is not murder, imprisoning someone until they die of malnourishment is murder. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Jash

[therunner]

16 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Oh my god, I forgot that the "Right to Movement" was also restricted to the middle dahns. They were basically serfs who were treated as property and near free labour.

The way I read it is that middle dahn do have the right to movement,

Quote

Questioner

We've heard a lot about the lighteyes' ranking system, but less so about the darkeyes. I would like to ask if you can tell us more about what happens at, like, tenth nahn, the lowest of the lowest.

Brandon Sanderson

So, tenth nahn is easy, because that's the slaves. So, it's the middle ones that get really interesting. And actually, in some ways, the top ones are interesting because the nahns, the top of the Alethi darkeyes, would be analogous to how in the early 1800s, you saw a rise of a merchant class -- that actually started back in the 17, maybe 1600s -- but the rise of a merchant class who were not noble, but more powerful or richer than the nobility in almost every situation except for some legal situations. And that's what you're seeing there. That's really interesting.

The middle nahns are also interesting because they have the right of movement, which is an Alethi right that you can leave a city and move to another city. You basically can't be a sharecropper, you can't be required... you can't be a serf. And that power can be wielded over the lighteyes, by -- if the lighteyes is terrible, they can call upon the right to move, leave to a different city and that lighteyes is demoted, right? Because your lighteyes rank can be influenced by how important the people... your civic rank, you could actually become a lower dahn because of that, or at least lose a lot of prestige because of that.

And then the lowest of them are basically serfs, they don't have the right of movement, and the right of movement is a big dividing line. There is a nahn that doesn't have the right of movement that isn't a slave, also, and these people have pretty dismal lives.

ICon 2019 (Oct. 15, 2019)

they can move elsewhere if they are unhappy, and he is explicit that they are not serfs.

17 minutes ago, Honorless said:

Hmm... the lack of legal rights for rich merchant Darkeyes compared to their Lighteyes counterparts is also notable. Moash's grandparents probably weren't the only Darkeyes to get done in my jealous business rivals.

The lack of some legal rights is definitely problematic, but we don't know what is the extent of that. It can very well be that lowest dahns are effectively equal socially to richer high nahns, except that dahns can rise to status of landed title whereas nahn cannot.

Also Roshone wanted to get rid of multiple business rivals, of whom Moash's grandparents are an example. It is possible that others were lighteyes. And he was punished when it was revealed that the charges against them were false (and we don't know whether Elhokar knew the charges were false when he imprisoned them before trial), albeit not to extent he should have been.

2 minutes ago, Jash said:

Oh one more, if you imprison someone, then forget about them and they die, than that isn't simple imprisonment. It is murder. For example, people hate me using ASOIAF, but let's say Tyrion jumped form the Sky Cells due to losing his mind, at the Eyie. I'd call Lysa a murder, too. Imprisonment is not murder, imprisoning someone until they die of malnourishment is murder. 

Murder is premediated killing of another. Imprisonment leading to suicide when that was not intended does not fulfill the premeditated part, nor when the people die in prison due to their age.

Is it awful? Yes. Is it murder? No.

5 minutes ago, Jash said:

First, I want to note I appreciated many of the points you made in your reply. I think I should acknowledge you made some good points. I don't agree with them all, but I can see your logic on many of them, even if I have a different opinion. 
That however, does not include this section. You are correct that systemic racism and racism are different, however in a lot of dictionaries and encyclopedias it is becoming more and more common to consider racism as something that someone must have power, to be prejudice and inact injustice against, those they are being racist to. Your example of someone living in China is apt. I live in Korea, so I happen to have some very real world opinions on this. I have struggled with what I think personally, and also seeing how that is applied to society as a whole. So I guess I would say, I think that the neo-nazi could still be racist, because he is still not from China. He wasn't raised in China, and so has come from a different system. There is also an argument that because of Western culture and colonization that ....no matter what white people have benefits anywhere they go, which....is true. Here in Korea, there are just certain luxuries that white foreigners get that other foreigners do not, and I would guess that is the case in most countries in our modern world. I guess I personally think there should be a separation between the word for someone being prejudice based on skin color, and those who have power to make another person's life actively worse through injustice, which is why I would say Kaladin, as a dark eyes living in a completely light eyes control world, cannot be racist, but instead prejudiced based on eye color. Hmmm, but I do think it is fair, we could be talking about the same things, while simply using different definitions. So, from your perspective, racism means something different, and I will say the definition is currently a little unclear. Some things I read seem to suggest it must involve injustice and discrimination, and some seem more similar to your definition. Oh, and by the way, this is one thing I do disagree with the progressive side on (I think it's obvious I'm progressive here), which is I do think white people can experience racism in...a place like China, or Korea. They have to be in a situation where they are not in power though, so there are only a few countries in the world wehre I really think a white person can experience (my definition, not yours) racism. A note : I am married to a Korean woman, and we have had a lot of discussions on this very thing. It is so complicated, and I totally understand being confused. I feel confused too, about it. I just don't think Kaladin can be racist. Prejudice based on eye color, yes, but not racist. It's just different. As to your thought experiment by the way, I've traveled a lot in southeast asia (tickets are cheap from Korea) and boy, oh boy can white people still be racist in Asia lol. Acting like every southeast Asian is there servent, literally acting like characters of the light eyes like Sadeas in real life, they can definatily still be racist despite being in the minority. Power does funny thing, especially perceived power. Rich white tourists are seen as powerful, even if in reality they shouldn't be. Another note, minority has two definitions, one is less in number, but the other refers to a disadvantaged group. In other words, someone can be a minority despite being the majority in that country. Think : South Africa. I think people do usually say "minority group" or "disadvantaged group" instead of just minority, but in reality just being a majority does not make you the group in power. While as in Korea, I do feel very much disadvantaged, like a minority group, it did not feel that way in Thailand or the Philippines at all....they just...treat me respectively. It's uncomfortable actually for me. 

Yeah, I suspected that some of our disagreement is at least partly because we use the same word to mean different things.

To me 'racism' is simply specific kind of prejudice based on ethical characteristic, so prejudice based on eye color is racism to me. Often this becomes entangled with racial superiority but I don't think that is necessarily a part of it. For example Kaladin does not think that darkeyes are physically or mentally superior, but he does tend to think that all lighteyes are morally bankrupt and they need to prove to him that they are not.

The modern trend to restrict definition of racism to effectively only systemic racism is problematic to me because it feels overly restrictive, as in what behavior is racist or not starts being contextual, which feels weird to me. It is entirely possible that I am on the wrong side of history on this one, and power and racism are inextricably linked, but so far I don't think so, and so will use 'racism' for behaviors that are prejudiced based on ethnic characteristics and 'systemic racism' for social structures that deepen and entrench casual racism of members of society.

[Jash]

7 hours ago, Frustration said:

And yes this is politics, don't try to spin it another way, this isn't about dealing with inequality this is you promoting your opinions.

"Promoting your opinions" - Yes, that is I guess...what we are all doing. Like all the time, in every aspect of our lives. Discussing inequality in society shouldn't be political. If you think it is political, I think it will be hard for us to come to any sort of agreement. Sociology is not the same as Politics, hence why they have different departments in most Universities. Granted they have overlap, I'm not denying that, but no..I don't think saying, "Racism exists" or "Inequality exists" or "systematic racism is bad" should be political. I think everyone should just agree about it. And I don't think it should be controversial to make these statements. 

Also, to shortly reply to your other things : Am I not allowed to be sarcastic here? I use sarcasm as a means to not become angry. It can be difficult when speaking on something you are passionate about, so I am sorry if my sarcasm was rude. I will try in the future to limit it (as I hopefully did above). I want to also say I don't know how to talk about Moash's issues with his society, without making it political. I think that the reason you find it easy to dismiss him is also you not wanting to address the injustice he faced. I think you have to think about injustice when discussing how someone could end up like Moash. I don't think I involved modern politics that heavily. I used them merely to talk about the politics of Roshar, and was focused on that. Like. For example, in the first book. Go back and read a chapter from Dalinar's perspective, then immediately one form Kaladin's. It is pretty hard to look at their circumstances, how little Dalinar cares about the injustice Kaladin is facing while he is...talking to Sadeas about something else, and not feel...a deep feeling of injustice. Like. Kaladin is literally on the edge of death in every chapter in the early and middle parts of that book. Dalinar mentions he doesn't agree with Sadeas using bridges the way he does, but won't try to push the issue. It's...infuriating. I can understand why Moash would be angry. I can understand why a "truly good" person would be angry. Anyways, it seems like you have a stong bias for the light eyes, that...you are kind of going along with their mode of thinking, and I think that I, and Moash, would be frustrated by that. 

 

5 hours ago, therunner said:

Murder is premediated killing of another. Imprisonment leading to suicide when that was not intended does not fulfill the premeditated part, nor when the people die in prison due to their age.

Is it awful? Yes. Is it murder? No.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. - From the dictionary. They died in prison. They were therefore killed. You are usinig the like US legal definition of murder, but murder has a defintion in English outside the legal paramaters, and different coutnries define murder in different ways. Also, and this is from a website dealing with law, the definition of second degree murder in most places : Typically, second-degree murder is defined as murder that is not premeditated, or murder that is caused by the offender's reckless conduct that displays an obvious lack of concern for human life. In other words, Elhokar, even by US law, would have committed second degree murder by legal definition. Also, here is the question, I actually don't remember...what did Elhokar say about it? Did he just forget them, or did he actively "forget them" because it was inconvenient to remember them. If it is the latter, I'd call that premeditated, which would make it legally 1st degree murder. Your definition of murder seems limited, even by US standards. Now, and this is important, I am stating my definition of murder. I think I said above, it is my definition. You can't tell me I am wrong about what I consider it, as I consider it murder. Period. I think Elhokar forgot them because they were inconvenient, and I think that makes it murder. 

[+Oltux72]

2 hours ago, therunner said:

True, but at that point violence is not tool of government but a tool of any interactions of larger groups of people, government is not particularly special in that regard.

Of course not. Why would government be special? It is just people. There is no reason to see government apart from other human organizations, unless this being Roshar, it is not run by human beings.

2 hours ago, therunner said:

True, but that compelling can be also through debate, discussion and education. Or enforced by social means, like ostracism.

No. In the end if they come to take your food and your relatives you will need to kill. We had this discussion, but pacifism is fundamentally not viable.

2 hours ago, therunner said:

In that scenario, yes you would need to compel them. I do think that being able to recruit 'non-essentials' is wrong, and should be changed (professional armies tend to do better so it is also practical), but from what I remember that is not something that happens often and in fact people in Hearhstone were shocked that Amaram wanted to compel people to go to army.

So if they do not pay their taxes, you do what? If they beat the people you send to collect taxes? Their can be no order without the potential of violent enforcement.

[Honorless]

39 minutes ago, therunner said:

The way I read it is that middle dahn do have the right to movement

That's what I said actually. "Restricted to the middle dahn", meaning the lower dahns do not have the right

[Bejarden]

Wow this thread was getting heated when I was off 

I’ll just ignore all the political stuff on here and go foward and give my rebuttal 

A lot of people replied that Moash killed Elhokar for two reasons

1) He hates him

2) He thought he was a bad king

This is not true

He hated him than searched for a justification for killing which he got, but it wasn’t a reason

Also someone said Moash didn’t have power

He was 4th Dahn and a Lighteye, nobody messes with that not if they want to live, so he could have gotten other methods of retribution 

I also say someone say what gives me the right to judge moral character 

What I say back to that is I have every right as you give yourself so obviously I can judge

Feel free to respond but you people were getting really worked up last time I posted…

 

[therunner]

53 minutes ago, Jash said:

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. - From the dictionary. They died in prison. They were therefore killed. You are usinig the like US legal definition of murder, but murder has a defintion in English outside the legal paramaters, and different coutnries define murder in different ways. Also, and this is from a website dealing with law, the definition of second degree murder in most places : Typically, second-degree murder is defined as murder that is not premeditated, or murder that is caused by the offender's reckless conduct that displays an obvious lack of concern for human life. In other words, Elhokar, even by US law, would have committed second degree murder by legal definition. Also, here is the question, I actually don't remember...what did Elhokar say about it? Did he just forget them, or did he actively "forget them" because it was inconvenient to remember them. If it is the latter, I'd call that premeditated, which would make it legally 1st degree murder. Your definition of murder seems limited, even by US standards. Now, and this is important, I am stating my definition of murder. I think I said above, it is my definition. You can't tell me I am wrong about what I consider it, as I consider it murder. Period. I think Elhokar forgot them because they were inconvenient, and I think that makes it murder. 

I am not from U.S. so I  am not using their definition, nor am I a legal expert. In my understanding key difference between killing and murder is that murder is intentional. If you kill someone through neglect or accident it is not necessarily murder (exceptions would exist).

If Elhokar did 'forget' them intentionally to hide his failing then I would think it is murder or at least close to one. I was under the impression that it was not intentional on his part so that is why I pushed back against it being murder, and I would personally call it negligent homicide.

53 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Of course not. Why would government be special? It is just people. There is no reason to see government apart from other human organizations, unless this being Roshar, it is not run by human beings.

This line of discussion started with your assertion that government is fundamentally violence, however if any interaction of larger groups of people is also fundamentally violent then government is not special in this regard and I don't know why it should be singled out.

I may be misunderstanding where you were going with this point.

53 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

No. In the end if they come to take your food and your relatives you will need to kill. We had this discussion, but pacifism is fundamentally not viable.

I am not saying pacifism, but you have options emigration for example (unless you are of very lower nahn). Violence is an option, but it should generally be last resort (both on part of organizations and on part of people).

53 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

So if they do not pay their taxes, you do what? If they beat the people you send to collect taxes? Their can be no order without the potential of violent enforcement.

If you don't pay taxes your property would be seized. The person not paying taxes were the ones who violated the social contract, so you could argue that they committed violence in abstract sense. If they beat people they engage in violence and defense is obviously merited which will be necessarily violent.

My overall point on this is that while violence is a tool of government, it should be a tool of last resort, i.e. used only when other options have failed. In that sense you can argue that ultimately all power of government rests on violence, as it is always an option.

21 minutes ago, Honorless said:

That's what I said actually. "Restricted to the middle dahn", meaning the lower dahns do not have the right

Ah, I misunderstood you then. The first two sentences sounded to me like you are saying that the middle dahns have the right restricted, not that the right is restricted to them. Apologies.

 

EDIT: reply to part of @Bejardin1250 post

Quote

14 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

A lot of people replied that Moash killed Elhokar for two reasons

1) He hates him

2) He thought he was a bad king

This is not true

He hated him than searched for a justification for killing which he got, but it wasn’t a reason

 I agree that he hated him and then looked for justification which Graves provided, but you then say it was not a reason, what was?

Edited June 16, 2021 by therunner

[Honorless]

50 minutes ago, Bejardin1250 said:

Wow this thread was getting heated when I was off 

I’ll just ignore all the political stuff on here and go foward and give my rebuttal 

A lot of people replied that Moash killed Elhokar for two reasons

1) He hates him

2) He thought he was a bad king

This is not true

He hated him than searched for a justification for killing which he got, but it wasn’t a reason

Also someone said Moash didn’t have power

He was 4th Dahn and a Lighteye, nobody messes with that not if they want to live, so he could have gotten other methods of retribution 

I also say someone say what gives me the right to judge moral character 

What I say back to that is I have every right as you give yourself so obviously I can judge

Feel free to respond but you people were getting really worked up last time I posted…

That's... circular reasoning. Sorry, not trying to be insulting, that's just the name of the logical fallacy.

You're saying that it's not true that Moash hated Elhokar here

Quote

1) He hates him

2) He thought he was a bad king

This is not true

then saying that Moash did hate Elhokar here

Quote

He hated him

Then you're saying he didn't have a reason for killing Elhokar

Quote

A lot of people replied that Moash killed Elhokar for two reasons

1) He hates him

2) He thought he was a bad king

This is not true

He hated him than searched for a justification for killing which he got, but it wasn’t a reason

...while listing out two reasons

You offer no rebuttals to those two reasons, you just state that you don't accept them.

If Moash hated Elhokar, as you say here:

Quote

He hated him than searched for a justification for killing which he got, but it wasn’t a reason

then, why did he hate Elhokar? That's a potential reason.

If he found a justification, as you said, that is a reason, is it not?

Quote

He was 4th Dahn and a Lighteye, nobody messes with that not if they want to live, so he could have gotten other methods of retribution

We've already gone over why a lower caste getting promoted to upper caste and becoming a part of the system is problematic representation so I won't go over that again.

I would however, like to point out that you're stating that there's a large gap in power between the Darkeyes and the Lighteyes, which is something that I do agree with.

Quote

I also say someone say what gives me the right to judge moral character 

What I say back to that is I have every right as you give yourself so obviously I can judge

Yes you do, and so do we. Which we're doing? We are allowed to disagree with your opinions, which some of us did. Feel free to disagree with our opinions but expect us to defend our opinions and question yours? Just like you've been doing with us. That's how discussions and discourse work.

Quote

Wow this thread was getting heated when I was off 

I’ll just ignore all the political stuff on here and go foward and give my rebuttal 

Feel free to respond but you people were getting really worked up last time I posted…

Again, literature cannot really be divested from the real world. If you write about people, and those people are different, chances are very high that there are disparities between them. These discussions reflect the real world and yes, they can get a bit heated at times. Feel free to help de-escalate if you're so inclined or take a break. Your not obligated to respond here, nor are any people who choose to post here your responsibility in any way. Of course feel free to respond to any commentaries & criticisms to your posts and defend your viewpoint. I think that's what I see happening on this thread, with most of the posters participating. The discussion is heated at some points but people are trying to untangle everything and respond with coherent arguments.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Honorless

[Jash]

2 hours ago, Honorless said:

definitely agree with fantasy & sci-fi authors feeling more free to explore societal themes than authors writing fiction set in the real world. Brandon talks about this too a few times when asked about these themes in Stormlight. A lot of contemporary literature seems to go out of its way to portray everyone being equal and socio-political arguments never rearing its head in even a diverse cast.

A lot of people aren't in a position to ignore this stuff, y'know? Because a large part of their lives are defined by these things. The fact that you can afford to ignore this stuff is a privilege.

Also, have you read Red Rising? It's not the best portrayal but it's one of the more well known for delving into race & caste in fantasy.

Oh yeah, Korra completely forgot about the Equalists...

Also relevant, Hermione and S.P.E.W. in Harry Potter, which is relevant because people like to talk about the part where the plot point addresses the fact that you have to listen to the people you are advocating for, but more importantly, jokes about the fact that the whole thing makes fun of people who advocate or talk about any societal issues. That's not cool. Just classifying people who speak for any social movement like racism, feminism or LGBT rights as annoying is not a good argument.

I assume you mean "you" as a general you, and not me, since I agree with you haha. I'll look up Red Rising^^. I also love Ursula K. Le Guin, and like every single one of her books deal with politics and social issues...in a heavy heavy way. The Dispossed is about an Anarchist planet, and made me realize I didn't even know what Anarchy was, because our society presents it as something it is not (A note for those who don't know. The Hobbits in Lord of Rings look more like what actual Anarchists want then like..The Purge, or whatever else popular media presents them as); and The Left Hand of Darkness...has just so much going on. Different modes of government, notes on Totalitarianism being bad (let's be honest, that combined with the plug for anarchy probably means Le Guin herself was a left wing libertarian), the main group of humans have no gender in the book (and how she represents each of the characters is just spectacular). Anyways, there is so much of sci fi and fantasy, including most....i would guess, of the award winning books that DO deal with social issues effecting the real world. A note on Harry Potter - I found how everyone treated Hermoine on the elves to be......disappointing at best, and out rightly and obviously morally wrong at worse. But JK Rowling is...not someone I respect very much due to recent events, even though I did enjoy Harry Potter to an extent (Long live Animorphs as the superior series). A note, Hermoine is a good character, the problem is how JK Rowling presents the issue as something to be laughed at by everyone except Hermoine. 

[Honorless]

15 minutes ago, Jash said:

I assume you mean "you" as a general you, and not me, since I agree with you haha.

I'll look up Red Rising^^. I also love Ursula K. Le Guin, and like every single one of her books deal with politics and social issues...in a heavy heavy way. The Dispossed is about an Anarchist planet, and made me realize I didn't even know what Anarchy was, because our society presents it as something it is not (A note for those who don't know. The Hobbits in Lord of Rings look more like what actual Anarchists want then like..The Purge, or whatever else popular media presents them as); and The Left Hand of Darkness...has just so much going on. Different modes of government, notes on Totalitarianism being bad (let's be honest, that combined with the plug for anarchy probably means Le Guin herself was a left wing libertarian), the main group of humans have no gender in the book (and how she represents each of the characters is just spectacular). Anyways, there is so much of sci fi and fantasy, including most....i would guess, of the award winning books that DO deal with social issues effecting the real world.

A note on Harry Potter - I found how everyone treated Hermoine on the elves to be......disappointing at best, and out rightly and obviously morally wrong at worse. But JK Rowling is...not someone I respect very much due to recent events, even though I did enjoy Harry Potter to an extent (Long live Animorphs as the superior series). A note, Hermoine is a good character, the problem is how JK Rowling presents the issue as something to be laughed at by everyone except Hermoine. 

Yup! Sorry for causing any misunderstandings, definitely wasn't trying to imply anything!

I also love Ursula Le Guin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas was haunting!

Ah, Twitter. I have a problem with that whole sequence with Hermione and S.P.E.W. because it just goes, "people who advocate are annoying", and it's a mindset that I'm noticing a lot more of nowadays. It's even used as a form of rebuttal in discussions like this, just "these discussions are annoying, don't discuss these things", which I thought was relevant on this thread because this feeling was brought up here again.

[Jash]

1 hour ago, Honorless said:

Yes you do, and so do we. Which we're doing? We are allowed to disagree with your opinions, which some of us did. Feel free to disagree with our opinions but expect us to defend our opinions and question yours? Just like you've been doing with us. That's how discussions and discourse work.

I love this explanation for how discussions work, that is somehow necessary on a forum to discuss things. People being angry you disagree with their opinions. One of the guys above also stated that I was "this is you promoting your opinions", I was like..yes, that is how having opinions works lol. I feel like too many people think they can just state their opinions as facts, and if anyone disagrees with them, that is...not allowed or something; while at the same time presenting others opinions as like propaganda or something. It is a very confusing double standard. Sorry, I just saw this after already reading your more recent post as well (which I agree with). 

 

[Frustration]

4 hours ago, Jash said:

I sincerely hope you, and everyone reading this, would see MLK as a hero, and that is politically controversial to say so.

I have immence respect for MLK, I'm not sure why you say otherwise.

3 hours ago, Jash said:

Anyways, it seems like you have a stong bias for the light eyes, that...you are kind of going along with their mode of thinking, and I think that I, and Moash, would be frustrated by that. 

No, I'm not, I have an increadibe detachment to any particular character, save a few I enjoy, the rest, and even some of the ones I do, are just meatsacks to be killed whenever helps the narrative.

4 hours ago, Jash said:

Also, to shortly reply to your other things : Am I not allowed to be sarcastic here? I use sarcasm as a means to not become angry. It can be difficult when speaking on something you are passionate about, so I am sorry if my sarcasm was rude. I will try in the future to limit it (as I hopefully did above). 

I have no problem with you doing it, it's that the mods get mad when I respond in kind. Which is kindof annoying

4 hours ago, Jash said:

 I want to also say I don't know how to talk about Moash's issues with his society, without making it political. I think that the reason you find it easy to dismiss him is also you not wanting to address the injustice he faced. I think you have to think about injustice when discussing how someone could end up like Moash.

Moash's time as a bridgeman does not excuse him killing Jezrien, I have no problem with him killing Elhokar, that was war, I don't care, Jezrien, is what makes Moash Evil.

Quote

I think that the reason you find it easy to dismiss him is also you not wanting to address the injustice he faced. I think you have to think about injustice when discussing how someone could end up like Moash.

See this is my main issue with this, if I don't agree with you, I have to agree with the people you are fighting, no, that isn't the case, I just think you are wrong.

4 hours ago, Jash said:

don't think I involved modern politics that heavily. I used them merely to talk about the politics of Roshar, and was focused on that. Like. For example, in the first book. Go back and read a chapter from Dalinar's perspective, then immediately one form Kaladin's. It is pretty hard to look at their circumstances, how little Dalinar cares about the injustice Kaladin is facing while he is...talking to Sadeas about something else, and not feel...a deep feeling of injustice. Like. Kaladin is literally on the edge of death in every chapter in the early and middle parts of that book. Dalinar mentions he doesn't agree with Sadeas using bridges the way he does, but won't try to push the issue. It's...infuriating.

I'm not saying I don't find that disgusting, just irrelivent to whether or not Moash is evil, as stated above, I don't care bout Elhokar.

3 hours ago, Jash said:

Typically, second-degree murder is defined as murder that is not premeditated, or murder that is caused by the offender's reckless conduct that displays an obvious lack of concern for human life. 

Actually death because of negligence without ill intent is manslaughter.

[Chaos]

There's definitely been some heated posts here. Take it down a few notches. Please read:

 

3 minutes ago, Frustration said:

I have no problem with you doing it, it's that the mods get mad when I respond in kind. Which is kindof annoying

Yes, we tend to have an issue with people escalating things rather than de-escalating. We have made our expectations clear to you a number of times. If you are confused about our expectations, you can read the above link and the Code of Conduct.

That said, I think everyone could take a few deep breaths, relax a bit, and be kind and respectful to all in this thread. The more contentious a thread, the more respectful we should be. Threads are not contests.

[Jash]

9 minutes ago, Frustration said:

Actually death because of negligence without ill intent is manslaughter.

Lol. I literally quoted from US law. Are you arguing against...actual US law's definition of second degree murder? I just want to be clear. Are you calling, the United States law that I quoted, incorrect, and think that you, ...a random dude know better about it...then...the...law, by definition? Whew. I don't know. I think I'm out. I can't talk to someone who argues against the actual law. Hint : Type second degree murder, and then either US Law, or choose a specific state (or if you are from another country, try that), and read the definition. Many US states would consider, say, leaving your child in the car, and then they are dying as....second degree murder (hint hint, that is the same as what Elhokar did). Negligence is when you accidentally endanger someone's life when you had no plan to. See, Elhokar knew that Moash's grandparents were weak of health, and he ignored and was negligent of that situation. It isn't the same as manslaughter. For an example in real life, if I hit someone with my car, I would be commiting manslaughter. However, if I was drunk while doing that, I think that often ends up being second degree murder. The point is, if something you have done directly led to you endangering someone else's life, it can end up defined as second degree murder, and not manslaughter. Again, go read actual law. Like, you aren't fighting with me, you are fighting with actual law. So, I'm done. Go fight with the lawyers of whom I quoted this from.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Jash

[ScadrianTank]

Moash hate-train has more coal in the engine than necessary, but it's not like disliking a character who goes against everything "Journey before destination" stands for is unreasonable or wrong.

And I don't really understand the whole "assassinating Elhokar was right" point, but I usually stay out of character discussions like they have a radiation warning, especially when the concept of oppression phases into a discussion, so maybe it's just me. So to me, shanking a man in the dark so that his more amiable relative can get his job, especially when that relative is also a part of the oppressors, doesn't seem like an act of a man fighting for rights, or justice, or equality. It's an act of a selfish, hateful person, and trying to justify murder done for personal reasons with their upbringing or systemic oppression doesn't change that, at least I'm my eyes.

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Jash said:

Lol. I literally quoted from US law. Are you arguing against...actual US law's definition of second degree murder? I just want to be clear. Are you calling, the United States law that I quoted, incorrect, and think that you, ...a random dude know better about it...then...the...law, by definition? Whew. I don't know. I think I'm out. I can't talk to someone who argues against the actual law. Hint : Type second degree murder, and then either US Law, or choose a specific state (or if you are from another country, try that), and read the definition. Many US states would consider, say, leaving your child in the car, and then they are dying as....second degree murder (hint hint, that is the same as what Elhokar did). Negligence is when you accidentally endanger someone's life when you had no plan to. See, Elhokar knew that Moash's grandparents were weak of health, and he ignored and was negligent of that situation. It isn't the same as manslaughter. For an example in real life, if I hit someone with my car, I would be commiting manslaughter. However, if I was drunk while doing that, I think that often ends up being second degree murder. The point is, if something you have done directly led to you endangering someone else's life, it can end up defined as second degree murder, and not manslaughter. Again, go read actual law. Like, you aren't fighting with me, you are fighting with actual law. So, I'm done. Go fight with the lawyers of whom I quoted this from. Good sweet stormfather. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/manslaughter#:~:text=Manslaughter is the act of,is less culpable than murder.&text=Voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing,the death of another person.

[Honorless]

The no politics rule is for particularly contentious current events that serve no purpose as well as current and recent political figures and political parties. Historical figures are fine, but let's be careful about implications that come with them. This really isn't the place to argue legalities or question individual morality though. Let's all take a break?

[Jash]

3 minutes ago, Frustration said:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/manslaughter#:~:text=Manslaughter is the act of,is less culpable than murder.&text=Voluntary manslaughter is intentionally killing,the death of another person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_degree_murder

Extreme Indifference to Human Life

The third main type of second-degree murder occurs when a victim dies as a result of the perpetrator's extreme indifference to the value of human life. Generally speaking, extreme indifference means an utter disregard of the possibility that an act will kill someone.

Going back to Adam and Bill, imagine that instead of hitting Bill over the head with a shovel, Adam grabs his gun and wildly fires toward a crowd of neighbors that have gathered to observe the argument between Adam and Bill. Adam didn't necessarily mean to kill anyone, but also didn't give any thought to the harm that his actions could cause to people in the crowd. This demonstrates Adam's extreme indifference to human life. If one of Adam's bullets struck and killed anyone in the crowd, then Adam has probably committed a murder in the second degree.

Definition of Second degree murder. Also, I tagged Cornell Law, which had a similar definition. 

Also, Frustration, do not reply to me or quote me again. I no longer want to communicate with you. Please do not message me. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Jash