Gabryal
-
Posts
62 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Gabryal
-
-
Where did we go into US politics? I missed that.
Otherwise I accept the rest of it as your opinion, though personally I see your unwavering acceptance of a central authority as more of a nod to the Catholic ( strangely they have never changed the name, they either haven't noticed or do not accept that there are other legitimate Christian denominations, though personally, I'm an atheist ) Church
I'd also not like to base the future of an institution as thoroughly corrupt as the Empire on a " possibly ". It's the same sort of blind faith to my eyes " Don't worry Skyrim, the Empire will fix itself up "
I've been hearing rumors about the Dragonborn DLC and " The Dragonborn becoming Emperor " before the DLC had a name, all I'll say on it is it would be the easiest way to tidy up the story, especially since it doesn't matter who wins in Skyrim if the Dragonborn becomes Emperor, which is why I think it is unlikely. If they make the Dragonborn Emperor then the entire civil war in Skyrim was pointless from the word go, because no matter what Skyrim will come back into the Empire, either by military conquest or by personal Renown of the Dragonborn. If they -do- go that direction though, this entire thread has been a colossal waste of everyone's time, and frankly the " war " part of the game would be a colossal waste as well. Why even bother?
Wouldn't it be interesting if the Dragonborn DLC is about the Dragonborn going all around the Empire helping other nations throw off the yokes of the Empire? That would make me chuckle. It probably won't be that either, as it too would make the outcome of the war moot.
Anyway I'm done with this, I still don't understand about 99% of what you've said, so frankly I'm afraid to even address most of it anymore, plus it really is exhausting. Other people I'm sure will pick up the slack if you keep at it, but I stand by everything I've said as well, and always have, and always will.
I will say you obviously didn't understand the two things you quoted above, at least I hope you didn't, because if you did and responded the way you did then I'm not even sure that you made a human response
-
Wow you spent a lot of time on this, it's honestly funny. Let me see if I can be succinct and answer this.
This is a personal attack, please calm yourself down and try to post a rational thought instead of coming onto this forum and venting your frustration against me.
Take your bruised feelings and go elsewhere then, because life is a helluva a lot rougher than a forum. If I find you frustrating then that's on me, allowing you to frustrate me. That doesn't mean you get to throw away the reasons I've given as to why you do. I would argue that I more than frustrate you considering you're accusing me of personally attacking you. Let me straighten you out, it's less about you and more about every ignorant, illiterate person I've ever met in my life. You personally just happen to be a current representative of them. As far as my not believing you know what those things mean, it's not an attack, it's my personal opinion. I truly do not believe you know what they mean. That's not an attack it's an observation that happens to offend you. I guess I could add that to the list of things I don't think you understand, that commenting on your perceived flaws isn't an insult, it's only observation. If I attacked you personally I wouldn't do it that way, I'd just say you're an idiot ( which is not what I'm saying here, it's put out as an example, whether or not I think you're an idiot will not be brought up on this forum because it does nothing to continue the public discourse, so no saying I called you an idiot ) the fact I have to stop and explain this might also explain why you don't seem to understand the other things I mentioned.
You have never conceded anything, least that I have seen. No Stormcloak really has, you're not capable of seeing the situation in someone else's shoes.
I've conceded that Ulfric is a rascist, and power hungry, and many other things. If you don't know the things I've conceded it's because you didn't bother to look anything up about me before posting this. I'm not going to be held responsible that you made the choice to be ignorant. Next.
I really don't care, but because of your hostility towards myself, I am called to provide an answer. Again, I could care less about your opinion of me.
You accused me of personal attacks twice in one post? You really don't care about my opinion of me? Really?
Personal attack.
Only posting this because it's amusing to me coming on the heels of the one before it.
Ok, then why don't you do the same? I have seen several times when you have gone back and edited your post as well. Furthermore, I believe in a God that provides the illusion of "Choice" so if I choose to go back and change something, that's on me. Again, Hypocrasy, you Stormcloaks do the same thing all the time. You appear to be another do as I say, not as I do individual.
Furthermore, do us all? Not everyone agrees with the Stormcloaks. Therefore, you do not and never will speak for everyone on here. Neither do I, in fact.
Point out just once where I have gone back and edited my post to something other than what it was after you responded to it, just once. I may have fixed grammar, I may have fixed punctuation, but I've never changed the entire thing. You have, and do so constantly.
I have no interest of speaking for everyone out there, at least half the people wouldn't agree with me if I personally saved them from drowning. I'm not even speaking for the Stormcloaks at the moment because I have no need to, all I am doing is my best to keep the discourse honest and based in facts. I don't ask everyone to agree with the Stormcloaks, I just want the people who don't to have a good argument for not doing so. I've yet to hear one.
How many people agree with my "simple" thoughts and opinions. If anyone has a question about any of my posts, I'll glady answer to it.
It doesn't really matter how many people agree with you, the majority is rarely right, however what this has to do with the fact you go back and re-edit your posts I have no idea
People have every right to disagree with me, again, I believe in the Freedom to Choose. Really, it sounds like you're describing yourself in this paragraph. Seriously, go read his posts you can't tell this guy anything without having to read a novel the next day.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying I am attempting to prevent people from having a choice ( and if I do, please let me know how I go about doing so, I wasn't aware I had this power)? Or I'm a Stormcloak Fanatic? Or are you making fun of me because I'm literate, or is it that I'm doing my best to explain myself as clearly as possible?
If I am doing damage to my own cause, why do you feel threatened by my posts? I put that simple little *awesome* video up and look where we're at? You've already said previously that my posts were dangerous to your cause, well you should be afraid. BECAUSE if it wasn't for people like me, very few would ever have seen the Empire's side to this and would have blindly followed the Stormcloaks. Ulfric is a Thug, Hypocrite, and Tyrant. Just because you fight for freedom does NOT give you license to become the OPPRESSOR. And if you think it's ok to oppress others just because you are a "self-proclaimed" liberator, then you have some serious problems.
You're right, I would not make for a very good Stormcloak, I ask questions.
I'd love to see some of those questions, but more than that I'd like to see any quote from anywhere, ever, where I said that I feel threatened by any of your posts. Seriously, quote me where I said I felt threatened by you in any way, ever.
Yes, I'm 30 yrs old. Life goes on. But ok.
You can have my guns when you pry them out of my cold, dead finger MFer.
I just like quoting these two together. I am curious where the hell the NRA got involved, because this last year I withdrew my membership. I used to look up to Charleton Heston, until he debated a bar stool, and now they're stuck with a President who publicly implied he was going to assassinate the President. Also don't restrict your language, it's more offensive to me that you " MFer "'d me than if you'd actually said it.
Seriously though, the NRA? What brought that into an argument about Skyrim? I actually love to shoot, even if not everyone is into that, but you have left me utterly lost as to what the hell you're talking about here
I exist to serve and protect the Empire's citizens until my dieing breath.I exist to bring hope where there was only darkness and one-sided conversation.
I exist to serve the Emperor and defeat his enemies.
I exist to uphold Imperial law and maintain good order and discipline in the Legion.
I exist because I choose to. The ability to make "choices" proves your existence and leaves your signature on this world.
I think this should be the opening to a holy book somewhere, are you planning on founding a religion?
I never really was a Stormcloak, my heart was not into it. I had never "given" the crown to Ulfric. Although I have respect for Stormcloaks same as everyone. Face it Gabryal, you're unique... just like everyone else.
Does that have something to do with the DNA all those witches in lab coats are talking about? Where exactly did I imply in any way that I'm not unique? Hell I think I've been arguing that I -am- unique this whole time. Thanks for confirming though, until you did I thought I was Case Zero in a secret government cloning lab
Please, you've already said that Chamberlain is like TMII and then after him, Churchill comes along and cleans up after him. This alone proves that there is hope for the Empire. If the British Empire had a TMII of their own making and then a new "Emperor" comes along and cleans up his mess, then why not hope for Talos's Empire? Unless we weren't meant to see that part of it. Just your way of viewing history, right Gaby?So your argument is that it's going to be ok because some mystery pinch hitter is going to come in and fix all the massive screw ups the Empire has had under the Reign of the Mede's? See cleaning up only works if you have someone clean up immediately after the mess has been made, it's infinitely harder to fix it a decade after the fact. Following your reasoning though I suppose Ulfric could defeat the Empire in Skyrim, march on Cyrodil, and clean up the mess...
That was meant to be Sarcastic, I know Ulfric is no Churchill. Churchill was made Prime Minister for a very specific reason, he had been for 7 years warning the UK about Hitler, and everything he said ended up coming true. I suggest reading a biography on Churchill called " The Last Lion ", can't remember who wrote it off the top of my head, but you'd get a better spin off of it.
If your argument is some mystery person is going to clean up the mess though, then I guess everyone can be whatever they like without consequence. It's kind of like burning your house down because Jesus is coming back tomorrow. It's about 50/50 on wishful thinking and dangerously deranged.
I warned you not to go down the History road with me, you got off light.
Also is Gaby a stab of some sort? I can't figure out why you used it, there was no need for the word to be put in, there was no need to make it diminutive when you put it in, so I don't get it. Why not Gabryal or nothing at all? Are you giving me nicknames now?
Fine. Respect.
You say after you do exactly what I asked people not to do, somehow it doesn't seem as sincere as perhaps it was meant too.
Correct.
I will keep my guns, my money and my freedom...
You keep the CHANGE.
So... we've reduced our level of discourse to bumper stickers you can buy out of a catalog at the back of World Net Daily? What the hell does this have to do with anything? Am I supposed to shout something left wing in response? What does an anti-Obama bumper sticker have to do with Skyrim? Also who said I was pro-anything political in the real world? This thread is about Skyrim's Stormcloaks and Imperials, not the RNC and DNC.
That's the strangest thing I've seen you say so far, and you've said a lot of strange stuff.
Whew, that was a lot, let's not do that again OK, all the quotes are a pain in the ass.
-
Oh and people do me a favor and stop with the Historical analogies, just stop. I don't have time to correct them all, and certainly don't put something that you message with me in private and turn it around and put it on this thread as well. Do one or the other. I'm so damn tired of people getting things wrong, and horribly so. History in this world ( and too a good extent in TES as well since I spent the time actually looking things up ) is my realm, you come to play in it at your own peril.
Unless of course your purpose is to annoy me, because screwing up History for your own ends is one of the things that truly does annoy me. The amount of ignorance on the topic is truly astounding, and as a Historian ( this is my job people, it is how I make money ) it's appalling to think that people out there are willing to say things about the History of the human race that is only true in the most obtusely possible interpretation of events. History is made up of real people who lived through the times of which you are speaking of, and when you twist the events to your own end you do nothing but disrespect those who actually lived through those events.
Since the topic is almost exclusively based on Military History in this thread, it is attains an entirely new level of disrespect, since people died in these events that people twist to their own ends. In the information age it's generally expected that when you make a statement you know something about the information you're referencing.
-
Example of what I just said about editing post.
Post #476, me, posted 4:29
Post #475, StormHammer, edited 4:33
See people? This is what Stormhammer means by " Honest Discussion "
-
Your words would lend more weight StormHammer if I actually believed you understood what " open, honest discussion " and " free-thinkers " and " dogma " actually mean. It's been well established you have no idea what oppression means, and the evidence so far is that you aren't too familiar with these terms either.
Frankly, while I'm willing to listen to just about anyone else and give a good defense to my arguments and concede that others have good points that I disagree with, with you it's the conversational version of an out of body experience.
Your comments couldn't make less sense to me if you were speaking in an African-Click language, and are far less interesting ( Wouldn't it be cool to give your kid a name with a *click* in it? ).
I don't if it's just that you aren't making sense, or if you're incapable of making sense. It's frankly painful to communicate with you on any level.
Do us all a favor too would you? Stop going back and editing your posts after someone has responded to them. You do it constantly, and it is always altered in such a way that you look less foolish but the response looks more so.
I am tired of having to remind people over and over and over to go back and check the date and time when you edit your posts so that the responses to those posts are understood to have actually made sense at some point. If you insist on continuing to edit your posts after responses, I hope people realize that it's a sign that even you have no idea what you're talking about.
In fact I hope that's what they think, because the only other option I can think of is that you aren't courageous enough to stand by your original statements and feel the need to edit them. Which is not exactly the shining example of " honest discussion " though considering what I said earlier, about you having no idea what the phrase means, you may not realize that. When you go back and change all your posts back to what they were before, then maybe I'll consider trying to have an " honest discussion " with you again, until then I consider you to be a fanatic, who justifies everything they do on the back idea of " I'm right and it's more important to show that than it is to stand by what I say ".
You're so emotionally invested in your opinion that you don't see reason, ever, yet another reason to not have a discussion of any measure whatsoever with you. When I bring up facts, concepts, logic, reason, analogy, or even theoretical arguments, they aren't aimed at you. I am not trying to convince you, in fact I don't want to convince you, I don't think you'd be a good example of someone who is on the Stormcloak side. I like you where you are doing damage to your own case every time you post.
The people I'm talking to are the people who actually have opinions based on a measure of fact, opinions that are open to being altered if new evidence comes to light. I'm sure someone out there will or would say something like " But Gabryal you aren't open to altering your opinion if new evidence comes up ". Actually, yes I am, I was at one point a die-hard Imperial, and then new evidence came to light and I switched sides. I've received no new evidence to support being on the Imperial side, I haven't even heard an original idea.
Most of what I hear are the exact same things I used to tell other people, I've heard nothing new about the Imperials in months, so why on earth would I change sides when presented with things I already knew? It's like being told " You know that lever on the side of the toilet? It makes it flush " when you're 30 years old. You can't help but want to say " Well Thank you! Up till now I've been going out and getting the hose and spraying the toilet to make the water go down ".
So frankly either offer something worth reading, or don't bother offering anything, because there -is- a level of annoyance to being told the same obvious, first glance, emotionally invested, surface only, and pre-mature arguments I've heard a thousand times before. It's a waste of time, it's a waste of energy, but hey just like my neighbor who spends his weekends on the corner with his sign yelling at cars about how Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim, Socialist, I don't expect you to stop, change your opinion, or listen to anyone else, ever.
You exist for me as only someone I rebuttal for the sake of people who are still in the process of making up their minds, people who actually understand what analogy is for example.
I'd say you were a lost cause for the Stormcloaks, but that would imply you were ever a cause.
Now, since you still haven't gotten the message.. and listen this time.
">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"> -
My friend, you might as well give it up, if there is anything that this batch of Pro-Imperials have in common is an emotional attachment to their cause that is undeterred by facts.
You know facts like. Whiterun was never neutral, it only gave that appearance because Balgruuf knew that if he joined the Imperial side prematurely he'd have his own citizens killing each other.
Simple facts about Whiterun.
More than any other city in Skyrim, Whiterun is the least neutral, the citizenry is openly and roughly evenly divided by the conflict. If the War is an earthquake this is where the fault line is.
Unless we assume that Balgruuf is an incompetent ruler ( and he isn't ) it is obvious to him that there is no possible way that this war comes to an end without Whiterun getting involved, he will never join the Stormcloaks, this is well known, he and Ulfric have an old grudge, that being said Ulfric does have the decency to let Balgruuf know what's coming. He may not do it in the most diplomatic way, but he does give Balgruuf both the knowledge that Whiterun is going to be attacked, and the option to surrender without bloodshed. Since Balgruuf is, and will always be, an Imperial he of course refuses and so the Battle which he could have avoided but chose not to happened. I just hope that no one makes an argument that Balgruuf wasn't an Imperial from the start, they can of course, but it's just laughable.
A couple of facts to refute the claim that Balgruuf was ever neutral.
1) He refuses to allow Redguards hunting down a traitor who betrayed a city in Hammerfell to the Dominion into his city, and arrests at least one of them, yet he never bothers to investigate their claims, nor does he have a problem with -other- Redguards in his city, nor harboring the alleged traitor ( who turns out to be in fact a traitor, as evidence I present that if you turn her over you'll end up attacked by Dominion forces not long after )
2) His First Councilor is an Imperial who doesn't even pretend to respect the Nordic traditions
3) He doesn't even bother to look into Battleborn oppression of the Greymane's. The Battleborn's knew and perhaps had a hand in turning over a citizen of his city to the Dominion to be tortured to death. Despite pleas from the Greymane's that he look into it, he refuses, so it's left to the Dragonborn to do so. Not taking a side there at all, you know, only representing and treating with respect the pro-Imperial faction.
4) Whether in Victory or Defeat, he never once puts his people before the desires of Imperial troops, whereas with his replacement his first thought is -always- for his people first and Skyrim second. Balgruuf is the complete opposite, putting the Empire first and his people second. No no, he's not an Imperial puppet.
In some ways I'd say Balgruuf is the perfect Imperial, able to talk out of both sides of his mouth, give lip service to the " principles " of ruling without practicing any, cares more about his own wealth, power, and importance than the people he rules, and at the end of the day puts his own Pride before the good of his city. By Mede standards he'd make a good Emperor.
All of this of course is just another way of saying he's a Politician that says whatever he needs to to stay in power, and then gets all snotty and bitter if it's taken from him. His replacer is a man who never sought power, and in fact attempted to remain anonymous inside of Whiterun itself ( it's very very easy to miss him unless you don't do the Companion quests ) and even when you do meet him you have to press him very hard to even get him to admit he's a Greymane. He's not devious at all, he all but has to be shoved into taking up the Jarldom of Whiterun.
Not that any of the above matters, because like I said, this new breed of Pro-Imperials are much more interested in their emotionally invested opinions than any sort of logical progression of ideas, or facts of any kind. No matter how many times I say it, they don't listen, so I've more or less given up trying to reason with people who don't even understand what I'm saying. It's nice to see you again Stormcloak, and I like the new name.
I would like to say that there are some things I have no listed in this post because they are responses I gave to people who messaged me in private, however if those people do indeed bring up a private message into public debate, I can copypasta. It hardly matters though, as I said before, the thing that unites this new front of Pro-Imperials is like a label on a dyslexic food product " fact-free "
-
" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295">">To My Imperial Friends on the other side of the aisle
And for you once again, maybe you'll get it this time
-
To My Imperial Friends on the other side of the aisle
">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="295"> -
*facepalms*
Facts: Britain sold out Czechoslovakia not Poland. It was because of Poland that the war started, because after giving away Alsace-Lorraine and Crechoslovakia, Britain had to draw the line somewhere, so no Britain didn't conceded Poland.
That was Chamberlain's Government, not Churchill's.
Churchill wanted the US to get involved, but if they didn't they would still have fought. If you read anything at all about Churchill I guarantee that as close as anyone can.
Your knowledge of history is dismally depressing
Here's a question for you just to see if you know: Who declared war on who? Germany on the USA or the USA on Germany? If you can get that one right without looking in the back of the book I'll have some hope I suppose.
There is always a question of whether or not they would have lost, and maybe they would have, and your point would be? Actually I don't even want to know, I don't think I can keep up with the sheer number of inaccuracies and muddled arguments being presented.
What I find amazing here is that the two of you are arguing with a retired Army Officer and a professional Historian on topics of Military strategy and History.
I think I should take a break from commenting on this thread for awhile.
I just want to leave with a few final things.
1) Anyone can message me privately to ask questions
2) Unless you've looked it up yourself, assume that Stormcloak81 doesn't have clue about what he's talking about, it's not an insult to call someone who's painfully ignorant, painfully ignorant.
I truly am beginning to question why I'm putting myself through this at all, I can't even keep track of all the things that you've gotten wrong Stormcloak, it's literally astounding. If you were one of my students I would have failed you out on principle.
The part about it all that truly distresses me isn't the errors in logic, the muddled thinking, the lack of responsiveness. I think it's that you feel the need to defend your ignorance. Why not actually learn something?
Be an Imperial if you want, from my point of view you couldn't be more wrong but that's my opinion.
Just don't be willfully ignorant, god my head hurts. I should never bring analogy into these discussions. I want bigmagy back, he at least knew what the hell I was talking about.
-
Parts of the Empire had been occupied though, specifically in the Far East, no Hitler didn't capture London but he tried. Hitler did occupy France and had the USSR on the ropes at the point that the British Empire resolved itself to fight to the last Hitler wasn't losing anywhere, it was winning on every front.
However I do think you're missing the point, in one case an Empire in dire straights chose not to fight evil, in the other it did. Churchill said that they'd continue to fight even if the Islands themselves were occupied.
They were prepared to go on fighting forever if necessary, they had courage and conviction. Things that the Empire did not have. It also misses the second point I was making.
Do you think that a Churchillian British Empire, with King George on the Throne, would ever under any circumstance allow the Gestapo or the SS access to any part of their empire by treaty? Do you think they'd ever sign an agreement outlawing the religious practices of their citizens? At the time of the speech given in part below, Britain was outnumbered and outmatched in every possible way. Defeat seemed certain and still the people of Britain resolved themselves to fight to the last.
The Empire failed the test of nations, and therefore has failed the right to exist by standards upon which people who judge history base the right of a nation to exist. A nation is not defined by what it stands for at it's best times, but at it's worst. At this Empire's worst it was defined by capitulation, betrayal, weakness, cowardice, and consorting with the worst sort of villains.
As far as countries that had treaties with Hitler the biggest one I'd name is the USSR, which you listed before as part of Hitler's " two-front " war. At the time this speech was given, Hitler was nearly at the gates of Moscow and it looked as if the USSR itself would topple as well. Before Churchill, Hitler had signed several treaties with Britain ( always involving dismantling other countries without their consent ) however that's part of the point isn't it?
All it took, the only difference, was the stance Britain made in the end. When a leader of conviction took the reigns. Under Chamberlain, who is Universally condemned by history, Britain was like the Empire in Skyrim. Under Churchill it wasn't. It's that simple to me, they had a choice, be like Chamberlain or be like Churchill and they decided to be like Chamberlain.
If it was wrong when Chamberlain and worthy of universal condemnation then it's wrong when the Empire does it in TES: Skyrim.
To defend the latter, is to defend the former, and I can't accept the idea of anyone defending the former. To do so will always lead to a fundamental and irreversible disagreement from me. It really is as simple as that for me.
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
-
Before Titus mede I there was no real leadership in the empire, so you can't really hold the current government responsible for what happened in the past or not. The Hammerfell situation was forced by the Dominion. You're suggesting that Titus Mede II commited the same level of atrocities as Ulfric? I'd need some facts on that. Other than slaughtering that Dominion army in the capital city and allowing Thalmor scrutiny, I dont really see what the emperor did that was so shady.
He also slaughtered every single citizen of the city that so much as sold the Dominion troops a loaf of bread, including the entire High Elf population, whether they were guilty of anything or not.
I'd also argue that signing the WGC behind the backs of the Redguards ( which gave away half their lands ) and the Nords ( which outlawed their religion ) especially after they had just helped him save his Empire was pretty shady.
I did a comparison awhile back between what Titus Mede II did to a comparison of " What If " the British Empire had done so in World War 2. It looks pretty different if you were to put it in perspective of say.
The British Government making a peace treaty with Hitler after Dunkirk that allows the SS access to Scotland to make sure that the Scots don't practice Scottish Presbyterianism and allows them to arrest any Scot that does without trial and killed. Then when the Scots rebel against this treaty the British Empire sends it's own Army into Scotland to enforce a treaty signed between themselves and Hitler.
Doesn't sound quite as nice in that situation, and the players are all more or less the same as far it all goes. The Dominion is at least as bad as Nazi Germany, the British Empire defeat at Dunkirk was at least as great a Military Crisis as what faced the Empire after the Battle of the Red Ring, Scotland is more or less allegorically correct in it's positioning, size, and importance relative to the size of Cyrodil ( England ).
In a real world situation I don't think I'd be on the side of a British Empire that thought that signing a treaty with Hitler and occupying Scotland is a good idea. By analogy I therefor don't think I'd be on the side of an Empire that would sign a treaty with the Dominion and occupy Skyrim. Analogy is always suspect, but I've analyzed this one and I'm having difficulty finding the flaws.
If we today were looking back at the Second World War we'd despise a British Empire who had signed a treaty with Hitler, and we'd be right to do so. Instead of what Titus Mede did, they fortunately had Churchill ( and even King George ) who agreed that they would " Never Surrender " no matter the cost.
That's more or less the bottom line for me. That's the short version in my opinion anyway.
-
*facepalms for a 3rd time*
kradus, on 25 Feb 2013 - 09:52, said:
Gabryal, on 24 Feb 2013 - 23:03, said:
*facepalms again*
I don't see any apologies for fascists, not that I expect any, because I understand the stupidity of the statement.
I was reffering in game. If you know a better adjective for people who suppress foreign races and execute civilians for simply not fighting for you, then I'll apologise to a fictional millitary group and call them that instead.Wow. Just Wow.
Let's see. Every nation that's ever existed from the beginning of time including the US? The Irish Draft in the Civil War by the Union Leaps immediately to mind, Oh and Lincoln killing 20,000 New York civilians when they rebelled against the Draft, that seems like a suppression of foreign race. So you could call them Unionists I suppose.
The Empire has done exactly that throughout it's History dozens of times over you could call them Imperials I suppose. There isn't a nation that's ever existed on the face of this earth that hasn't suppressed foreign races.
From 1899-1902 the US killed as many as 1.5 million Filipino's when they rebelled because they didn't want to be a part of our Empire. So you could call them Americans. You could add close to 20 million Native Americans to the list if you wanted.
God knows how many Indians the British Killed.
These are just things that have happened in the past 100-150 years. Just because you know of one group of people who are famously known for oppressing and executing civilians doesn't mean you get to just throw the word around when you don't understand it.
Do you even know what a Fascist is I wonder.
Here's a better word for you. Rascist; and guess what? You can't use that one either unless you're willing to call Imperials that too because they have been so at least 100 times worse since the existence of the Stormcloaks was started.
See the Stormcloaks arose as a militia ordered by The Empire Titus Mede II, same Emperor in the game, in order to among other things to take back Makath. They then were charged with holding off the Dominion while the Empire stripped Skyrim of it's Legions to save Cyrodil. They did the same thing with Hammerfell. They left the Dunmer to the mercy of the Argonians, they left the Bosmer at the Mercy of the Dominion, they abandoned the Khajit completely. All to save their Imperial asses, and anywhere at all that people rebelled against them they killed them.
Hell they were going to execute you for no particular reason aside from they found you walking alone in Skyrim trying to get to Cyrodil at the beginning of the game. Just Wow.
So there, call Stormcloaks " Imperials of the Second Worst sort " which would actually be an accurate comparison, or come up with some other grievance against them.
@StormHammer81
Pride is something to be earned from achievement, of which there has been none, rather there has been whining and false outrage and other things that people should be ashamed of, so if an Imperial wants to be proud they should definitely come up with something worth being proud about.
@Mopar63
Well reasoned, though I still find the Empire as it sits today to be despicable from the point of view of my own particular values. I think that if you were to RP those particular races correctly that would be close to where you'd end up. I would think that the Bosmer would be more likely to go against the Empire because of the Imperial betrayal of Valenwood and the Dunmer more likely to go for the Empire because of the Nord blockade of Morrowind, but these are relatively minor considerations for those particular two races. The Bretons might sit back through the entire thing because if the war continues and neither side wins, the Thalmor win, and the Bretons ( the Forsworn particularly ) have been receiving weapons and supplies from the Thalmor. The Orcs might also lean towards the Empire because a Nord win in Skyrim would leave less need of Orcs as Mercenaries, since Skyrim is unlikely by culture to hire them, but the Empire isn't ( I can't picture the Nords, who think of themselves as great warriors with a lot of Pride stooping to hiring Orcs to fill out their ranks, the Imperials however have no such qualms ). An Argonian probably would lean pro-Empire just to keep the Dominion off balance so that the Argonians could continue their wars against the Dunmer and the Khajit would probably lean anti-Imperial if only because the Empire betrayed them when they asked for help during the Crisis of the Moon and the Empire refused to help them.
Those are just little tiny RP considerations to make for those races. High Elves honestly to me are the wild card strangely enough. Why would a High Elf be in Skyrim? There is a huge number of possibilities there. Dominion Spy, Refugee, Renegade, Member of the Summerset Resistance ( can't remember what the name of them are now ). However because in Skyrim the Summerset Isles are the one's most shrouded in mystery of all the lands, it gives the most options for RP.
Incidently Stormcloak81 I'm really sick of having to go back and reread your posts when you edit them after someone has responded to them. I hope when people read through these they go back and check the times and dates of when you edit your posts. -
*facepalms again*
I don't see any apologies for fascists, not that I expect any, because I understand the stupidity of the statement.
Amazing to me that people consider " fascist " ( people who killed 6 million people ) is less evil a statement to make than " child raper ".
If you're offended by child raper and not fascist I have no idea what's wrong with you, if it bothers you that much then you have my apology for making the comparison. However I think it's absolute idiocy that you're demanding an apology and not offering one, especially since apparently you can't understand why I said it in the first place.
You don't understand oppression, you have once again you have not used the word in the correct definition.
I'll rephrase " child raper " with " serial killer " or any other inflammatory phrase you want to use if you want, but frankly I don't think I owe you or anyone else an apology, since I didn't call you anything at all, and you have completely and totally missed the point. Your inability to understand that is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Do you truly believe I literally called you, or anyone, a child raper? Really? Actually screw it, I can't talk to someone who simply is unable to understand anything I'm saying. You're unable to, completely unable, to follow what I'm saying so what's the point. Don't talk to me again, in fact don't talk period again, because I will show up to tell you that you're not making any sense whatsoever.
My assumption I now consider fact. This is Gibbon vs. Voltaire, and has completely fallen into the lowest wastelands of the saddest excuse that the mass delusional call " debate ".
This is like swatting a fly with a buick, and frankly isn't fun for me at all, it's quite disturbing. It was once mentioned by someone who was sponsored to attend a USO event in Afghanistan ( though not while in Afghanistan ) that a comparison could be made of the average person in the United States, and the Soldiers in Afghanistan this statement. " Why is this first group fighting to defend this second group "?
The answer to that question is so that you can be free to make uninformed, anti-intellectual, redundant, ill-educated, and obtuse comments on internet chat forums. For that you are welcome.
However it was also so that when I returned I could face down those people and call them out on those same properties.
I feel I have done so with you. If you respond I will respond to you, however your constant and unrelenting inability to show any signs of talent to debate, fact, or even the basic understandings of Oratory or Rhetoric leaves me speechless in most respect. Frankly you scare me, and those like you scare me. This is no longer about Imperial vs Stormcloak, it left that behind apparently before it even began.
As for people PMing you, I frankly would invite them to PM me and perhaps I can explain it to them privately. Why they would PM you asking for an explanation for what -I- said is baffling, but so be it. If they wish to learn why I said what I said, then I'll tell them. If they don't then it's their choice to remain ignorant.
As for an apology, I will never apology for standing on principle, ever, for any reason, till the day I die. The fact you don't get that I'm standing on principle and not that I'm insulting you or anyone else by that statement ( What's wrong with you people? Seriously? Really? Especially when the next post down I explain it and mention I'd shoot a child raper in the head with no thought of consequence just on principle? Then go on to explain the reasoning for it all as if it wasn't obvious to begin with? Really? ) is truly your problem and frankly one that is a likely terminal blow to your ability to analyze the world around you for the rest of your life.
-
*facepalms*
Guys, the stormcloaks are the worse kind of fashists.
I'm not sure how to respond to this statement, I'm not even sure it's a full thought, I fear it...
using the same sort of logic though I'll say The Imperials are the worst sort of child rapistsP.S. It's Fascists
It's called comparison by the absurd. See the part that says " using the same sort of logic "?
I could make an argument that killing six million people by being a fascist is worse than being a child raper, which you will notice I'd murder without provocation, and admitted to it.
The point was to say something inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory to make the point that saying something inflammatory without point, comparison, argument, fact, figure, or even more than one sentence is inflammatory and is pointless in a debate, and what's more drags down the discourse to a play ground " he said she said " level of intellectual sewage.
The point wasn't to call you guys child rapers, the point was to call the statement itself pointless, to say it achieved nothing other than to lower the intelligence level of the discourse into something akin to 4th graders.
Now onto more absurdity
So Imperials make mistakes like Mass Murder, Genocide, Regicide, Laws persecuting the rights of certain citizens and certain religious passages, pointless wars, cowardice, and the systematic economic ( both in material and personal ) pillaging of other nations? These aren't mistakes my friend, these are in fact what we would call War Crimes. This is Pol Pot level stuff. These aren't " mistakes ". These are things that any sane person, any person in their right mind, would go to war over, to the death. These are things I'd die to prevent, personally, in my own life. These are recorded, they are demonstrated, and they continue to this day in this " Empire " you serve.
If you are ignorant of them, that's on you, if you agree with them then I couldn't disagree more.
If you want to say that I called Imperials Child rapers in some sort of literal form, you have completely missed the point, and honestly the debate between us should cease because it's really starting to aggravate me. If you don't understand the most basic things I'm saying, then how am I supposed to make any point at all? Step up or Step aside because frankly I'm becoming frustrated with your inability to understand what I'm saying.
You obviously do not know what oppression is, that's for certain based on your last sentence, I'm running out of options as to how the hell to have a debate with you Storm. I started out with respect towards you, and you know it, that's the part that's craziest to me. I was patient right up until now, I'm no longer patient because sometimes frankly if you do not see any way, any way at all of reaching a person and having a true exchange of ideas then what's the point?
I have only two question left for you, and then I'll give you the only possible explanation that I must ask if the following two things are false.
Question One: Are you below 9th grade?
Question Two: Is English your first Language?
If neither of those are true then I have to assume that it is simply a matter of the story of Gibbon vs. Voltaire
-
I am not entirely sure what you're talking about, I'm not sure how you're defining evil, I'm not even sure what you're referring too, and who's pure delicious evil exactly?
with pyroclean victory are you referring to " A victory so costly it might as well have been a defeat "? That's a Pyrrhic Victory if that's what you mean. Named for King Pyrrhus of Epirus from the Battle of Heraclea
I need something that approaches a hard argument that's substantiated with facts and reality.
For the record, as far as William Wallace and Ulfric goes, it was never William Wallace or Ulfric, it's both of them.
The comparison is made because they are proportionately the same as far as the military and social costs of their respective rebellions. We aren't talking millions of lives lost here, the entire Imperial force in Skyrim is only 6,000-10,000 people. A single Legion. If the Stormcloaks can match that number then that would be 20,000 people total as far as Military forces in the area. That's roughly one division in the Napoleonic Era. Or the number of soldiers who died in 4 hours during the Battle of the Somme WW1. So just keeping comparison's proportional. I personally support both Wallace and Ulfric. My point was that Ulfric doesn't make belts out of dead people's skin, so by comparison he's better.
Then you have to apply the morals of the time vs the morals of our times. In WW2 we bombed Dresdan into the ground, 160,000 Civilian casualties. Yet no one questions whether the cost to the German civilians was worth winning the war. I'd love to hear the person argue that the means ( bombing Dresden ) didn't justify the means ( stopping Hitler ).
I'm trying to figure out what you are talking about honestly when it comes to " pure evil ". I just don't see how it's possible for someone in possession of all the facts, and sitting them down and analyzing them, can assign pure evil to either side. I haven't, I accept there is bad on the Stormcloak side, I just find what the Imperial does, has done, and will by trend analysis do in the future to be demonstrably worse.
You could say it's choosing the lesser of two evils I suppose, but I don't look at it that way. I really don't think I should go on and on and on about this, because it's hard to argue with someone who I really can't understand.
Throwing words around like Facist, or quoting some of the worst people who ever lived like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, just makes it harder to take any argument made by that person seriously. They're what's called in Psychology " Kneejerk Phrases " and that's why I responded with " child rapist " because everyone agree's that raping children is bad ( well most people do, and the rest I'd without remorse happily put on their knees and blow their brains out ). It's said only for shock value and emotional response, and is truly the lowest form of debate.
It's an indicator, and there are only three reasons a person would use them, and none of them are flattering, so I won't go there. I'll just say that if you actually look up the three reasons, you'll know why I didn't, and you'll also know I'm not making any of it up so I'm not attacking, I'm merely informing.
I still don't have any idea what you're talking about, but perhaps I'm not intended too. I get so exhausted by all of this, SSDD I guess.
-
Didn't Ulfric himself slaughtered a buch of inocent civilians for simply not joining his cause? Good luck for him gathering allies. I didn't get the child raping bit.
kinda figured you wouldn't, and so some people say ( namely the Bretons ) but so did the Imperials more than once. You can't use counter-intuitive debate tactics. If you apply something you have to apply it across the board or take it off the board. No half measures.
It's one of the things that drives me nuts about Imperials, the way you never ever ever want to own up to the crimes of the Imperials. If you guys even know it. I know Ulfric's crimes, I have analyzed them against the Imperials, and cast my lot in with the Stormcloaks.
There is a reason for that, but it never seems like you know what the Imperials have done, ever.
That being said I have to question why I'm even bothering going through all this again and again and again...
-
@Gabryal
Ok so on "oppression"... what you're saying is anyone who receives a title as "liberator" or "freedom-fighter" gets a free pass into "oppressing" whomever they want but when the lawful Gov tries to stop the violence, then we're somehow the "oppressors"? I don't buy that.
So... Ulfric can murder people in Markarth for not coming to fight for his cause while Stormcloaks were sieging their city. Then when he captures said city, young, elderly, shopkeepers, children old enough to wield a
sword... whoever didn't fight for his cause he had them executed and now you're saying he gets a free pass? Give me a break dude.
The Imperials didn't do the same thing when the took back the Imperial City from the Dominion at the Battle of the Red Ring. They didn't actually because in Ulfric's case it was thousands and in the Empire's case it was hundreds of thousands. As well as that it was the Empire that gave Ulfric the Orders to recapture Makarth so no, You don't get a break.
When does it end? Ulfric has killed as many neutral parties in his revolution as he has killed Imperials. Ulfric "oppressed" the Reachmen, and Whiterun (a neutral city), he "oppresses" elven races, in particular the Dark Elves, the Stormcloaks in general are "oppressive" towards non Nords even Imperials, the Stormcloaks are in nature "oppressive" and, if you can't understand that then you're the one living in a fantasy. I'm here in the real world, a zebra does not change it's stripes.
The Imperials oppress as many " neutral " parties as Ulfric does, hence the problem, and you can only accept that Whiterun is neutral if you accept that it isn't Imperial which as it turns out it is. That being said by the logic you just mentioned I think pretty much everyone has a reason to hate the Empire, they Khajit have been oppressed by the Empire for centuries, they attempted to commit Genocide on the Argonions, they have been setting the Dunmer against each other for years, they abandoned their Bosmer allies allowing them to be absorbed into the Dominion, oh and they screwed Skyrim and Hammerfell completely. Don't get hostile on me either, it doesn't make your argument right, it only makes you look hostile. Your logic is deeply flawed.
And you know, I was going to continue to quote you but I'm just tired.
I could go on about false equivalence between a rascist Ulfric and a Genocidal madman like Hitler or a paranoid man with delusions of grandeur like Stalin, but honestly what's the point?
Oppression is a fact, not a question, it's oppression because it is a central government suppressing the right of someone to express their culture and heritage. Now is some oppression good? Yes, I think that oppressing people who come from cannibalistic cultures is probably good, as well as one's that have arranged marriages to minor's and one's that keep half their population covered in Burkha's ( sorry Saudi Arabia, you're a 13th century collection of backward elitists who depend on the rest of the world to keep you fabulously wealthy because you happened to be sitting on something that only became valuable when we found out that it didn't just ruin the camel forage areas )
If you want to scream about Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, then crack open a damn History book and draw a real comparison. If you want my real life ( and oft repeated ) comparison that bears some resemblance on reality I'll throw this one down.
Ulfric to William Wallace ( who seems to be well known enough thanks to a fan of Hitler's who stared in a movie about him )
People loved William Wallace, they absolutely adored him, and in 1995 the Scottish People loved the movie Braveheart so much they formed their own parliament in order to retain a sense of national identity. An interesting move in a Kingdom that is more or less run by Democratic principles at that point in History
Now Let's go Down the List
Started Rebellions? Yep Both of Them
Bigotry? Yep Both of Them
Attacked and Sacked Neutral Cities? Yep Both of Them
Committed Murder of Local Lords that sided with their enemies? Yep Both of Them
OK on to Reasons
Interference in National Politics? Yep Both of Them
Atrocities against local Populations? Yep Both of Them
Desire for Power? Yep Both of Them ( I'll lean towards Ulfric a little more on this one since he actually could be High King, Wallace wasn't in the line of Succession, though the co-Defender of Scotland was )
OK on to Personalities
Ulfric: Hates Dunmer
Wallace: Wove his own belts out of the Skin of the Men he killed
Whoa, Ulfric man you got to calm down.
I did like the part about how you defined the US as a Federal Republic ( true in theory ) and not a Democracy ( though there is a very narrow margin of people without franchise anymore ) mostly because it leaves me free to say that the Empire is well... an Empire, the Nords have no vote, none whatsoever, and no representation. If you think there was the Nord equivalent to a Senator, or a Hammerfell one, the WGC would have ever been signed? So nice of you to bring that one up, because it's so easy to contrast a dictatorship against a nation where some system exists to address one's grievances and a system of laws exists to protect your liberties ( in theory anyway ). The dictatorship in this case being the Empire in case you got confused.
Now let me explain something to you, and this is where I'm really going to draw the line because there comes a point you don't go across when you want to have a rational debate with people, you don't attack them personally based on the very limited things you know about them.
You have at least implied that I am stupid, lazy, and unpatriotic ( how you drew the line from Skyrim to Real Life as far as my political beliefs go I have no idea, but shoot for the moon if you want ) when in reality you know nothing about me.
In reality? You have no idea at all though. You might have if you'd read my previous posts picked up a few things, but I don't think you have.
I will say this that just by the tone of the ranting I'm going to make an educated guess about you though
Republican?
-
Guys, the stormcloaks are the worse kind of fashists.
I'm not sure how to respond to this statement, I'm not even sure it's a full thought, I fear it...
using the same sort of logic though I'll say The Imperials are the worst sort of child rapistsP.S. It's Fascists
-
You really can't agree with both because they're mutually exclusive, but I've explained all of that long long long ago and won't go back to it.
If you wish to pretend you can go right ahead, but it's utter fantasy not based anywhere even close to logic.
You can't stand against oppression when people's civil rights ( their right to worship as they choose ) have already been outlawed. The oppression of the Empire began before the game even started.
You can't support the right to rebel if you agree that the oppression is necessary.
These two statements were designed by me to be mutually exclusive, I examined them semantically, ran them through my rhetoric filters, and determined that they could not even in theory exist together.
It's just that simple, you choose one or the other but not both. It's Red or Blue or White, you can't choose Purple, there is no " Third Way " and to pretend there is just a wishful delusion.
So.. that's that, put to bed and done.
-
A great battle was fought over the last hundred or more posts, a battle between champions, but a battle between friends. In the end there was a victor, but that victor was logic. That victor was freedom, that victor was friendship, and that victor was a microcosm of Skyrim itself.
The Stormcloaks fight for Skyrim, we fight for the freedom to make our own mistakes, and we understand that we will make our own mistakes but that they will belong to us and not to an Emperor who cares nothing for our traditions or our culture or our very lives.
It is true that to get there Skyrim must suffer the horrors of war, it is true that to get there will set brother against brother. It is true that heartache and horror lay along the one road left to us to find our freedom, but when a battle is won, brothers will still be brothers. Skyrim will still be Skyrim and we will be able to heal what was broken apart by such things as the Thalmor menace, and the WGC, and when a brother returns to our ranks, to the ranks of those who believe that our lives are our own and do not belong to any tyrant in a golden city hundreds of miles away, it is as if the whole of the world is returned to us. For in each man who makes the choice to be free, for each sword that is raised in the air in defiance of tyranny, we know.
A Stormcloak is more than a man or woman, it is an Idea, and you can't kill an idea, not so long as it rests in the breast of one person who is willing to raise steel to defend it.
We are Stormcloak, and we shall endure whatever may come, as free men, even to the death.
-
Welcome back to the ranks of free men bigmagy, we welcome you with open arms
-
An old post was deleted here, it was a reference to a conversation about the difference between the US Civil War and the Rebellion in Skyrim, that is what bigmagy is referring too, the actually text of it matters only to bigmagy, since he was the one who it was directed too. Considering that his post that brought the response on has also been changed, the post that was here is no longer relevant.
That being said, you are right bigmagy, without you our convictions would not have been tested to the point of clarity of thought and wisdom that they have achieved. Through the crucible of that fire we are stronger in spirit than we would ever have been without you. Even better however is that the provider of that flame that forged our steel so tightly has thrown down the standard of the Imperial tyrant and crossed the field of battle to join the Ranks of those who fight for the right simply to live as we choose.
We will not always be right about everything, we will not always agree with each other, we will not be perfect, but we will have the right to make our own mistakes and not have our lives dictated by an Emperor on a throne who cares more about his own power than our own lives and traditions.
Once more into the breach my comrades, for TALOS and FREEDOM!
-
Thank you.
If it's Stormcloak it's this " I believe that defending the right of any group of people to fight for their culture and heritage is worth rebellion, and with it total war, with all the madness and horror that comes with it "
If it's Imperial it's " I believe that maintaining the empire is worth oppressing all other people not of Imperial decent, and that should they rebel it is worth total war, with all the madness and horror that comes with it "
I am a Stormcloak: I believe that defending the right of any group of people to fight for their culture and heritage is worth rebellion, and with it total war, with all the madness and horror that comes with it.
I plant my standard here upon this ground and I will not be moved, I will fight and die where I stand. So I give the oath and loyalty to the side of the Stormcloaks.
-
Did just want to log in long enough to reference something said earlier bigmagy where you were incorrect.
You referred to this as a civil war
by definition Empire's can't have civil wars, as by Definition an Empire is a central state and it's vassal states, whereas a civil war is defined by a power struggle within a state itself.
The British Empire was an Empire because it had it's central State ( England, and after time the United Kingdom ) and it's vassal states ( at it's height Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the West African Coast ).
The Roman Empire was an Empire. The central State being the Roman Province, and the Varied states under it's control, at one point consisting of Espana, Gaul Britian, Africana ( North Africa ) Parthia, Scythia, Judea, and others.
What is distinctive about a nation and an Empire is this, a nation has political entities within it that represent themselves to the nation, and empire has political entities that represent the empire.
For example, the Duke of York represents York to the United Kingdom, the Raj of India represents the United Kingdom to India. See the difference?
Now there is no doubt that in The Empire in Tamriel that it is in fact an Empire, so this by definition isn't a civil war, it's a rebellion. The desire of the people of Skyrim is to overthrow the Imperial power represented in this case by General Tullius and thus return itself to a state of self-reliance. If this was a civil war, say the US civil war, it would be the representatives of Skyrim withdrawing their representation to the Empire from the Empire. Skyrim has -no- representation to the Empire. It's not like the Senator from Skyrim declared itself independent then walked out, there isn't anyone in The Imperial City that was elected or appointed by the people of Skyrim to represent it's interests, and there never was. That's just a fact.
To call this a civil war is rather ungracious to the people of Skyrim, as they were never on an equal footing with Cyrodil when it came to the politics of the Empire, if the Empire truly wanted to keep Skyrim they could have pursued a policy something like the British Commonwealth, where the individual aspects of the Commonwealth determined their own destiny with the one exception of who their Head of State was. For example in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, each nation determines it's own destiny, the only thing holding them together being the Head of State, who is the Queen of the United Kingdom. This is not the case here
So this is a rebellion, with the overall goal being to create a nation independent of the Cyrodillian Dominated Empire. This puts quite a different outlook on the whole situation in this one way. A Rebellion is an attempt to earn by whatever means, whether it's Ghandi and his approach of non-violence ( which only worked because the people in the UK had at that time a strong value for the idea of Justice ) or violence ( which is more or less the only way to go about it with the Empire, because it's apparent just by signing the WGC that the Empire has very little if any respect for the idea of Justice ). If we're going to all agree that Skyrim has at least -some- right to determine it's own place in the world, if we're going to assume that the Nords are of themselves a people who deserve the right to determine their own destiny, then really they've been backed into a corner where they either lose their right to exist as an independent people, with their own culture and heritage, or they fight. It's as simple as that.
It never had to be that way, I've pointed out at least two dozen ways it could have been different, but it wasn't the case and that is how we find ourselves where we are today. It began with the WGC ( which benefited no one except Cyrodil, this is pretty clear. The only territories that were recovered in it were in the Nation of Cyrodil itself, the vassal nations for the most part all caught it in the shorts ) and as a result little choice was left but to make one of two choices, either give in and bow to the will of the Imperials and loose your cultural identity, or fight. Since non-violent resistance to the Imperials was futile, violent resistance was the only option to those who would hold onto their cultural identity. The first were the Redguards, now we have the Nords, and it's as simple as that.
The question of course is, whether it is right or wrong for a people to fight for their right to hold onto their own identity. A person can make all the arguments they want about any other issue, but if you do not address this issue. If a person is unable to say I'm pro-Imperial and as such I agree that it is wrong for -any- group to fight for it's right to fight to protect it's own culture ( I'm not just talking about Nords here, I'm talking about anyone. If you say it isn't right for Skyrim, then it wasn't right for Hammerfell either, and should this game have taken place in High Rock, or Orisumm ( orc place it's early for me and I can't remember the name ) that it isn't right for the Orcs or the Bretons either. Essentially you have to come right out and say " It isn't right for anyone to be anything but what the Imperials want them to be ) If you can't agree to that, then you -can't- be pro-Imperial, because being pro-Imperial means that you are -exactly- that, you can't have one without the other. It would be like saying I'm for with the United Nations so long as everyone acts like they are Americans. The two are mutually exclusive.
So here's the deal for the pro-Imperial folks, you simply cannot single out the Nords ( claims of racism, etc, don't care it may be -all- true but it doesn't matter, if you want them to change and accept Imperial dictate and thus stop fighting for their culture and land, then you have to do the same for every other Imperial citizen regardless of Race. Stop worshiping your Gods Mr. Orc because frankly it's not what the Imperials do and they said the Nords shouldn't do it, so you shouldn't be allowed to do it either ) I get really tired of people talking about Nord this and Nord that, because it isn't about the Nords it's about whether or not people have the right to fight for their culture and land.
Little has been said about whether or not Hammerfell has the right too, it did, and it won, and since it's over no one really gives it much thought. However what they did was rebel ( it's even called the Hammerfell rebellion in the lore, hell I think you can find a book in the game called exactly that ). So it comes down to this, the Nords either have a right to fight ( not even to necessarily succeed, but a right to fight ) for their culture and homes, or they don't. If you're pro-Imperial you believe they don't, because that's what the Imperials say, you can't half-measure it and say " Well they have the right to fight, but unfortunately if they succeed this or that will happen so we can't allow them too " if you're pro-Imperial then follow the Imperial line.
I think that's what I find most infuriating with pro-Imp's honestly, and you're not guiltless in this bigmagy, you want to divide up the pro-Imp party line. With the pro-Stormcloaks we might say " No we don't agree 100% with Ulfric's attitude, no we don't agree 100% with this or that aspect of the way the war was conducted ( Siege of Whiterun for example ) but the one thing we can -all- say is we agree in the cause. We agree that Nords are a race with their own culture, their own traditions, their own religion, and their own lands, and that they have a right to fight for them. " This solidifies the pro-Storm side. The pro-Imp side is all over the map with it's opinions on to -why- they are pro-Imp but they never come out and say they toe the party line and say " No, we do not agree that the Nords have a right to rebel, even if it is to protect their culture, religion, traditions, and land." and I'm sorry Pro-Imp's no matter what way you try to rectify it ( It's one of the reason I feel for Rikke, the Battle-Born's, Balgruuf and the list goes on ) once the WGC was signed, the Nord way of life was under attack. Hell if you go with the Imperial guy out of Helgen one of the things his Uncle says right off the bat is " There was a time when everyone home had their little statue of Talos and then the Thalmor came etc etc " essentially what he's saying there is this " There was a time when we were allowed to practice our culture in peace, but after the WGC was signed the Empire invited the Thalmor in and they denied us this aspect of our culture "
That's pretty much as clear an attack on someone's culture as I've ever seen, the classic " conversion at the end of the sword " aspect of Crusader fame. It's hard to get a clearer attack on a people's culture and heritage than when people kill you for following it.
So here's the deal, I'll accept -anyone- who want's to be pro-Imp so long as they say, straight up and no BS surrounding it " I agree that it is necessary to attack and destroy the culture of the Nords or -anyone else- to preserve the Empire, and that the Nords do not in fact have a right to fight to protect their culture, and if they do fight to protect their culture I will kill them " If you can come right out and say that, flat out, then I'll go " OK, you're pro-Imp, and as much as I disagree with you, I'll accept that about you " you can then proceed from there to give all your reasons why you think it's the best path, and I'll listen to them.
If you won't admit to the above though, I really am not interested your reasons ( sorry bigmagy, but you've known me awhile and known this has always been true ) likewise if you're on the pro-Storm side and you're not willing to say " I believe that a person has the right to fight and kill to protect it's traditions and culture, including slaughtering those who may not have a stake in the fight should they get in my way, that I believe that a right of a people to protect their heritage is paramount to all other considerations, and regardless of the cost, is worth the cost. Including things that individually I find repugnant " I don't buy your pro-Storm arguments and I don't want to hear the reasons why.
War is -not- pretty, and that's just a fact, so I'll come out and say it.
I don't like it, but I see it as necessary, for Whiterun to be sacked, with all the horror that comes to a city when it's walls are breached and soldiers storm into the streets filled with civilians.
I don't like it, but I see it as necessary, to support the most effective war leader that steps forward regardless of their own personal faults in other areas. Since Ulfric is that person, I accept his racism, his ambition no how bloody, and any other negative aspect of his personality. I would have supported William Wallace too, and this is a guy that History has recorded as literally skinning the men he killed and then tanning that skin and making it into a belt. This is historical fact, and I'd have followed a guy who wore human-skin belts. Ulfric isn't that bad relatively.
I don't like it, but I accept -anything- short of denying another people the right to their own culture by force of arms that is necessary to protect the Nords heritage and culture. No matter how bad it is. The right of the Nords to defend their own culture and heritage supersedes all else in Skyrim.
There I've said it, I've taken the pledge, I'm a Stormcloak. Now let's see the pro-Imp people say the same, as I've listed above. I want to see pro-Imp's say " No, Nords do not have a right to their culture and heritage " If I don't see it, I'm not interested in their reasons for being pro-Imp because frankly they've missed the boat. There are certain things that you have to be before you can claim to be from a group. I'm not black so I'm not a member of the Black Panthers, because I miss one of the big requirements in belonging to that group ( just an example, for god's sake no one give me an opinion on what they think of that statement, I truly don't care ). So whatever your argument is for being pro-Imp I want people to own up to the very -basics- of being pro-Imp before they go on with the rest of their reasons.
If you can't accept the basics I'm not interested in the abstract, and for the longest time now I've had to go " Well I accept both the basics and the more personal reasons to be a Stormcloak " and had to defend that position from the " Well I can see all the reasons not to be pro-Imp but there is -this particular- reason to be pro-Imp and that's why I am ". It simply isn't a fair fight for us Stormcloaks to have to defend our positions while accepting all the negative aspects that come along with it from Imperials who only give one reason for being Imperial but don't jump in with all the negative parts of being an Imperial.
It's one reason I retired from this forum, because I started getting really frustrated with people not willing to go " I'm an Imperial and I'm proud of it! Down with Nordic culture and identity! " because if you don't believe that, if you don't think that's the best thing, then frankly you're an Imperial on paper only. You may regret the necessity for it, but it's come to that. To be an Imperial is to stand against the Nords right to fight for their culture and traditions, and if you think it's not then you don't understand what's happening in Skyrim. What did you think if the Imperials won then all the reasons the Nords rebelled in the first place would go away? That all of a sudden the Imperials would go " Well, now that we've won let's give you all the things you were fighting for in the first place ". Bleh.
So let's hear it from the Imperials, write your belief that you think the Nords shouldn't be allowed to fight for their culture and traditions, write that you believe that if necessary the Nordic traditions and culture should be destroyed in order to preserve the empire, because if you don't think that, then you aren't an Imperial. The key words being " if necessary " because you're halfway there by siding with the Imperials, because if you're willing to fight against their right to rebel in defense of their culture and traditions, the next step -could- be to eradicate that culture and those traditions, because why not, after all if you fight against their right to fight for it, you might as well fight to destroy it all together.
Just accept that that's what you're fighting against, you're looking a Nord in the eye and saying " No, you don't have the right to fight for this " you can add your " and here's why " after that, but if you don't begin your sentence with that, I'm just not interested in what comes after.
Listen, I'm tired and it's not even noon now, and I've been harsh in this post but frankly I'm so very very very tired of going over the same damn ground over and over again. I'm a Stormcloak, yes, and I accept the downsides of taking that path.
The Imperials by and large however -never- own up to the downsides. They aren't willing to admit the horror they bring to the table, but are really quick to bring up all the negative things that being a Stormcloak means. Well here's the negative thing about being an Imperial, you're fighting against people's right to have their own culture and traditions. You're -oppressing- people, you're telling them they don't have a right to their traditions and culture. That's a -fact-, whatever else may be a " good " thing about being an Imperial, you first and foremost have to admit to yourself and to the world that you're first and foremost an oppressor. That's just a simple fact, and if an Imperial can't own up to that, I'm just not going to discuss anything else with them, I'm too tired to do so, as I said before I retired from this thread ( and took a hiatus from the game even ) due to in part having to argue my points from the position of a Stormcloak who accepts that all isn't shiny and righteous in my camp, but the people who argue'd against me liked to pretend it -was- all shiny and pretty in theirs.
It doesn't take much to get really sick of that. So I want to hear from only Imperials who admit they're oppressors, and then they can give all the good reasons they have for being one. If you can do that then I'll take your arguments seriously. If not, I was fine in my retirement ( Damnit Stormcloak, I was happy in my retirement, then you came and fought where I had been fighting before, and I couldn't leave a brother on his own, if we ever come out on top of this debate I'm going to kick your ass ;) )
/rant off
Omega DLC 'critical mission failure' bug
in Original Trilogy
Posted · Edited by Gabryal
Not sure if you ever got an answer to this, but I have the exact same problem, I have the same mods installed except for the Interface Scaling Mod
Edit: I figured out what is happening but I have no idea how to stop it, the player is clipping through the floor in the cutscene, and eventually falls to their death. Why this is I have no earthly idea