Why Ulfric was right to kill the High King

[Moraelin]

Yes, you and others have made that point repeatedly.

 

The problem is you can make the same point about any kind of freedom. Until you can retreat no more and have zero freedom.

 

Well, yes, that's actually the whole problem: it goes both ways, so the whole emotional talk of freedoms and slippery slopes, quoth Shania Twain, it don't impress me much :P Herding all non-Nords into one glorified ghetto and having them publicly harassed, or other such inequality, is as much about freedoms too. Or lack thereof.

 

The fact is, the game makes you choose between two a-holes. On one side you have a regime that's not granting religious freedom to a minority, while on the other side you have a junta that's pretty openly about racial discrimination. If there were a nirvana option that loses nothing, I could understand saying that the other one is such a slippery slope to no rights, but as it is, both choices have equal claims to that slippery slope. Equally when you decide that it's ok for one group to have less rights, you could continue to the logical conclusion where nobody but the ruler and his clique have any. Human history has plenty of those examples too.

 

Even when that inequality is about racism or xenophobia, the effects can be just the same. E.g., I'll point out that once you have racism established as OK, it's easy to redefine even a religious group as a race, or a religion as a racial thing: the holocaust in WW2 was done precisely under the pretense that it's about race, not religion. That's why they killed people because of their grandmother's being Jewish, rather than for what temple they actually go to. The whole religion group was neatly packaged as a different RACE and a matter of genetics. It's not even the only example, but it will have to do.

 

So both may or may not end up slippery slopes, where one more right is taken away or one more group included in those with no rights. It's not like only religious freedom is the only one where that applies.

 

One can argue which of those is, in one's personal opinion, worse, but not do such emotional speeches about freedoms and slippery-slopes for just one of them.

 

And I've been around these forums (plural) enough to know that these kinds of threads generally start innocently enough (although given the inevitable outcome one has to suspect ulterior motives) and quickly proceed to "don't join the Stormcloaks because Ulfric is a racist (or scumbag, douche-bag...fill in your favorite pejorative)" or "Ulfric only wants to be High King" or "Ulfric murdered Torygg." Etc., ad infinitum ad nauseum.

 

Aside from the fact that implicit in these assertions is a guilt by association that is aimed directly at anyone who perceives the right and the logic and the justice in Ulfric's actions, it is arrogant and disrespectful to expect others to blithely ignore the hidden agenda.

 

But even that might be alright...a basis for mature and respectful conversation...except that they are all emotionally driven charges that cannot be substantiated. And when it is shown that they cannot be substantiated, those making such assertions get even more entrenched and start quibbling about the way things are said rather than what is being said. Some going so far as to reject long accepted commonalities of language.

 

You know, for someone who bemoans such emotional positions and whatnot, you're sure good at doing exactly what you preach against. If a position is illogical, surely you can address exactly what's wrong with it. No need to write three paragraphs about what you imagine is wrong with those disagreeing with you, plus a playing the victim card for good measure.

 

Never mind that the same guilt by association actually applies to both positions just as well, and it IS applied to both positions just as well. As I was saying, the choice is between TWO evils.

[MacSuibhne]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but fanfic doesn't override what's actually in the game. Just because someone on a wiki made up some stuff about that, doesn't mean anything. Point out where it is said in the game, or in official canon materials, or basically who cares?

 

If it's based on sources that are in game or in the official canon, then point out those sources. Otherwise it's just made-up unsupported fan-fic.

 

And I'm seriously getting tired of "lore" being mistaken for "what some anonymous fanboy MADE UP, based on nothing but his delusional imagination" :P

 

 

 

But you're OK with street gossip and hearsay and even timelines plucked out of thin air?

 

Everything has to be weighed against verifiability...proof, or at least credible sources that can be substantiated.

 

You assert in another post that someone is "having them (non-Nords) publicly harassed". Who? Who is having them publicly harassed?!

 

More speculation? More wishful thinking? Who?

 

You are making accusations...it is up to you to prove them or drop them. If I choose to defend against accusations, all I have to do is shoot holes in the slander. So the issue of some sort of reciprocal guilt by association is just silly. I'm not projecting or suggesting guilt...that's your tactic.

 

You can play this game any way you like...conjure all kinds of will-o'-the-wisp scenarios that are unsupported by anything except fish-wife gossip mongering...but if you bring it to a public forum you need to be playing the same game as all the rest of us.

 

If only a half dozen Dunmer have had the incentive to escape (as far as I know no one is keeping them there) the Grey Quarter--given to them virtually free of charge when they first came to Skyrim a hundred and fifty years ago, and in all that time none of them have managed to buy, steal or manufacture a paint brush or a broom--something is going on there that facile slander of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks cannot explain.

 

Parenthetically, I don't bemoan emotions. Everyone has them. But there is a time and place.

 

I challenge using emotionally based accusations to support any position that requires logic and reason. Anytime someone starts slinging slurs (like scumbag, racist,etc.) around like some three-year old who has just learned a new potty word...senselessly, incessantly, chanting it in the face of anyone and everyone...I immediately step back and ask for proof. I get suspicious that there is a hidden agenda.

 

So far, all I have gotten in response is more emotionally charged vitriol.

 

The fact is that Bethesda made it remarkably easy for emotional people to fixate on some supposed racism. All you have to do is listen to a few people in the Grey Quarter...and ignore everyone else who is saying something diametrically opposite...and you have ammunition to support your dismay. Nevermind that it's all hearsay. Nevermind that it's all circumstantial. Nevermind that the larger picture defies such simple-minded conclusions.

 

But, right there--the fact that it is so easy, ought to give any objective person pause...at the very least.

Edited July 8, 2012 by MacSuibhne

[Moraelin]

But you're OK with street gossip and hearsay and even timelines plucked out of thin air?

 

Everything has to be weighed against verifiability...proof, or at least credible sources that can be substantiated.

 

Pretty much that's the whole point. Everything has to be weighed against real sources. That means in-game stuff or official sources. Period. Hearsay in game is lore. Hearsay from the glorified fanfic of some fan writing a wiki article is not. Lore and canon are not something that every random fanboy can just pull out of the butt. (If some random fan could define canon, then every major character ever would be officially gay, because some fangirl wrote yaoi fanfic about them.)

 

If that article can point out where in the game is that stated, fine, it's lore and canon. Otherwise it's not. It's that simple.

 

You assert in another post that someone is "having them (non-Nords) publicly harassed". Who? Who is having them publicly harassed?!

 

More speculation? More wishful thinking? Who?

 

You only need to enter Windhelm to witness it, you know? So try Suvaris Atheron for a start. It's also very clear that the guards overlook that harassment, and generally don't do much to help the dark elves. (Also stated in the actual game by, for example, Ambarys Rendar.)

 

You are making accusations...it is up to you to prove them or drop them. If I choose to defend against accusations, all I have to do is shoot holes in the slander. So the issue of some sort of reciprocal guilt by association is just silly. I'm not projecting or suggesting guilt...that's your tactic.

 

Dearie, it's kinda silly to pretend you didn't say something, when it's quoted right above your message, or to create a strawman in my name when it's on the same page. I quote from your message, "Aside from the fact that implicit in these assertions is a guilt by association that is aimed directly at anyone who perceives the right and the logic and the justice in Ulfric's actions". In that case, the assertions, again, quoted right above from your message are apparently saying that Ulfric is a racist douche.

 

Also, again, please do stick to what is relevant. Speculating about what you imagine as my tactics is still not quite the same as having an argument :P

 

You can play this game any way you like...conjure all kinds of will-o'-the-wisp scenarios that are unsupported by anything except fish-wife gossip mongering...but if you bring it to a public forum you need to be playing the same game as all the rest of us.

 

And more brow-beating. Still not impressed.

 

But anyway, even fish-wife gossip in game is more canon than stuff pulled out of the butt by some fan. Show the canon sources that support your assertions, or you don't actually have an argument.

 

If only a half dozen Dunmer have had the incentive to escape (as far as I know no one is keeping them there) the Grey Quarter--given to them virtually free of charge when they first came to Skyrim a hundred and fifty years ago, and in all that time none of them have managed to buy, steal or manufacture a paint brush or a broom--something is going on there that facile slander of Ulfric and the Stormcloaks cannot explain.

 

And here we go...

 

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "and in all that time none of them have managed to buy, steal or manufacture a paint brush or a broom", given that people there actually do work. Ambarys Rendar works, but apparently he can't get Ulfric to even be interested in seeing how his subjects live in that quarter, and he states "Good luck getting the guards to help with anything.". Malthyr Elenil works in the same club, but apparently he too is stuck in the Grey Quarter. Sadri has a shop, but he's in that quarter too. But generally, implying that it's somehow the fault of those discriminated against is a common excuse for racism, probably even the #1 one, but it's in this case clearly bunk.

 

2. Aval Atheron, among others, clearly states that his kind isn't allowed to live outside the Grey Quarter. So, yes, technically they could leave, by leaving the Jarldom entirely, but that doesn't make it anything less than racial discrimination anyway. "They could just go away" is another argument much used in defense of racism, so it's not surprising to see it trotted out in defense of virtual racism too, but nevertheless that's inequal treatment. Equality means getting equal chances and rights here and now, not just that nobody's preventing them from fleeing abroad.

 

Parenthetically, I don't bemoan emotions. Everyone has them. But there is a time and place.

 

I challenge using emotionally based accusations to support any position that requires logic and reason. Anytime someone starts slinging slurs (like scumbag, racist,etc.) around like some three-year old who has just learned a new potty word...senselessly, incessantly, chanting it in the face of anyone and everyone...I immediately step back and ask for proof. I get suspicious that there is a hidden agenda.

 

They're being slung at a virtual character, whereas your accusations of hidden agendas and whatnot are at real people. The former is not a fallacy, unless, I suppose someone were trying to invalidate argument made by that character. And wouldn't be so anyway as long as such accusations ARE supported. Sometimes people really are racist, and it's not just slung as a slur. While the latter is a textbook fallacy. Especially if you're aware that supporting a position requires reason and logic, please do use those, not speculations about other people's motives, emotions or whatever failures about them you can imagine.

 

And anyway, if you find some position illogical, surely it should be easy to point out exactly which failure of logic -- i.e., fallacy -- is being committed. Doing your own failures of logic in return is just not it.

 

So far, all I have gotten in response is more emotionally charged vitriol.

 

No. You get vitriol for your slinging your own insults around. Just in the message I'm answering to, you're speculating about motives, comparing people to 3 year olds, and such gems as calling a position "simple-minded". If you choose to act like an insulting troll, it seems to me hypocritical to then complain when you get the same in return. Ditto about emotional stuff. If you want cold logic instead of emotion, then I'd like to see more actual logically sound arguments from you, and not just more of your own emotional victim act.

 

The fact is that Bethesda made it remarkably easy for emotional people to fixate on some supposed racism. All you have to do is listen to a few people in the Grey Quarter...and ignore everyone else who is saying something diametrically opposite...and you have ammunition to support your dismay. Nevermind that it's all hearsay. Nevermind that it's all circumstantial. Nevermind that the larger picture defies such simple-minded conclusions.

 

I'm perfectly willing to accept such larger-picture arguments, but then what's needed is actual support, not just pulling stuff out of the butt and doing circumstantial ad-hominems about the whole group that happens to disagree. You know what would falsify the idea that Ulfric and his gang are racists? Well, actual examples of their doing otherwise. You know what totally doesn't? A bunch of irrelevant fallacies and some made up "lore" that's not supported by anything in the game.

 

But, right there--the fact that it is so easy, ought to give any objective person pause...at the very least..

 

BS. Something being the simplest explanation is what makes it the preferred one under Occam's razor. And generally, almost invariably the scientific and/or evidence based explanations are FAR simpler and involve FAR less entities than the conspiracy theories denying them. There is no such thing as needing to question something because it's too easy.

 

When one OUGHT to question an explanation is when there's data that contradicts the explanation. That's it.

[Archone]

 

I challenge using emotionally based accusations to support any position that requires logic and reason. Anytime someone starts slinging slurs (like scumbag, racist,etc.) around like some three-year old who has just learned a new potty word...senselessly, incessantly, chanting it in the face of anyone and everyone...I immediately step back and ask for proof. I get suspicious that there is a hidden agenda.

 

They're being slung at a virtual character, whereas your accusations of hidden agendas and whatnot are at real people. The former is not a fallacy, and wouldn't be so anyway as long as the ARE supported (sometimes people really are racist, and it's not just slung as a slur), while the latter is a textbook fallacy. Especially if you're aware that supporting a position requires reason and logic, please do use those, not speculations about other people's motives, emotions or whatever failures about them you can imagine.

 

 

Actually, I do have to disagree with you there, Moraelin. I've been slinging the accusations at a real person - at Mac, when I charged him to (among other things) provide sources for his assorted claims. And again, Mac - can you provide any evidence for any of this? One link? One citation for people to look up?

 

I'm starting to regret wishing I'd goaded you. You're making the Stormcloak side look terrible on the basis that you support it, when my own position was always "both sides have legitimate grievances and genuine flaws."

[Moraelin]

Err, Archone, since I was answering to something about "slurs" like "racist" or "scumbag" being slung at Ulfric, I don't think you've been doing the same at Mac, unless I've been missing something.

 

You have challenged him to provide a proper support for his claims, which is something completely different :P

[Stemin]

Actually, I do have to disagree with you there, Moraelin. I've been slinging the accusations at a real person - at Mac, when I charged him to (among other things) provide sources for his assorted claims. And again, Mac - can you provide any evidence for any of this? One link? One citation for people to look up?

 

He can't do that. The guy's been arguing this crap in 4 or 5 different threads, for multiple pages and he doesn't even know what the main quest is: http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/699781-what-exactly-is-the-main-quest/

 

I don't know how you can argue the finer points of a game you haven't even played enough to finish the main mission.

[Deleted4666244User]

a few pages back someone said that the High king is a sacrifice for the people. but what about the Jarl? is that not a sacrifice for the people as well, since the Jarl is the sovereign of the hold? if that is a case Ulfric is not dong his job

 

1. his people=those in his hold. ALL OF THEM.
   
2. His race=the Nords
   

 

should the non-nords be treated like the Nords or should they be secon-class citizens because of their race or their neutrality towards a war that is about the nordic people?

[fraquar]

Well, considering the Nords even treat their own with disdain until they prove themselves, I'm not sure where the argument is going here. Not just in Windhelm but most of Skyrim, you aren't getting special treatment till you prove yourself.

[Deleted4666244User]

Well, considering the Nords even treat their own with disdain until they prove themselves, I'm not sure where the argument is going here. Not just in Windhelm but most of Skyrim, you aren't getting special treatment till you prove yourself.

 

so the Nords are free to treat the Dunmer as second-class citizens while Ulfric just lets them until the Dunmer do something? i know what would happen: the dunmer start killing Nords=>Dunmer getting arrested=>more Nord murders at the hands of Dunmer=>Windhelm Being destroyed by infighting.

 

also Adrienne in Whterun post-stormcloak victory begs to differ, without her husband, the stormcloaks won't even talk to her.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Guest

[Moraelin]

I don't think that being able to walk around the city you were born in, without people accusing you of being some kind of spy and making pretty overt threats at you, or being able to sleep in your own home without some racist Nord screaming slurs in the street until the early hours in the morning (as stated by Suvaris Atheron right as you enter Windhelm), counts as a privilege that should be earned by proving oneself. Joining some fighter guild or getting a promotion in an army, ok, I can see the point of making everyone prove themselves. But when a bunch of people are harassed for their race, and neither the guards nor the Jarl gives a damn, that is kinda stretching my definition of "special treatment" that one needs to prove themselves for. It's more like what I'd call a baseline for a civil society.

 

Mind you, I'm not saying that the middle ages weren't racist. Nor that Ulfric's side is worse than the Thalmor, or anything. And I've probably slit more throats for Talos than the other way around.

 

It's just starting to get my goat to see fan BS redefined as "lore", and everyone who disagrees with anything about Ulfric being painted with the broad brush of being some irrational loonie that doesn't know what he's talking about.