fionwe1987

If I remember right, this was a tactic in the r/Whitecloak sinkpit, too. Extreme predictions that were laughable, that would be defended as totally rational and obvious if only you had to sense to see how truly awful the writers were, and were always destined to be, because they clearly want to destroy RJ's vision, and want to spit on his grave... You get the picture. Yeah I never felt brave enough to say this in any discussion, but at least the way the books handle it, it's really hard to see anything harem like in their relationship. Elayne is very clearly the person making it happen. Despite having had the vision herself, even Min doesn't see it as practical in any way. Aviendha has no issues with other women being involved, but also doesn't push for it. Elayne is the first to make peace with it, then starts making an effort to make it real. Rand takes no part in any of this, literally. He's a continent away for most of it, and the bonding itself is something Elayne invents and performs with Aviendha. Now, you can see this as a ploy to make a harem palatable. Or you can see this as women having agency and using it, yes, in ways that seem strange, but only because society has pushed any such ideas to the edges. So basically Min's viewing in action? Interesting. In a way, that would even make sense of some of the nonsense with the battle. The three ta'veren together manipulating chance, so even Egwene's puny shield somehow holds, and Ishamael maybe didn't have his tea that morning so he was working at less than 100% of his channeling skills, and conveniently forgot all the dangerous ways he could have destroyed the entire city of Falme in less than a few seconds. It might even be what happened with Moiraine's weaves. I wonder if all the show haters will accept ta'veren as an explanation.

Someone mentioned boots on the ground, but that is obviously only a technical limitation in the definition of occupation. Drones patrolling in the air that can select targets on the ground (with varying levels of accuracy) surely count as occupation? Gaza is also not allowed to build an airport, and it's airspace is fully under Israeli control as well.

I really don't get why this is a distraction. Any road to ending Hamas and giving Palestinians basic human rights and freedoms will have to engage with this question. The statelessness and the dreadful treatment on the ground of Palestinians is not in any way a distraction from Hamas, it is a major component of their success and strength. Hamas is able to justify its actions to the populace of Gaza, and draw volunteers from it, because every avenue for peacefully resisting Israel's apartheid has also been blocked. Israel's government continues to insist there is some kind of peaceful solution without Palestinians being given freedom and self-determination. That we're now seeing arguments that the Palestinians have a state anyway, and therefore none of this matters, is a frankly alarming argument.

If it is an unrecognized state, it seems clear it is not recognizable as a state. Once again, you're trying to have this both ways. You just said it isn't recognized by anyone as a duck. If you believe that deep down, it is a duck, but simply doesn't act as a duck for various reasons, then defining it as a duck seems pointless. States do not have meaning except by shared agreement and definition. Which you have clearly agreed, Gaza does not have. So what are you saying here, exactly? I suppose but the semantics affect the lives of 2 million people on a daily basis, and are now set to affect the lives of a hell of a lot more, so let's dwell on this a little more. I think this academic debate about statehood and government lays bare one of the issues here: Palestinians occupy a conceptual black hole in international relations, which allows different groups to label them differently as is convenient to them. This is untenable. A Two-state solution (so called because what is currently neighboring Israel isn't a state, which is more proof of the point being made, incidentally), is meant to precisely not leave Palestinians in the lurch like this. And I think we can all agree Israel is a starring player in the enforcing of the current status quo, which is, by Israel's own definition and desire, one where Palestinians do not have a state, and certainly Gaza isn't that state. So how does defining Gaza as a state in any way explain this situation? No aspect of the actions of the past few days are about two states at war. That is by design, and one Israel will be maintaining even if it gets all it wants and sweeps Hamas away. That is because calling it not a state, and calling America an imperialist nation, are not allowed in the global political order run by America. I wouldn't call Vito Corleone a murderous mob boss in his study, probably. That wouldn't change that he is. But Israel isn't one of those countries, and has says exactly the opposite. If Gaza is indeed a state, then Israel has been illegally blockading them for more than a decade, causing civilian losses at a scale that dwarfs what happened these past few days. So then we're saying Hamas, the government of this supposed state, had a right to attack Israel? It would have been ok, and nothing negative would have been said, if they only attack Israeli military outposts, or assassinated Netanyahu?

This is the post I was responding to. You didn't say that, but others in this thread, to whom I was replying called this a war between two countries, which is factually untrue.

It shouldn't, but it seems to, for some people. And since it does, I think it's fair to ask those people what exactly they mean by county, and point out the many many ways Gaza isn't one.

Authority doesn't require elections. But it requires legitimacy, which Hamas clearly doesn't have. Imagining legitimacy now is just a convenient way to justify what the Palestinian people will face next in Gaza. Then it's easy enough to say "shit happens in war".

If we list the policy actions and affairs of state Hamas conducts for Gaza, and compare it with such a list for any other state we all agree is a state, even something like North Korea, would these look anything remotely alike? And I don't just mean actions and policies Hamas chooses not to focus on. I'm talking about things states do that Hamas simply isn't allowed to do, because it is not a legitimate government.

Oh yes, that's all we needed, Iran getting actively involved to the point of attacking the US. This has all the hallmarks of sharks at sea circling blood which they had a hand in spilling themselves. There is no mathematical or physical meaning of the words state or government. They are terms of art held up by common agreement. And there is no common agreement on Gaza being a state. It has no international representation like any known state. Its citizens also have none of the freedoms and respects accorded to citizens of other states, and I'm not referring here to how Hamas treats them. Gaza is, apparently, only a state when it being a state would justify retaliatory actions against its people. Bull. Shit.

Did Egypt or the PLA set up settlements in the strip? I'm genuinely asking, because I'm not aware of such a thing. This is troubling. You're saying the two nations blockading the Strip have no agency here? Except in response to the rise to power of this "government" , we got a blockade, on the basis that this cannot be the legitimate government of Gaza. So is Hamas a government or a terrorist organization? It cannot be either based on what is convenient to the argument, right? That it is not the factual government of Gaza, what's more, Israel has said so and acted accordingly, and continues to do so. The people of Gaza, of course, remain unconsulted, even as their very lives depend on these definitions.

Well, that's nonsensical. You cannot both say that the blockade is because Hamas isn't the legitimate government of Gaza, and then treat it like the legitimate government of Gaza when convenient.

Factually, you need to change the definition of state and independent to apply either of those terms to Gaza. It's a 2 million person prison, and Israel controls it. Ignoring that, and the moral implications of that, won't help anyone resolve this situation. All it will do is allow the Israeli politicians who created this situation to use the tragedy of the past few days to their advantage.

There's something awful about sorrow that you know is going to be dwarfed however this conflict resolves. Anger at Hamas and the Israeli government are justified. But even more justified, for me, and more necessary, is anger at the colonial history that has left us here. Anger that the colonial powers who engineered this shitshow still sit on their ill gotten power and direct the contours of this conflict. None of the people alive in these lands perpetrated the horrors of colonialism. But the world continues to be structured by it, and till there is a reckoning, thousands of more lives will be lost, far from these halls of power where reckoning with the past is never done, because any understanding of that past shows that the global political order of today is rooted in centuries of destruction and damage, and is therefore wrong. That there has not been, and continues to not be, accounting for this, and no real accounting can or should leave global political power divvied up as it is today. Till that changes, this is what we have to look forward to, and not just in Gaza

You said "At one point or another everybody is a slaver." I'm not sure how I don't count as one among "everybody". Well certainly, if you read Mat's cheery final scene with Tuon and the announcement of an heir as Aludra puts up a forewords display in the sky above, as below, the sul'dam comb through the battlefield for new damane... It is dystopic, but nothing in the tone of the ending suggests so to me. You may read it otherwise, but in a book series that talks about the horrors of using evil to fight evil, that felt like miss, to me. I sincerely hope so too. I have no interest at all in spinning up spur of the moment justifications in a running trolley problem such a scenario promises. I'll resist the aliens. And I'll free any slaves I can. If leadership comes at the cost of accepting the enslavement of others, I don't want it.

Yep, typo. Edited.

Yep. They capture Moghedien. We're informed they've been told they can't take anyone who was Aes Sedai, and since she isn't wearing one of those rings, they take her to Ebou Dar. Firstly, one every female channeler on the Light's side in the battlefield wore a ring, so this is, I hope, a mistake. If not, yes, the Light won a great victory and decided it's ok to enslave the losers.

Right. But that "hold your nose and do it" isn't what we get from Mat. And also, with the Aiel story Sanderson wrote, the option to fight them back after was also taken away, which is really a bizarre way to finish things.

That's hardly a good analogy. At the same time Churchill was staunchly opposed to the Bolsheviks, he was overseeing the (lack of) response to yet another famine in India caused by colonial economic practices that killed millions. Neither America nor Britain had the moral high ground over the USSR they'd like to believe.

No, I'm not a slaver. Some remote ancestor of mine probably was, but that isn't the issue here. The Seanchan are current, active slavers. And the books end with them actively enslaving the (female) villains left alive, and we're supposed to be cheering on, I think? That's utter horseshit, not good writing. When/if the show gets here, I hope they liberally change things and actually address the issue.

It's not just that the Seanchan are utterly loathsome to channelers. They also practice regular slavery. And I'm sorry, but "follow our rules, allow us to take your daughters if they can channel, and face slavery yourself if you don't follow our intricate set of rules" is not a good system, even if it depresses crime and brings "order". Worse, none of the main characters bought it, as of KoD. Mat left Tuon saying he'd likely meet her next on the battlefield: Mat went from unhesitatingly refusing to join the empire and prepared to face them in battle to "I can live with this" with no character development in that area. I also have no idea how Rand's interactions with them could be called "good". The genocide he was planning before his personal revelation was obviously not a solution, but he went from there to caving in on the damane, once again, with no real time spent dealing with what it means to do so. The Seanchan were not some minor aspect that was left dangling. RJ's work ended with all major characters clearly morally repulsed by them, and preparing to fight them. Obviously, they wouldn't, and cooperation would occur. But the books just forced that through in a way that made a mockery of all the main characters and their morality. The world doesn't have to be neatly tied in a bow. But the Seanchan aren't a minor element of the books, and the thematically, the books end up in a pretty noxious place because of how the series ends things with them. And no, if aliens invade, slavery wouldn't suddenly become ok. I'm sure there will be people who will compromise with slavers, but I don't think I'd read a story about them as heroes, honestly. Nor would I personally make that choice. I'd rather die at the hands of unknown aliens than work with known monsters who plan to continue being monsters.

Yeah the androids eyes were more emotive than all the major characters. So was his voice.

Yeah I don't know that if "someone else" was another established author, it would work. In the right hands, it could, though. And this is especially true of the Seanchan, because, while this is, yes, my subjective interpretation, I also feel it's consistent with the books that there was a solution there based on RJ's writing (because even if he didn't leave notes, he certainly left a ton of Prophesies and viewings and the like). Here's how I think it could have played out: We know a big blow up between Rand and Egwene had to happen, and we know RJ planned for Moiraine's return to diffuse the situation. We also know the structure of the actual conflict between them was mostly Sanderson. He's said this in the interviews, and you can see it in how Tower's of Midnight is structured, and the confusing jumble of positions Rand and Egwene take. Oh, the seals shouldn't be broken at all. No they should be broken on the first day of battle. No, it's actually about Rand manipulating Egwene. No it's about Rand deciding to kill the Dark One. The simple and obvious solution that allows for both this thread to be dealt with well, and the Seanchan, is to make the Seanchan the source of conflict. Rand, based on his memories, is hardly wrong that the Light cannot afford a two-front war. Egwene, based on her personal experience, and her rock solid opposition to any kind of compulsion in the books, and the recent Seanchan raid, has a valid case that working with the Seanchan as is makes no sense, either, morally or tactically. We also know from Egwene's own dreams that she eventually has to work with the Seanchan. And every other ruler and major character has their own views on the Seanchan, on both sides of this. Perrin's already worked with them, and Mat is marrying in, but also was responsible for the escape of all the Sea Folk Windfinders. Conflict, character placement, and relatively open-ended hints to possible resolution were available to address the Seanchan in greater depth. And an aMoL that spent time dealing with this conflict, over the many interminable and boring battles, would have been a better one. More, it would have been true to the characters. I was totally unconvinced by Egwene's bellyflop on this issue. Ditto Nynaeve, ditto pretty much everyone.

Sure, but I didn't think we were critiquing Sanderson's writing from a commercial sense. He's clearly a very commercially successful writer, and has had business sense to capitalize on his success in new and interesting ways. That makes Sanderson a good businessman. I don't think any big name author made sense, other than commercially. This I agree with. Sanderson's work isn't so bad that it would have been better for the series to be left unfinished (which is absolutely true of other such cases). On Lan: I agree he isn't a great character. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that among the main and secondary characters he's the worst developed and written male character. He's much more engaging in New Spring, but that Lan is also a lot more emotional and wishy washy. So Lan needed fleshing out. I just think the better direction to do that is to focus on Malkier and his sense of gloom because of its fall, and how that shapes him, because that is what makes him interesting in the books, to the extent he's interesting. Maybe they'll do this in later seasons. I didn't have a problem with Lan crying at Steppin's funeral, though. I'm still baffled at that. It seems to come from some yearning for a "manly man" character that is particularly unfitting for this series, because that kind of definitions of manliness is soundly mocked in the series.

And this is why your opinions aren't worth engaging with. Mockery is mockery, and after a while, it gets boring. It does take some gall to both claim this is entertaining procrastination, mockery AND deserves to be given due respect as a subjective opinion. I'm rooting for that project to give us deliverance. See if that was why the last 3 books are the way they are, then I'd say Sanderson was the wrong guy for the job. RJ didn't leave notes for plenty of things, and an author completing the series can then only use their own sense of the world and characters. And Sanderson did that, by the way. It isn't like he strictly only wrote those parts that had notes. He went so far as to invent a character who had a major role at the ending. Completing someone else's work is hard, and often thankless. But failure is ensured if you refuse to take up complicated threads due to the lack of guidance from the original author. Whether RJ himself would have done any different or better is a legitimate, if ultimately unanswerable question, but if we're judging Sanderson for how he wrapped the series up, his decision to not touch some complex plot threads and choose the safer but mind numbing route of many many interminable battles... I wouldn't call that the right call. A safe call, but not right. Btw: I should note this is hardly all just on Sanderson. He's the author, but I'd say his editorial team and team Jordan are all part of my critique here. I'm glad they did it, and thankful for it, but I came out of it feeling it didn't address the best parts of the books, and the some major hanging plot threads, and spent its focus very weirdly.

No, because you provide totalizing, maximalist opinions that no interpretation of the words you use make the kind of statements that foster useful discussion. I know we aren't doing science here, and every position has no concept of falsifiability, but if you submit your subjective opinion as "everything sucks, and everything can only suck, and it won't last long anyway, because it sucks"... Well, you have every right to it, but it is not a serious opinion that can be engaged with to any length of time. But you're hardly just giving your subjective opinion of the show. You're making broad statements and claims, making predictions, as well as conclusions about the supposed political leanings of various aspects of the show. You're allowed to state your views, but surely, we are allowed to call them out in various ways? Yes, all our opinions are subjective, but that doesn't make them equal, especially not in the scrutiny of long conversation. After a while, people can see the pattern in the someones responses, and we're absolutely allowed to call out those patterns, and make decisions on how to interact with you. This is hardly the first time you've shared your opinions on the show. So you're saying all discussion of art is doomed to mere subjective back and forth, and that analysis and critique that has greater value than subjective opinion cannot be arrived at in conversation? That view is probably why this conversation isn't working for me. Your goals seems to be to repeatedly assure us that whatever our views of the show, a much more critical one exists, and to voice it. Others of us are trying to critique the show, discussing improvements that can happen, realisticly aware that hardly any of our complaints will translate to any change, but by sharing our perspectives, aspects of the show we missed might get better explained, and enhance our liking for the show. As someone who refused to watch the finale of the first season and wrote off the show, I'd credit the discussion here in reawakening my interest in the show, and 8 episodes later, I'm glad I gave it a second chance. I wish the show continued success and continued improvement, rather than constantly assert that it is doomed, and then insist this is somehow a subjective opinion. You've made it clear that because of the perceived political choices made by the showrunners, this show isn't for you. You are certain, because there's of course no evidence of these leanings changing, that the show is doomed. Well, how many times do you need to tell us that?