#I should probably name this political faction tbh | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

2ofswords · 4 years

Text

Phi talks factions, ruling families, and endings yet again

After long long last I finished my talk about the factions! So let’s talk about them! There is some discourse about it on here and most of it is really interesting and I wanted to throw my own takes into the mix.

Also, will put this in the very beginning: This essay is very long and hinges on a lot of analysation of very broad topics of the game. It is very possible that I make mistakes in it. I would be delighted to know about them and engage in discussion, but please stay friendly. I tried my best to research and to stay analytical, but I am firstly human and secondly human with a memory that can fail me.

Anyway without further ado: Let’s begin the faction talk!

Prologue: Personal sympathy

This is supposed to be more of an analysation about how the factions work in my opinion. It is not supposed to be an explanation why my favourite faction is the Best™. Still, my opinions will obviously influence my own analysis. So for the sake of levelling the playing field and not even trying to play coy about it – or in case you were curious what my personal opinions are – I will start by listing my own opinions about the factions, the families and the endings.

I consider myself a Utopian but also have a soft spot for the Humble ideology. I just really like progress, I am an idealist who thinks striving for a perfect situation has value (even if I do not believe in practical perfection) and I just really like the Kains’ visions okay? Not their executions, mind you, but their visions. (I am just really really obsessed with magic that involves time and space as a concept…) And I think the concept of human potential is one of the most hopeful and important ones to society and trying to get more out of being a human being is just an important concept to me. But I also think the personal responsibility is really important and interesting and the thought about individuality vs. society is something that needs to be discussed, so the humbles are just really interesting to me and I sympathise with a lot going on there as well. Not that much of a Termite person though. Sorry

Concerning the endings: If I would be in a position to choose any ending for the town, I would choose the Termite Ending. I would just be really unhappy about it… But it is the only ending that doesn’t involve any direct sacrifice of life and I value that the most, even if I think the trade-off is still pretty devastating. I am still a Utopian, but potential lives in people. The ending I consider second best is actually the Utopian one and by process of elimination I like the Humble ending the least. You will probably learn why this is the case when we get to talk about the endings, so I am saving my argument for later. If it is about how much I like the endings from a narrative perspective: I am a passionate fan of the Utopian ending even though that is very frustrating since I see it in a rather… peculiar way, I think. I also love the Humble ending a lot and it just has the most personal tragedy and a lot to think about. The Termite ending… eh. It serves its purpose and is necessary but not really pleasing in analysis. Or if it is, it’s still a bit frustrating to talk about. It is very useful for writing fanfiction though. ^^

I don’t really have a favourite ruling family. I think the Saburovs are the most sympathetic, but I am also fascinated by the Kains. My favourite members are Victor and Capella.

Okay? Cool, now that we got that out of the way let’s start with the actual faction talk.

Part 1: What the factions are (and what they aren’t)

The factions are categories that are very broad and not very concrete. It is probably a good idea to talk about what they are first, before we make any statements about them. So, let us start how I look at them and what the factions stand for, before debating the rest.

Firstly: The factions are a part of classic Pathologic. From what I can tell and remember, they haven’t been mentioned in Pathologic 2 at all. Of course, we can see the struggle of different worldviews there as well, but the split cast of important NPCs is not mandatory in any shape anymore and in fact Artemy is now responsible for everyone in town. While the politics between the ruling families are mentioned and the Kains as well as the Olgimskys still share their beliefs, neither the term “bound” not “faction” is introduced in the game. However that might be because we are starting with the Haruspex as our protagonist. The factions are a bit more important in the other two routes of classic Pathologic after all. The Bachelor being concerned with its politics and the Changeling with its ideology itself. So the terms might be introduced later. For now, their conflict may be a part of Patho 2 and certain aspects can be definitely seen, but they aren’t present yet. So we are mostly talking about Classic Pathologic here.

The factions are introduced in two different ways. First and foremost, they are three different ideologies that are present in the town and by definition in the entire story. It is also told, that the whole town is split into these factions and that roughly one third of the town each belongs to either faction. It is also explained, that the factions are purely made by the ideology and that people of different gender, heritage, age and class can align with different factions. (Which means that they aren’t equivalent to the different parts of town that are at least roughly divided by social status). There is also a philosophical level that strengthens the ideological importance each faction holds, but in this essay, I will focus on the ideological part and how it affects society. That means there is another layer that we won’t be touching today, but believe me, we have enough to do as it is.

The other aspect of the factions is the bound of each healer. All of the bound collectively are described as “Simons friends” at least in the Bachelor route and all of them are now split into the three factions. The name “bound” however is to be taken literally. The characters are part of the agenda each faction follows, however, that doesn’t necessarily mean, that the person one hundred percent shares the ideology of the faction! Most of them do, but it is important to keep in mind that peoples belief-systems still vary and the aligning criteria is the importance to the goal of said faction and not necessarily their own way of thinking. People’s mindset and beliefs can vary after all and some of them even have dynamic arcs (tbh Most of them have). The other way around people can be not a part of the bound of a faction and still share their beliefs. This will be important later! For the Utopians the specific bound criteria is “people who have the potential to overstep human boundaries in any way or form”. They are needed for the creation and upholding of the Utopia as it is imagined. Its goal is in some way after all to create something that oversteps the boundaries of what should be humanly possible. For the termites… well… it’s children. It’s all about the children, it is the children who are able to carry the town in the future. And for the humbles it is the sinners, whose souls are rotten to the core (I guess…). That isn’t only because the Humbles just really like sinners but they are directly needed for Clara’s solution and the Humble’s ideology of willing self-sacrifice in order to maintain society.

Okay. But what are the factions? What do they believe in?

Let’s start with the Utopians, because their whole schtick is kind of in the name. This faction is all about the potential of humanity and striving to create perfection. This is happening with the awareness that such a feat is at least deemed impossible. So, their goal is the defeat – or the power to overcome depending on who you ask – of the nature that prevents them from this kind of progress not being achievable. They value this progress and the possibility to overcome those odds over personal as well as societal comfort and justify it with the belief, that said growth would benefit society in the long run. That being said, not every Utopian thinks this strive for growth needs to be shared by everyone, though a society collectively working towards breaking limits as a whole is preferred. (An example would be Maria's explanation of the town, stating that mundane human life is very much necessary to sustain a Utopia). The Utopians are prone to brash decisions, since part of their ideology is that they are necessary to disrupt the status quo and change – even enforced one – is needed to get rid of complacency and provoke new development of the unforeseen (which is very much needed since we are working against “nature” (the literal one as well as the nature of fate and possibility). Their drawbacks are that brashness and the disregard of comfort. Their potential elitism is shown by their value of humans who try to disrupt the status quo and their adamant protection of people who can move society as “more important” and thus worthy of more protection. (However it is noteworthy that a lot of this thinking was introduced by Georgiy in Pathologic 2 and Marble Nest. I still think it is a legitimate drawback but much less used in P1, where the factions are a thing.) This doesn’t necessarily relate to elitism of an elite class (it can though!) but more so to academic elitism. On the other hand, they have the drive to move things forward, they literally are the builder of society and developers of indescribable magic.

The Termites can be considered the opposite of the Utopians. I have struggled to put a definitive description of them for quite some time because they are the group whose representatives have vastly different ways of thinking. Anyways, I have seen the Termite ideology being described as “preservation” by RagnarRox in “Pathologic 2 is an underrated masterpiece” and I think, that fits amazingly. It is about protection and regaining a status quo where everyone can live their daily lives content and as it was before. The children are supposed to be leading the town into the future, but especially in Patho 1 this is more about taking what the past has already shaped and using this as a guide instead of implementing new ideas and philosophies as the utopians and the humbles do (for better and for worse). If we look at how Capella describes her vision of the town, we can also see that it is about togetherness and comfort. Which makes sense if it is the antithesis of the utopian dream. It doesn’t sacrifice progress just because it wants to but because it endangers people’s comfort and personal safety. Disrupting the status quo can lead to catastrophe and make people unhappy, therefore it should be avoided. People should serve the community but that also means not committing to self-fulfilment that can endanger this togetherness. Khan needing to give up on his own ambitions to serve Capella’s vision of the town might be a good example for that. While there is this bond of togetherness there is also the need for leadership. Again, preservation and comfort are highly valued with the Termites and it is established by a leadership that is supposed to act as gentle but firm guidance. With the children being the bound, there is a strong emphasis on parenthood and again Capella – as the white mistress and the termite's leader – is accepted as taking the leadership together with Khan who are ruling together with love as well as fierceness. Artemy also has his journey of establishing leadership within the kin and dethroning the person who is unfit for the role. It is implementing change but to restore balance and only inside the already established rules. I would say it fits more as a case of rightful leadership that still stems from the menkhu families and Artemy proves himself while using his father’s lessons and notes. And the kids themselves are fated to lead the town itself as the chosen ones that Capella implored Isidor to protect, and set its rules, so that there are the boundaries to keep a way of living established while not needing to change this status quo and what hopefully is a harmonic way of interaction between people. So. Now that we have established what the Termites are, I think with this specific faction it is still important to also name what they aren’t. Firstly: The Termites are an ideology of the town’s future. They aren’t the kids club. Yes, all the Termites are kids, but as mentioned before the factions in themselves are a third of the population with varying members who believe the Termites to have the best solution for the town at hand. There are other members (and I will later talk about the Olgimskys and big Vlad specifically as representatives of the Termite ideology) but the kids are the bound because they are specifically needed to set this new order that they want to established. I would argue that some of the kids have principles that are more adjacent to other ideologies. The obvious one would be Khan who has goals that do not align with his family but similar dreams and more radical ideals about overthrowing the status quo. But Grace also seems to be more of a humble, focusing on caring about others and being quite selfless and self-sacrificing in her care for the dead. That means, the kids fill an important role but we have the strange conundrum that most of this factions bound isn’t together because of their ideology. I will try to take them into account still, but if you see me focusing on Capella and Artemy, this is one of the reasons. There aren’t that many people who clearly speak about the Termite’s vision. The Termites also aren’t the Kin. They are connected to each other but again, the Kin is a specific part of the town which the ideology clearly avoids. (And parts of the Kin are not part of the town and actually stand in opposition to it. Moreso in Patho 2 but with the conflict of the herb gatherers we catch a glimpse of that.) And the children are also representatives of different parts of the town and not of the Kin. The Kin are obviously linked to the towns ancient tradition and preserving their traditions honourably is Artemy’s specific journey. Still, they aren’t the same and with both Aspity and Oyun we have characters who are Kin and also part of a different faction.

Speaking of the Humbles. What’s up with them?

The Humbles also have a name that speaks for itself: It is based around the main idea of being humble. There are different consequences of this main core. The first and in my opinion most important one revolves around responsibility and self-sacrifice. The Humbles expect the individual to sacrifice part of themselves for the whole. I mean… that is quite literally what the ending is about. As with the Termites there is a togetherness but this one doesn’t revolve around looking out for each other (at least not specifically) but about looking at oneself and what you could and should do for society to work best. It puts responsibility not on a collective and its leaders but on yourself and needs you to ask what you did right, what you did wrong and how to take consequences for your own actions. This includes a chance for redemption as well as condemnation. For the purpose of evaluating yourself in contrast to society it is also about self-reflection. You need to look at yourself and at your deeds constantly and this analysation and the realization that you can and will fail as well as that you as a human being have your own limits you cannot and should not cross are what lead to humbleness in the first place. Yulia as a sinner, whose very sin is shaping the very ideology and establishing her ideals over the self. This brings us to the second pillar of the humble ideology: fatalism. It is also to see yourself in context of a greater scheme and accepting these very boundaries. Fulfilling your duty in the way the universe demands of you and seeing yourself unavoidably as a puzzle piece of said force is a big deal for a lot of the Humbles. Yulia is the prime example. Lara actively dislikes her fatalism but still follows her father’s footsteps in her attempt to assassinate Block. Aspity moves in the constriction of the Kin and her fate while still being the one who advocates most for change. The Saburovs are all about law and order albeit in different ways. Oyun cannot do what is entrusted to him which causes his horrible deeds in the first place, because he cannot accept at first that he is not fit for the position (or as the words of a humble: not destined for it). And Clara is struggling with what her fate imposes on her and her very being while trying to control her circumstances as well as the fate of the people entrusted to her. It all is about analysing but also about abiding to the whims of fate and facing the consequences of acting either against it, failing it or resorting to violence against society to fulfil it in the first place.

As you may see, all of these categories are rather broad. Of course, they are, they are made to encompass very different views of the world from different characters. When Victor speaks about working towards overcoming bounds he sure as hell means something different than Andrey. Hell, Dankovsky has no idea what Georgiy is talking about half the time! Lara and Yulia are both Humbles, yet Lara explicitly states that she hates the way Yulia weaves her fatalism in her ideology about the self. And well… the Termites are a very special case regarding the factions in general, being more of a symbol of their ideology than its actual believers. So let's get to the meat of this whole post. We now have a grasp on what the factions are about, but… why? Why are they in the game, what are they trying to say?

Part 2: Presentation of the factions and the ruling families

Well… after making an incredibly long introduction, let’s stop talking around the bush. Here is my conclusion about the game’s stance of the factions: … … I am sorry to conclude, that all of them suck. All of them. They are the worst and none of them are worthwhile in themselves. I am sorry.

Okay, okay, okay. Obviously, they are not only terrible. They have their upsides and all of their ideals are rather beautiful. Making potential become a reality is great! So is comfort and stability, we all could sure as hell use some of that! And the principle of giving something of yourself into society, taking responsibility and the ability to care into consideration… boy is that a good idea! But still… the factions suck. And that is an inherent aspect of them just because they are ideologies. And very unsubtle and uncompromising ideologies at that. To quote novel author Dorothy Sayers “The first thing a principle does is killing somebody.” A principle, if it is used without reflection, always has destructive potential. Even if it is the principle to save as many lives as possible. Put into the wrong dilemma, it will kill. (A single glance at the healer’s path’s is enough to confirm that.) And all three factions have some really potentially bad implications exactly because their ideology is so vastly applicable. It isn’t only about emergency situations, but a lifestyle that regards one way of setting priorities as absolute. Of course, that on its own must go horribly wrong! Leave one single way of thought unattended and it will guide you into fucking catastrophe!

I think the easiest way to highlight this theory and the best prove of the game’s acknowledgement of this line of thought is to take a look at the ruling families. The fact that there are three of them is no coincidence. All three families do not only represent one of the factions but also the destructive extreme this faction can develop.

Let’s start with the Kains again, because their case is the most obvious one and the theme of Utopia and thus uncompromising perfection that has a destructive force is in the fucking title of the game. And creating a project that causes the plague in the first place, forcing the Kin to dig the very hole that tears into the heart of the earth – which they sure as hell did not agree with! – conducting human experiments with their buildings and manipulating the situation so that the Polyhedron gets saved even sacrificing the town for its sake… yeah these are some pretty shitty things to do and they all relate to the Utopian ideal and their strive for development, progress and forming humanity as well as society. And sacrificing everything in order to elevate progress is… obviously a bad idea, especially if it involves using people who never consented to such a sacrifice in the first place! With only development – social as well as personal – in mind the scope of said sacrifice cannot be measured at all, leading to devaluing peoples well-being. It is a horrible thing that harms a lot of people and the strict enforcement of the Kains bring a lot of harm to the town. This damage doesn’t only turn against the town but also has a self-destructive tendency. The self-sacrifice that is demanded to keep the spirit of Simon and Nina is eating the entire family alive. Their strict family loyalties seem to have driven Khan off in the first place (though since his role is “The Termite of the Kains” and he holds a strange middle ground I think he is kind of excluded from the “most extreme faction”-stance). Victor and Georgiy are losing their own identity and eventually their life for the sake of a soul that they consider of higher status than them. And Maria loses her own self to become the next mistress and lead what is left of the town into a new age, which Victor laments as her father because he is literally losing his daughter! The family – even if they “win” the whole town conflict – is actively falling apart and is completely fractured if not destroyed in the end. Not only is the sacrifice the town has to endure obviously morally unacceptable but the disregard of comfort in favour of a greater cause is inherently self-destructive. Which leaves the question: Who is this Utopia even build for, who benefits from it, if everything but it is sacrificed? So yeah, what the Kains are doing and especially the way they are using the Utopian dream in its purest form is absolutely and incredibly flawed.

Sooo… what are our alternatives? How about the Saburovs? They are righteous and they care about people! I mean… yeah. They do! Buuuuut… their handling of the situation is also very… debatable to put it nicely. Let’s start with the obvious: putting everyone in prison who seems mildly suspicious while a highly contagious plague is ravages the town is just… horrible. It is a prolonged and cruel death sentence to many people either desperate or innocent. And yes, he himself did it with the utmost desire to protect society as a whole from the criminals and organized street violence but… surprise, that is what the humble ideology is about! Judging the individual according to sin without taking circumstances into account is one of the extremes the Humble-ideology has. You should stay put and work towards the common good and acting against that should be judged harshly!! If taken to an extreme it disregards personal circumstances and even a human approach towards the individual. And even if it hits innocents, the few have to take personal sacrifice for the many. Giving your life to uphold stability should be considered a good thing… right? Of course, the faulty leader should also be held responsible… So the judge becomes the judged and the executor of the ideology is destroying himself. Again, we witness the ideology's self-destructive aspect when taken to the extreme. Judgement and assigning responsibility for overstepping with no account on the human situation, looking out for the other individual or questioning where established boundaries should be pushed, will lead to draconian law where the single human being doesn’t matter in the first place! And that… doesn’t sound like a society one wants to live in, does it?Katerina has her own case of judging people albeit in a religious way. Her view splits the world into the sinners and the righteous and sentences the former to death while the others will survive what she is seeing as the plague's judgement. Do I have to elaborate why this is a bad take and why judging people to death based on being a sinner is… just awful? Especially when we look at the humbles and how some of them may have done some shit but definitely not something that warrants death. (Yulia and Rubin being examples, but I also think Lara shouldn’t like… be judged with death. Well, truth to be told I think nobody should be judged with death… Ever.) So seeing the Changeling’s power as a saintly sign is… bad not only on a societal level but also bad because pressuring a teenager like that is just a the worst. Which brings us the Humble’s second point and the one that Katerina personifies as well: Personal responsibility. The Humble ideology isn’t only about sacrificing the individual and applying judgement but also about self-reflection and taking responsibility. Which sounds really good but can be devastating when taken too far. Which brings us to Katerina’s journey of becoming a mistress and her devastating experience of trying to fit into a role that was expected of her to fill. Desperately trying to fulfil a fate that seems to be yours can destroy you. Her despair of not fulfilling as a mistress as well as a wife (in her own terms) are honestly soul wrenching and tragic. And it is an example where letting go of personal duty and seeing to oneself would have been for the best.

Okay so the Saburovs establish a society that seems awful to live in and also actively destroy themselves (they also die with their ending, something they share with the Kains). Which leaves us with… the Olgimskys. And yeah… I think we all agree that they couldn’t exactly be called a beacon of goodness in the world… The way the bull enterprise is handled is exploitative to say the least, dividing the town and enabling even more racism and class distinction. But what does that have to do with the Termites? After all, only Capella is part of the bound. Which is true but the Termite bound is also the children bound and I would dare to argue that the Olgymskys are unassigned because they represent the ruling families of the Termites but cannot apply as their bounds because of age reasons. Capella is pretty much the head of the Termites, the way Maria and Clara or Katerina are the mistresses of the other ideologies and Big Vlad… well Big Vlad is what the other ruling families are to the other factions. The best reason to stay away from it. (And I could make a point about young Vlad but to not stretch this too much, I will keep it short. Let’s just say that he has a dynamic role in the factions and more or less grows to be a Utopian and is not even really acknowledged at the Bachelor Route. I would put him in the same category as Khan and say that the Kains in themselves still are connected to the Utopian ideology. There are some really interesting parallels between Khan and Young Vlad btw. Both have strong parental issues and feel confined in their role, both appear in the letter about the Bachelor’s and the Haruspexe’s decision as a hopeful addition that isn’t fixed… I am pretty sure there is something to say about that, but this essay is not the right place for it.) There are two main themes with the Termites that are very present in the Olgimskys: stagnation and oppression. I think how the Olgimskys are specifically oppressive and moreso than the other families is pretty self-explanatory. They do not want to bind people to the law or their ideas but to themselves and especially big Vlad is very keen on ruling the town and leading its people directly and forcefully. (And while Capella is obviously the kinder part of the family, she too shares this sentiment. Her alliance with Khan is to align the two families but also to gather force with his dogheads and establish rulership.) They want to be obeyed without question or an established guidebook that gives specific reason to their judgement. But why is this specifically a problem the Termite ideology faces? Well the Termites are about ensuring peoples comfort and life and they do this for any cost. One thing this entails, is saving people from their own ambitions and forming them according to this belief. (Again, Capella’s alliance with Khan and how she sees it is a nice example). They are establishing that humanity should remain in their natural ways, complacent so to speak, while a few chosen individuals lead the town and its people. (The Termites are supposed to do this in the future that is why they need to survive in the first place.) And if we drive this belief and this “ruling as family” ideology, we arrive at Big Vlad’s doorstep. He is the father, he will take care so exactly obey to his wishes without question. Preserve the system that allows you comfort without overstepping your boundaries. Preservation of a system also means preservation of the ruling system without further questions. (And I will remind you that Forman Oyun gets overthrown because the place is not rightfully his and he sucks because of this and the right order gets restored with the right ruling family watching over the Abattoir upholding their alliance with the Olgimskys even if it is now Capella.) In its extreme the Termite ideology can lead to oppression on the guise of guidance and questioning this is not only almost impossible but only allowed to the few people already chosen as the leading caste. (Also if you want to have another look at the connection between preservation and oppression, have a look at “The Void” or “Turgor” and its Brothers which is another game by Ice Pick Lodge. Their whole stick is preserving their realm by oppressing the sisters. The Void seems to reference similar themes in general and can kind of seen as the game’s antithesis… But I digress and just wanted to recommend the game. It’s good!) Why the other problem – stagnation – is a part of preservation is easy to see, but how does it afflict the Olgimskys? Well, firstly it is a big theme in the infight the family has and the conflict that tears the Vlads apart. While Young Vlad wants to follow his legacy, he doesn’t want to follow the exact ways leading to the family breaking apart. Vlads stubbornness and his unwillingness to rectify old mistakes and… I don’t know… open the Termitary is also part of this. Closing it – while done by Young Vlad – is done to preserve the status of the town and deny the plague and its changes to society for as long as possible. A plan that is very, very costly in the long run betraying the Olgimsky’s own duty to ensure their peoples life and safety in the first place! Again, the ideology eats itself.

Of course, only talking about the most extreme and negative example isn’t entirely fair. And I think there is worth in every faction. They obviously aren’t all bad and the ruling families are twisting and radicalizing what could be a good idea. So… was this whole talk about the ruling families just some intellectual pastime that proves how the rulers are shitty but the factions in themselves aren’t? Do they only kind of suck? Or can we actually find the games stance of this radicalization and how each faction alone could affect the town negatively on a larger scale?

Part 3: The endings of the game

So let’s talk about the endings, since they are literally established as the “successful” outcome for each of the factions. And with that I mean that the fate of the town is decided in favour of one of the factions, eradicating the others and their own hopes and ambitions in return. Best it is seen with the Utopians and the Termites, whose dreams are mutual exclusive by the destruction of the town or the Polyhedron alone. But if we consider that the ending also establishes a new way of living in town and a certain social system, we can see the same with the Humbles. (We can also see this if we think of the Humbles goal as a means to restore the town at its best in favour of personal sacrifice, which still doesn’t happen in the other endings, since part of the town gets destroyed.) For the factions, the plague also brings a chance to shift the power dynamics of a town to their direction and this is referenced by several characters trying to make use of this situation or at least struggling to maintain their power. (The ruling families are again the worst offenders of this. The Kains try to guide the Bachelor to their cause from the very beginning and a lot more deliberate in the second half. The rulers’ unwillingness to even acknowledge the plague, Saburovs’ abuse of administrative power, the way Katerina urges Clara to convert townsfolk, Capella’s alliance with the Haruspex… I can go on, but I think we have talked enough about the ruling families.) Long story short: The endings are distinctly aligned with one side of the power struggle. (By the way this isn’t necessarily the endgoal the healers are striving for. I think it is apparent by now, that I align the factions more with the ruling families rather than the healers, because the healers’ first priority is getting the plague problem solved one way or the other and there are different motives for their solutions. Also they can choose a different healers opinion so they aren’t like… one hundred percent absolutely bound by their ending even if they still align with it. But I digress yet again.) So, they – as the “win” of each faction – are a good way to see how they would hold up on themselves and without the other factions interfering. I will analyse the sacrifice they put on the town as well as the society they are striving to build up (since this is what the factions are about. Changing society). Will one of them hold up and present us with a good solution?

I will not even try to create suspense. We all know, I think that they don't. They all bear sacrifices in contrast to what we had before that make the situation actively worse. A video that sums it up better than I can is SulMatul’s “Heroism in Futility; Pathologic, The Void and the Hero Narrative”. The video is really good in general but it also makes a point of pointing out, that Pathologic as well as the void do not offer a standard “good end” where the hero saves the day, because every possible solution is tainted in one way or another. The heroism Pathologic shows (as well as “The Void”) is struggling against a doomed cause and a hopeless situation despite the odds and not about becoming victorious in it. The Artbook of Pathologic 1 states as much, describing the whole scenario of the game as a trap, where the problem is that every ending can be seen as a victory as well as a failure. So, we have some strong sources but still: Let us look at the endings again and see, if my thesis holds up, that it is the ideology of the factions and the remaining of one in each ending that amplifies the problem the town will face after the catastrophe.

We’ll start with the Utopians, yet again. I think they make the most immediate impression and are easiest to describe. Because, you know… destroying a town and killing the sick is really fucking bad. (Though I feel sometimes it’s forgotten that the healthy get “vaccinated” (immunised for some hours) and evacuated before. It’s not about eradicating all townsfolk. And if I would be a true hypocrite I could be like “Do you find any infected districts and sick people on day 12 that you can’t heal, huh?” But that would be… quite ridiculous and I’m sure the sacrifice of the sick is very much intended here. Let’s just assume that it does kill the sick.) It seems hardly worth it and it very much represents the harshness of the Utopians. So, let’s see how it applies to the ideology. The ending for the most part sacrifices life and comfort for humanities progress. This is what the protection of the Polyhedron is about. The Utopians are not protecting it because they find it kind of pretty and it also is not a preservation of something culturally cool (which would be more the Termite way of thinking) because the usage of it is supposed to vary after the end of the story. (The children are leaving the tower so that the soul of Simon can be housed in the building.) But it is supposed to make the impossible possible and ensure humanities triumph over nature, break boundaries and create new impossible ideas. The visions of the new town Peter describes, tell us as much. It is not only about a building but about a new order, where the impossible is created and where the amount of energy is a crucial aspect of the vision. So, if we weight the different solutions against each other from out outside player perspective, we can see how tied the concept of the solution is to the Utopian idea. We already have a very steep sacrifice for the Utopian ideology here. The other aspect of the Utopian ending establishes this “creation through destruction” mantra that the Utopian ideology can impose in a different light: The Utopian end focuses on eradicating the plague. Which is… actually a good thing for once but still tied to the themes of the Utopians and making their involvement in it stronger. If we look at the Utopian end from a cold analytical perspective, it is literally destroying the playing board creating a tabula rasa, to start this whole town project again. (Or at least that is what our mistress Maria alludes to and who is in charge after the whole ending?…) Which is a very radical use of what the Utopians are about, carry out your vision rash, immediate and drastic and if it doesn’t work, then leave it behind and try again (the stairways to heaven tell a similar story). Which ultimately leads to a sacrifice that is way too big because the losses aren’t supposed to be considered at all.

So what about the counter thesis? If the Utopian ending is so bad, then the termite ending must be the solution. Well… it solves some problems. Mostly people not dying. Which definitely is a really good thing! But it also comes with its own drawbacks. Namely the destruction of the Polyhedron first and foremost. Which you know… doesn’t seem like that important… It's just some building. Until we reapply the meaning of eradicating the chance to work for the impossible – which the Utopian ideology enables – and a strive to triumph over nature and improve humanity as a whole. Then it suddenly becomes a huge deal. Destroying the Polyhedron is not only about destroying some cool architecture project of some very bored capital graduates (even though this is sure a thing we are doing) but about preventing humanity's progress. We are saving life but we are also preventing the chance to develop a system where humanity can grow, develop new amazing and helpful things and might even reject their mortality as a whole. And even if the last part sounds kind of insane, please consider, that Pathologic is still very much set in a world where magic and miracles exist. We rely on the magic the earth provides in both other routes, see the prophecies of the mistresses and the theatre, visit a talking rat prophet and we can see the magic of the Polyhedron when we visit it as the Bachelor on day nine and of course in the secret ending. Acting like the ambitions as well as the magic of the Utopians is completely unreachable and should be outright rejected, undermines the cost the Termite ending takes to ensure their own victory. So I would argue that there is at least the possibility of the development of humankind and progress into new developments that can help people in general that get destroyed to ensure the lives of the sick as well as the old rules of the town. And that is definitely a costly exchange! This also brings me to an argument that I hear a lot and also want to deny here: “But if the town exists, more towers and miracles can be build again so its not really that great of a loss.” And while this can hold true for the very similar Diurnal ending (if we are really nice and not deny every form of magic, which is kind of the point of that ending… but I digress), the ending in favour of the Termites negates this. Firstly, it explicitly invents a “town of men” where this strive for destroying nature should be prevented. Secondly… the whole underground fluid thing still isn’t really fixed… because that is what gets saved by the Haruspex this is his goal. Which allows for the Panacea but also means that the plague and the traditions that cause the infection aren’t actually off the table. If we would create another Polyhedron the plague would appear again. The old ways of the town are hardly questioned, and they actually cannot be – at least in a way that implies substantial progress over nature – because the laws that get re-establishes actively prevent exactly this. The thread of the plague isn’t gone completely – even if certainly postponed because of the Polyhedrons removal. And that resources run out and the knowledge gets obscured is shown how littler there even is knows about Isidor's earlier experiments. So, we are either creating a word, where humanities progress is distinctly stopped or we create a situation in which the same mistakes that will cause the plague aren’t prevented at all and humanities mistake will repeat themselves. We created a situation, where movement is not possible and actually actively prevented.

The third one – the Humble ending – establishes a balance where both structures can be preserved but movement is still possible. Which first sounds like all is good and the life of only a handful of people could be worth the cost, if we outweigh them against the systematic costs the other endings provide… right? Well… apart from peoples life’s never being a “cost”… this only can hold true if we cannot find a societal problem with this. And we can. Again, with all endings we can see the broad ideologies coming into play and so the very problem of the endings are, that they follow the factions rules so exclusively and absolute. The Utopian end sacrificing life and comfort for progress and vision, the Termite end sacrificing progress and vision for comfort and life and the humble end… what does the Humble Ending do? Well the Humble end saves the precarious balance between the Town and the Polyhedron but at the cost of personal sacrifice. While all aspects of the town may exist the same is true for the plague that gets neither destroyed nor subdued but instead is still active and handled by constantly applying a cure. A cure made out of the humans blood of those who sacrifice themselves for sustaining this very system. Which does mean we will need constant human sacrifice to sustain this system at all. And since a town and a societal system should last for quite some time and there is no other solution in sight to deal with the plague without firing a shot after all… we are facing a plethora of problems. Firstly: If we assume that for some reason the Changeling – or at least her miracles – are now as immortal as Simon was and she will not suddenly disappear leaving us with no one to even make the cure that we need, then what happens if the sinners we have chosen at the end of the game run out? And if we assume that the town will not like disappear after some years – which shouldn’t be the goal at all! – that will happen eventually. Who gets chosen and for what reason? I remind you again, that this is not a personal thing that people can do if they want, there is a societal need for people to die, it is integrated into the very system of the town. So how do we decide that? Are we just sentencing people to “cleanse themselves by human sacrifice” and just choose the worst criminals? That can be faulty and – again – the death penalty is something that we shouldn’t apply to society! Do we accept a willing sacrifices? Great, now that sounds like important and innocent life being taken for all the wrong reasons and can also hit someone who suffers from suicidal depression! Do we hope that our dear mistress continues her burden and selects who should die next.? That sounds like a horrible fate for Clara and also like a very unjust system. But sentencing someone to death because of a systematic need sounds incredibly unjust in the first place! Plus… you know with a highly contagious and deadly plague sometimes roaming the town, a cure doesn’t mean that nobody will die because of the plague. There still is a high lethality, personal reasons to obscure things and just a frightening time limit. Not to mention that the sandplague hurts before it kills so the pain aspect and the fear of the disease is still lingering. It sure is better then everyone contracting it and dying and the cure is a solution but… not exactly to every aspect of the disease, especially when we do not have the means to subdue it, that we have in the other two endings.

I hope that I was able to show that the endings might solve the catastrophe at hand, but all of them with a cost so huge that the specific solution can become debatable. Defeating the plague for good while saving the possibility to proceed further is really amazing, but destroying the entire old structure and killing the sick is a horrible tradeoff. Subduing the disease is definitely good, but at the cost of destroying the potential to enhance future life or even save more people in the long run and with integrating the enablement of repeating the same old mistakes doesn’t sound like a complete solution and more like turning the wheel and waiting for it to reappear at the same side (or you know… stopping it from turning all together). Preserving the town as well as its wonders is absolutely miraculous but allowing the plague to partake in this new system and requiring human sacrifice as a societal solution is a pretty dystopian thought. Again, the Artbook of classic Pathologic describes the whole scenario and its solutions as a trap. And it is! Because there is no right answer, we have to choose what we apply as a necessary evil and this is all we can do. There is no good ending we can find.

Conclusion: The meaning of “Utopia”

So where does that leave us? And what does that have to do with the factions? Remember the quote I used at the beginning of my argument? “The first thing a principle does is killing somebody.” And we can see the effect of this with every of the factions. The rashness and costly sacrifice of the Utopian ideals is seen by the way the Kains’ act and the loss of live the Utopian solution provides. The Termites disregard of progress and the oppression that is its result can see in the way the Olgymskiys’ handle its people as well as the sacrifice of the Termite ending. The Humbles enforcement of punishment and their harsh self-reflection influences the Saburovs’ judgement and leads to their solution at the cost of constant human sacrifice in the end.

So… does this mean that there is no hope? Should we assume that all of these solutions and ideas suck and leave this whole essay this depressed? That would be a shame and also missing the mark of what Pathologic is about. It is a tragedy, that much is true, but it is definitely not without hope and humanity. Because all the examples I use have one thing in common: They are examples of the radicalization of each faction and in its sole survival against the other factions. A principle on its own might kill. But that is why there shouldn’t be only one principle. Clara is right when she reminds the other two healers that killing one part of the town of is still killing. That there is a balance that must be uphold and we can see this balance in other characters. We can see Notkin’s idealism that is still rooted in earthly matters and a deep care for his people. We can see Eva’s kindness being born of idealism combined with her will to give herself away to other people (although this also gets taken too far in the end). And there is beauty in all three ideas. Fighting against impossible odds, caring for what is right and should be maintained, watching ourselves to help your surroundings… all of this is good! And all of these things hold solutions for the other factions. When striving for progress we need to watch our own wellbeing and the negative consequences of our actions. When preserving what is old, we have to see what should be changed, where chances for progress are and we also need to look at ourselves and not only the concept we want to preserve. Looking at our own sins and self-reflection is important, but so is our own comfort and our own goals, even if they might seem outlandish at first. By applying the different ideologies on top the one we hold dear, we can balance them out.

The best ways the ideology work – the real utopia – is a balance of all three ideologies together. That means that the best state of the town is what we witness in the beginning of the game (even if I would never call that perfect either! The exportation of the kin shows as much!) But debating and changing through the reflection of all three ideologies is in my opinion how society can be driven to it’s best. Progression is useless without looking out for each other and keeping what works and helps. Preservation leads to oppression and stagnation if self-expression is forbidden. Responsibility and duty are needed but can lead to condemnation and self-destruction if it isn’t balanced out. But comfort while allowing progress. Duty while allowing self-expression. That is what can only be archived through active dialogue. This is, why this game is a trap. This is why every ending falls apart: Because we have to choose. Every end is a victory, but it also is a failure. Something has to be destroyed. And even a miracle can only work on the back of its people. But this choice is the exact reason why. Being only allowed to follow one of the factions by radicalizing all three of them at the end of the game we are not allowed to make a decision that could benefit everyone. And this is – at the end of it all – the tragedy of Pathologic.

#Pathologic #Pathologic factions #Spoiler warning #ending discussion #I sure hope you enjoy this essay!

39 notes · View notes

vezely-a · 3 years

Text

@eveningcrown requested: meta + regrets? does she dwell on that sort of thing? what regrets does she have and does this change over her life? [always accepting meta requests tbh]

NO REGRETS!

Vezely might pitch a rock at you if implying she must feel regret for her life, that losing means you must concede to the enemy’s superiority, and call your life a failure. But yet, has she not failed? In all aspect of her life, yes, unfortunately she has.

...Oh wait, she has regrets.

Becoming an Exile of Rhûn The Jangovar Cleanse ( Kravod, T.A. 2780 ) was a coup where the Jagovar tribe “cleansed” the city/realm of Narimanush of a conservative political faction of tribal leaders to usurp power. She should have seen it coming. For years after, over and over in her head she replayed the events leading up to the poisoning and executions. How could she not see deceit in one of her comrades, Öldür? A man those in her faction trusted, she trusted, and who ended up poisoning them ( at a formal banquet, no less ).

A part of this was survivors guilt. She survived because she was not like others, physically at least. Her body refused to expire after all others did, including the last remaining patriarchs of her guardian’s bloodline ( so essentially the family she was guardian of ). It was sympathizers, priestesses of the Cult of Sarshen Meltek, worshippers of the Necromancer of Dol Guldur, who quietly confiscated her “not quite dead” body and nursed her back to health. Religion played a role here in her surviving, so did a will for revenge. If not against the Jangovar tribe, then against Öldür.

I mentioned Vezely was a conservative and part of that position meant fighting for a stricter autonomy of the realm of Narumanush against the growing power of the Eastern Realm of Bozarganush ( of which the Jangovar were quicker to subjugate ). She had sympathizers because of her steadfast contributions to the cult; constant coin funneled since her youth ( a virtue instilled by her guardian, you might say ). So her steadfast devotion to the cult and support of the Necromancer’s will saved her.

Unexpectedly, years later when she got her revenge ( a clandestine return to Kravod to kill Öldür ) and found a place in Khand ( among unaffiliated mercenary tribes as a sell-sword ), she accepted and perhaps learned to appreciate the severance from the turmoil of Narimanush’s political landscape. She shortened her name to “Vez” and walked as a disbanded warrior woman from Rhûn with no past worthy of note, having nothing to prove, and no obligation to tribe or family. Life was simpler. She belonged. She was seen as mortal. It was a rebirth which she found happiness in for awhile until her ruse could not longer hold up ( she did not age while others did ).

Departing Khand for Mordor For a brief period of time, she regretted coming to Mordor for work ( having moved on from Khand where labor networks are integrated with Mordor’s ). She reverted again to being defined by her race ( thanks to orcs smelling elf blood a mile away ) and was given a shit position handling slaves in Gorgoroth in order to prove herself. But she worked through it and made a name for herself. A good one by Mordor’s standards ( I do like the sound of Vez the Ruthless, ngl ).

Mordor’s Defeat When all was lost in the war, she had no time to regret, to digest that which was the hollowing of her life’s pursuits, the end of all she worked toward (though she did despair). Perhaps it helped acknowledging herself as a small cog in a big wheel; this defeat was not her fault and there was nothing she could have done to change the course of events. Dying in the war would have been easier if not for her fearing the unknown after-death ( What happens to elves when they die? She honestly did not know and that scared her ). During her wandering during those five years post-war, there are small regrets of misplaced trust in individuals since headhunting Sauron’s servants was rampant, but nothing severe to dwell on. She could not regret a lifetime of worshipping a now dead “god” without questioning her whole reason for existence. However, she does live in despair, fear, and was on a path to fading. I wrote about her condition in the Fourth Age before, but she is not doing well physically.

Fourth Age Regrets to Wallow in FOREVER In the Fourth Age and with her name once again Vezely, she regrets how her past affects those she loves. During many junctures, it unsteadies her will to stay in Rivendell alongside her husband because of all the turmoil her presence causes and the strain it puts on his people. Even if only a few are privy to the truth of her past and others believe she was simply a thrall in Sauron’s plans, she still carries the Shadow of mistrust. She cannot find her place. She does not belong. Obviously, a broken heart is worse for an elf so she stays put ( and ah, she loves and needs him cause let’s face it, she would fade without him. And as cheesy as it sounds, love begins to save her ) but it is so trying at times. Both of my main verse threads rn with @peredhellen touch on this issue and they make me sad.

And for her son, Elrandir, she regrets any stigma he may face from those who deem his mother a black spot on the illustrious family. She can handle having shame placed upon her, but not for her husband and son. And honestly, she may never move past this regret which undoubtedly gets revisited in Valinor among a new set of kin. It just sits and remains until Arda ends probably.

#hadgalah gazar; archive.#character study.#(( in which holly provides the best prompts ever #listen. vez keeps on rolling with the punches #and probably would until her body gives out which it is nearing in the fourth age #but i'm sorry i wrote too much here and added some non-canon galore but thank you for indulging me again ))#long post.

5 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 5 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to FiveThirtyEight’s weekly politics chat. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

sarahf (Sarah Frostenson, politics editor): Last week, congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib captured headlines for breaking with House Democrats and Nancy Pelosi on an emergency border aid bill that lacked protections for migrant children.

This wasn’t the first time the so-called “Squad” broke ranks. Or the first time their public disagreement with House leadership has led to sniping in the press (Pelosi told New York Times op-ed columnist Maureen Dowd that “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”)

But it’s not just Democratic leadership taking aim. Republicans have tried to paint “the Squad” as part of the “radical left,” and the direction the party is moving in. And on Sunday, President Trump sparked a firestorm — at least among Democrats — when he tweeted that “‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen” should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”

So what is it about the Squad that has captured the attention of both Republicans and Democrats? Let’s try to tackle this in two parts: 1) What role do we think the Squad has in pushing the Democratic Party in a new direction? 2) And what, if any, do we think will be the electoral repercussions in 2020?

To get us started, what do we make of the news surrounding the Squad and their split from Pelosi and House Democrats on the emergency border aid bill?

julia_azari (Julia Azari, political science professor at Marquette University and FiveThirtyEight contributor): Well, I can start from providing the view from poli sci Twitter, which tends to be a fairly pro-party group of people (and leans Democratic/anti-Trump). So in response to the Twitter fight between the House Democrats’ account and AOC’s chief of staff, there was a lot of talk like “have these fights behind closed doors, don’t have a big, public blowup.”

But I disagree. Party infighting should not be done in a smoke-filled room. That’s just not what people want from politics anymore, and I think when that does happen, it contributes to further institutional distrust and disengagement.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I’d note that AOC has a Trump score of 18 percent, meaning that she’s voted in line with Trump’s position 18 percent of the time. But according to her data, you’d expect her to vote with Trump about… 0 percent of the time based on how liberal her district is.

So she’s actually proving a bit problematic for Pelosi, in the sense that she should be a guaranteed vote, but Pelosi is only getting her ~80 percent of the time. Except none of this has really mattered since Pelosi has room to spare in the House, and a lot of legislation that passes the House has no chance of passing a GOP-led Senate anyway.

sarahf: Is there at least an argument to be made that Pelosi and the Squad should take fewer swipes at each other over their disagreements, as too much of a focus on intraparty fighting can’t be good for the party?

julia_azari: So here’s my galaxy brain take.

natesilver:

julia_azari: It’s good for the Squad for Pelosi, at least, to take swipes at them. After all, part of the anti-establishment brand is to be in tension with, well, the establishment. And it’s possible that leaders like Pelosi know this! What I’m not really sure about is how good the Squad (so much shorter than typing all their names) is for the Democratic Party.

I don’t think they’re a problem, but it’s too early to gauge their party-building potential. And obviously, they make some people nervous. But if the goal is to engage young people, women and people of color, and keep the left flank of the party somewhat happy, they seem like a good bet.

I am really long-winded today. #sorrynotsorry

perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): It would be smart for the party establishment to think of this as natural tension between the wings of the party.

The problem is I don’t think they actually do, which is one of the reasons why this is all so interesting. (The House leadership’s official Twitter account attacked AOC’s chief of staff over the weekend, with the implication that she should fire him.)

sarahf: To Julia’s point about the Squad’s party-building potential, isn’t there an argument to be made that they don’t even need to have that? Their ethos is that they’re here to do away with the old system. They agitate for change; they don’t need to bridge consensus within the party, unlike say, Pelosi, who has a very different role to play.

And the fact that virtually all of the 2020 Democratic candidates have a position on the Green New Deal is a testament to their effectiveness at pushing the party in new directions, no?

julia_azari: Right. Which maybe Pelosi likes and maybe she doesn’t. Obviously, moving to the left carries risks. But (and this is where I got into it with a bunch of people on Twitter on Sunday), it’s not clear to me that Democratic leaders actually want to go back to the 1990s and early 2000s.

Yes, the party was more “professionalized,” and less split internally, than it is now. It also won two plurality elections and lost to George W. Bush. Not to mention, voter turnout was low.

So one lesson you might learn from the 2008 period onward is that the party does well with fresh faces, even if it also has to win suburban swing districts that might not view AOC and Rashida Tlaib all that favorably.

perry: But the Democratic establishment (I don’t know about Pelosi, personally) seems to think that the prominence of these four women is not a natural, healthy tension, and instead is broadly bad for the party.

And I think their preferred outcome is that the AOC wing basically stays quiet until December 2020 (after the presidential election). That’s where the real tension is.

julia_azari: We’ve (and here, I specifically mean academics and the media) way overemphasized the concept of party unity.

sarahf: I guess I just don’t understand why the Democratic establishment is making this into such a big deal. But I agree with Perry that they definitely would prefer the AOC wing of the party stay quiet, especially when polls like this are leaked. (Axios wouldn’t disclose the group that conducted the poll, so there’s a lot we don’t know about it, and its findings should be treated with skepticism. But it reportedly found that many likely general election voters who are white and have two years or less of college education had a negative opinion of AOC and socialism.)

julia_azari: For the record, that Axios piece is extremely misleading.

sarahf:

It’s just hard for me to believe that these four women really would have that much of an impact on 2020?

natesilver: I kinda come back to Occam’s razor on this. When you have a bunch of new members who want to push the party in a more ideological direction, it usually entails electoral risk. But the benefit, potentially, is that you also shift the party’s platform in that direction.

perry: Yes, but so many party establishment people want to take away any unnecessary election risks–and I think they would argue AOC talking about getting rid of the Department of Homeland Security, for example, is an unnecessary election risk.

natesilver: It’s also probably a very marginal electoral risk in a world where Donald Trump is president and there’s much bigger news all the time.

julia_azari: Part of the problem is that the lessons of 2016 aren’t clear. You could say that 2016 showed that there was a real push to move Democrats to the left. Or you could say that 2016 was about how Democrats lost groups of voters to Republicans (e.g. the diploma divide among white voters). And those forces push the party in different directions.

perry: The party establishment is probably overstating the rise of the AOC wing in terms of affecting the 2020 elections. But their risk assessment, I think, is driving these tensions–leading Pelosi to bash the AOC wing fairly often, for example.

natesilver: But it’s not crazy for the party establishment to be worried about it! Sometimes I think everyone in this discussion is not always clear about what they think will be electorally advantageous versus what they do — or don’t — like policywise.

julia_azari: Most of this in relation to the Squad is marginal, though, no matter how many hot headlines Axios posts with polls that don’t actually say anything about AOC being the face of the party or about swing states.

natesilver: Journalistic malpractice on Axios’s part TBH to publish a poll without even listing who conducted the poll.

We don’t even know who leaked it. We don’t even know if the poll was real. We should be that skeptical when basic facts and details about a poll are missing like that.

sarahf: That’s fair. And I know we’ve talked about this before, but I think part of what we’re seeing play out here, especially with AOC, is there is now a group of politicians that aren’t willing to play by the old rules. And they will use their large social media followings to get their message across, and on their terms.

So maybe party leadership is scared of losing control?

And so we see Pelosi snipe about how they’re only four votes.

Maybe the Freedom Caucus and the headaches it has caused for the Republican Party has so scarred Democratic leadership that they’ll do anything to stop this faction of their party from growing.

But is this kind of fear misplaced? How much is the Squad really moving the party to the left?

natesilver: Clare said this yesterday on the podcast, but the Squad are very effective at getting media attention, and the media is quite happy to play up the “Democrats IN DISARRAY!” storylines. So in that sense it does seem like a mistake for Pelosi et al. to hit back at them.

perry: About a third of the 235 House Democrats (CNN has this number at 82) support starting an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

Ninety-five support the Green New Deal; 118 support Medicare for All. So just in terms of raw numbers, the positions of the AOC wing are much broader than four people.

I think the big shift for Pelosi is that she has never had a vocal, powerful group saying that she is too far to the right. For basically the entire time Pelosi has led the House Democrats, her biggest tension has been with the right flank of the party — some conservative Democrats in the House thought that she was too far to the left.

But now, Pelosi is being attacked from the left in a serious way, for the first time. And I actually think she and Biden are responding in similar ways to these attacks from the left.

My sense is they both see themselves as liberal icons–the man who helped elect the first black president, the woman who pushed through a huge health care reform that extended insurance to millions. And I think this criticism from the younger generation of Democrats makes them mad. Pelosi seems indignant at times, so does Biden.

julia_azari: Biden and Pelosi also managed to establish themselves as liberals when cultural/LGBT issues were on the rise in the party, and you didn’t have to do anything particularly radical to be liberal enough on economics and race.

In 2019, it takes more to be a liberal icon.

natesilver: I mean… I don’t know that the Squad always pick their battles all that well, and in that sense they are pretty Freedom Caucus-like. On the other hand, they have a lot more star power than the Freedom Caucus. There is a lot of political talent there.

And they’re all pretty young. So a lot of my critiques of Bernie Sanders’s campaign, for instance, i.e. that he doesn’t have a good plan to expand his base, definitely doesn’t apply to the Squad when they can unify leftist Democrats with nonwhite Democrats.

sarahf: Something I think we’re all touching on here is the fact that it is four women of color pushing the party to the left and challenging the status quo. And that matters. Each of them have made appeals to their background and how they represent people who historically haven’t had a seat at the table.

And this probably, to put it bluntly, does make certain older vanguards of the party uncomfortable, because they consider themselves to be liberal, and that now they’re forced to reckon with the idea that they’re maybe not as liberal as they think.

perry: I want to come back to something Nate said earlier that I think is essential.

“Sometimes I think everyone in this discussion is not always clear about what they think will be electorally advantageous versus what they do — or don’t — like policywise.”

The AOC wing at times says its ideas, like Medicare for All, are both the right thing to do on policy AND will help Democrats electorally, by either increasing turnout among people who might not otherwise vote or appealing to swing voters. Whereas the establishment wing often says a policy is bad on substance and that it will hurt Democrats’ chances in 2020.

To me, both sides are overconfident in saying that their policy views are the best electoral position, too.

natesilver: I get annoyed by this sort of question for a couple of different reasons. On the one hand, I think it’s generally bullshit to think that a policy that polls as being quite unpopular will magically turn out to be electorally helpful because it motivates the base or whatever.

On the other hand, there’s a lot of bullshit in which more establishment/centrist Democrats will deride a policy for being unpopular, when their real motivation against it is that they don’t like the policy.

perry: I know it’s our job to analyze elections. But I think it’s really hard to figure out exactly how policy ideas and outcomes affect election results. So I find claims people make suggesting “Policy X is unpopular so Candidate Y will lose” to be way too overconfident at times. At the same time, we can make some judgements.

For example, “Medicare for everyone who wants it’ (the basic position of Biden, Pete Buttigieg and other more centrist Democrats) is probably a safer political position than “Medicare for everyone and change the whole system” (the stance of AOC and Sanders). I say that even though Medicare for All might be a better health care policy.

natesilver: “Medicare for everyone who wants it” is indeed quite a bit more popular than “Medicare for all,” and one of the reasons “Medicare for all” polls well is because people assume “Medicare for all” means “Medicare for everyone who wants it.”

julia_azari: So my view on the policy thing is complicated. Nate has the Occam’s razor view that I think makes sense, but here’s another galaxy-brain take. I spend most of my time in Wisconsin, a state with a long anti-establishment political tradition, and around a lot of younger people (my students), so my sense of how popular some anti-establishment and left-leaning policies are is probably inflated. But in general, I think most people are NOT sophisticated on policy specifics, but they are sensitive to scary images and wording. There’s even evidence that policies that sound too left-leaning or disruptive are especially vulnerable to scary images and messaging. So while it might seem like a lot of people are not happy with the status quo, that does not mean major, risky policy change isn’t still intimidating.

perry: That’s well put. Medicare for All is very vulnerable to scare tactics.

sarahf: Especially when abolishing private insurance enters the equation.

natesilver: I don’t know. I sort of agree with Vox’s Matt Yglesias that people are learning the wrong lesson from Trump. He was actually perceived as a relative moderate by voters in 2016.

perry: I understand many voters said that Trump was more moderate than Clinton.

But I just have a hard time with this idea that the candidate who ran calling for a ban on Muslims traveling to the United States and suggested that he would “lock up” his opponent was the moderate candidate.

natesilver: IDK, I think we’ve shifted from a media environment in which a lot of outlets took an (implicitly center or center-left) “view from nowhere” to one in which the media is more outspoken, and the difference between partisan and nonpartisan media is a little blurrier.

And I think that’s shifted the assumptions about whether centrism is electorally advantageous in a direction that claims that, actually, elections are all about turning out your base. But I don’t think there’s actually any evidence that how you win elections has changed.

julia_azari: I don’t think I read Matt’s piece but that’s not gonna stop me from saying I’m not sure I think the discussion around moderate candidates is useful. Even if Trump was thought of as a moderate, he ran in a way that criticized the status quo.

Basically I’ve become one of those Twitter trolls who reads the headline and then makes a critique.

natesilver: Trump also won independents 46-42 though!

sarahf: We can’t downplay just how much Clinton and Trump were disliked in 2016, though. Yes, Trump won, but that might say more about how we think about women in politics more than anything else.

natesilver: What if Clinton had run as more of a centrist, though? Would she have gotten more than 8 percent of the Republican vote? The Democrats had a pretty darn liberal platform.

julia_azari: My suspicion is that it’s a wash, but I may be discounting the impact of Democrats being perceived as too left/liberal.

sarahf: If Clinton had higher favorables, I don’t think it would have mattered how she ran, i.e. centrist or super liberal.

perry: So that gets to the real question. Would Democrats be marginally better off if AOC

and company were a little less prominent till December 2020?

sarahf: Yes, I think that’s the argument Pelosi and leadership are making. I just don’t think it’s particularly salient. But I also haven’t seen the attack ads yet, I suppose.

perry: My own, non-data judgement, is yes, Democrats would be slightly better off if AOC and her allies were less prominent in the run-up to the 2020 election. Why? Because having issues of race and identity (like immigration policy and four very liberal, female people of color) being central to the presidential election is hard for Democrats. They have become the party of people of color but most voters are white and this is especially true in key swing states (in particular, Michigan and Wisconsin). Also, Trump is likely to run a 2020 campaign about race and identity that raises the question of who should represent America–forcing voters to take sides.

Pelosi, I assume, does not want the 2020 election to be seen by the public as a battle between AOC’s vision of America (even if Biden is the Democratic nominee) and Trump’s vision of America. And I think she is right to be concerned about that. This is not a new challenge for Democrats. Hillary Clinton was probably not helped by the rise of Black Lives Matter preceding the 2016 election, and backlash to the civil rights movement arguably helped Richard Nixon win the 1972 election.

natesilver: I guess the counterargument, which folks were sorta alluding to above, is that Pelosi can push back against the Squad to show that actually she’s the “reasonable,” moderate one. I’m not sure I buy that counterargument, but it’s an argument.

julia_azari: YES, THE GALAXY BRAIN TAKE.

My read on this is that this stuff is always bubbling under the surface, also. Like you can’t indefinitely ignore race issues because they’re tricky politically.

natesilver: Democrats derive certain benefits from having a more diverse coalition, one of which is that the coalition is simply broader — more people identify as Democrats in this country than Republicans. It also entails certain costs, including tension among different parts of your constituency that can have racial undertones (or even overtones).

The hard part for Democrats right now is that nonwhite voters are significantly disempowered by the Electoral College, and especially by the Senate.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #A FiveThirtyEight Chat

2 notes · View notes

cassatine · 6 years

Note

Star Wars: Return of the Sith AU Questions: If Darth Vader and Darth Sidious eventually killed each other by sheer luck (somehow), what Grand Moff Tarkin do soon after if he knew about the two Sith Lords' deaths? Also, how much would things change if that turn of events happened in 10 BBY?

Tarkin would work for the continuation of the Empire - with him near the top, if not at the top. The only problem being that it’s hard to imagine, at any point in time, a scenario in which the double Sith murder isn’t followed by general chaos and a power vacuum dividing the Empire into factions.

if Palpatine and Vader died soon after RotS, soon after announcing the Empire, before it becomes a well-oiled machine... panic basically. No plans for Palpatine’s succession, of course, though even one wouldn’t change the situation that much. Palpatine could end the Republic because he’d spent years amassing power and allies and influence, working on his image, weakening the democratic system and stripping rights all around with the helpful excuse of wartime. Without him to head the transition, the existence of the fledgling Empire would start being questioned.

In the Senate, Palpatine supporters would try to replace Palpatine, but in all likelihood they’d already be divided about who should be the new Caliph. some of Padmé’s thousand-senators union and future Rebel worlds and pretty much anyone discontent (minus the Separatists, who’d be just as likely try to slip from anyone’s control again), would more likely aim to reestablish the Republic. Public opinion would be divided - Palpatine was pretty popular then, but he had no clear heir and the Republic, for all its faults, was a known entity.

Not that public opinion would matter much. At that point it’d be either a coup or a war. Tarkin could try for a coup, he’s got some political clout of his own and loads more military connections, but he would be far from being the only one so all in all his odds aren’t very good. He could also back another pretender, but I don’t see who tbh. Oh, and he’d try to make sure no one knew about the Death Star, though it wouldn’t be of much help without the resources and time to finish it. A planet-killing weapon, even an in-progress one, is a good ace in the hole, and he would only reveal the DS to someone who’s in a position to have it finished and would leave Tarkin in control of the project.

If Sidious and Vader die later - the more time passes, the more the Empire does become a (somewhat, bloodily) well-oiled machine, establishes itself as a fact of life, and the more Tarkin’s power grows (short of that semi-exile period). But you start having rebel cells too, and discontentment grows, and there’s still no clear heir to Palpatine - and in, say 10 BBY, the DS is still far from finished. What Tarkin would have for him at that point is that the Rebels are still far from organized; he’d have only to contend with other claimants to the Emperorship, so his odds are better in that case. But the more the Rebellion and general discontentment grows, the more his chances go down

No guarantee for Tarkin (and possible associates) to win at any point - plus it all also depends where he’d be when the double Sith murder happens. If he’s not on Coruscant his chances go down - travel can be fast in the GFFA, but so can political upheavals. It’s possible it would all be over by the time Tarkin reaches Coruscant, in which case he’d probably go with the flow. And then it depends who first learns of the deaths; Tarkin could first hear about that at the same time he first hears the name of the new Emperor.

Overall his odds are never very high, because the Empire’s aren’t. Minus a very small window during which he’s in control of the (working) Death Star, , though he’d still have to contend with the Rebellion. The thing is that the Empire just wasn’t designed to survive Palpatine: even without all the Contingency stuff, the combo of infighting culture within the ranks of the Empire and no apparent heir could be enough to end it. And although there is a window - after the Empire really establishes itself and before the Rebels star organizing itself - during which the Empire has more of a chance to keep going, it doesn’t mean it would go on long.

#star wars #meta #space politic #tarkin #frostbite883 #ask

1 note · View note

tanoraqui · 6 years

Text

Pre-(Me Reading) Oathbringer Speculation

So…Oarhbringer theories…I’ve been playing spoilers chicken but I think I’ve remained mostly clean, so this is based almost entirely on just WoK and WoR, +Edgedancer. Also I may have looked at who gets POV chapters.

Character Stuff

Dalinar is presently leader of the new would-be Knights Radiant, but based on the attributes associated with their Orders/heralds, that job should be Kaladin’s, with Dalinar more…advising? Which works for both their character arcs:

Kaladin needs to get his head out of his ass, not just ease up on his hatred of lighteyes but also start seeing the larger picture BEFORE he fucks it up, not after (see: swerving with bridge, challenging Amaram.) also, Windrunnere are known for protecting and leadership - so I bet his next vow will be about that. Good opportunity for it as he heads to Kholin, where the darkeyes’ revolution of his dreams seems to be starting. After Elhokar in WoR, he won’t just throw in with the uprising, but you know he’ll want to.

I’ve also seen a spoiler that he may end up, at least briefly, with the Parshendi who fled rather than take Stormform? Pls be kind to them, Kaladin. They need it.

Dalinar, meanwhile, needs to figure out how to let go of power. Shallan (I think it was Shallan) was right: he’s here to gather the new Radiants, not lead them. Not forever, at least. Between the book flap and some stronger spoilers, I know the politics are going international now, as Dalinar tries to rally the whole world, and fucks it up a little - good. I wonder if the second vow of the Bondsmiths is something like, “I will unite people, even if I am not in the lead”? “Even at cost to myself"?

P.S. Gonna find out about Dalinar's wife this book! Gonna find out what deal he made with the Nightwatcher (who is definitely Cultivation-based)! Should learn more about the Old Magic with that, and Cultivation, who frankly I suspect is behind the very warm feeling from that last, golden dream Dalinar had at the end of WoR!

The book flap says Dalinar must “confront the past” and the back says he “seeks the past. That which was abandoned. That which he must not learn. For those secrets will crush him as they did the Knights who came before.” + Amaram’s obsession with Talenal and my mild spoilers-given knowledge that we’re getting a bit more about the Heralds this book, I bet Dalinar isn’t just confronting his own past re: his forgotten wife, but also

a) the fact that 9/10 Heralds, now held as idols, just walked away from their sworn duty

b) the realization of this on the part of the Knights Radiant was the reason for the Recreance. “If the best can’t/won’t do it, why should we?” sort of thing. And so our heroes will have to choose for themselves...

[hint: “Someone has to start...We have to be better than them.”]

Shallan…Her brothers will arrive, which will require her to confront how much she’s changed since she left home, but I think her story this tome will be relatively character development-light, plot/worldbuilding-solving-heavy.

Adolin: The first time I read these books, I said Adolin is poised for an interesting 3rd book, and I stand by that. He CAN'T tell his father what he did; it would put Dalinar and his rule-following honor in an impossible position. But the guilt will stew, and he'll have to deal with the consequences, and incidentally, this is probably the first time in Adolin's life that he's so overshadowed? Not just his cousin the king and his father the Blackthorn, but his father - and fiancée, and ex-bodyguard, and even his baby brother the Knights Radiant? I'd like to see him struggle with that.

I'd also like to see him remain NOT a Knight Radiant, not yet at least, but maybe pick up Talenel'a Honorblade and join in the fun that way. That's probably the best Order For him anyway, the resolute, dependable fighters.

(A part of me is terrified of an endgame where Adolin is Odium's Champion. Foreshadowed by his dueling prowess, and his...periodic tendency towards rashness and rage.)

Less Main Characters:

Szeth!! I'm gonna be honest: all I want out of this book is for some Szeth POV where he's talking with Nightblood and it has the vibe of a buddy cop comedy. All I want. Also, I guess he's going to go judge Shinovar [that sounds so pretentious; good grief, Nale], and I hope for his own sake that he's merciful about it. I think he will be. He doesn't want to kill, even if they were in denial and it resulted in years of torment for him and the world.

Renarin will hopefully get a little more attention, but I think still no POV? So not much attention. (I WANNA MEET REN’S SPREN SO BAD.) Hopefully he can get a little confidence.

I suspect his seizures are actually due to his Truthwatcher abiliies somehow - maybe because he’s been resisting them? Or they just always go hand in hand, but will get more manageable? Which pisses me off tbh, bc it’s been so great having Kaladin’s depression and Shallan’s inclination to cope with trauma by wildly disassociating be mostly unrelated to their powers, just part of who they are as people (more related in Shallan, but still it’s like...who she is? And that was a perfectly natural reaction to trauma, and treated as such.)

But the fact that Lopen’s arm started growing back, and Renarin stopped needing his glasses, says Stormlight heals major, old, and chronic illnesses/injuries/physical problems, which means imo that Sanderson is not treating physical disability with the same grace he gave mental. Maybe the seizures will continue with the visions they probably accompany, and it’s just something Truthwatchers have to deal with - that could be okay. Maybe it’s chronic, and if he loses access to Stormlight, they’ll return? Kaladin’s depression acts a bit like that, which makes sense because that IS due to real physical cause i.e. chemical imbalance, which maybe the Stormlight is fixing temporarily but these kids’ bodies are still set up just a bit wrong, and that’s not something that can be “fixed”...that’d be nice...

(This got away from character-related theories, sorry.)

While I’m on the subject of Representation in Fiction: GIVE SHALLAN SOME FEMALE FRIENDS. ALSO MORE RECURRING FEMALE POV CHARACTERS, CONSIDERING...JUST LOOK AT THAT LIST UP THERE. 1 WOMAN, 3 MEN. C’mooonnn

Speaking of which: My Wife If Only She'd Have Me, Jasnah Motherfucking Kholin had better come tell her actual mother that she's alive tbh, or at least send word, because Navani being forlorn to the point of illogic is, um, devastating. But also I will gladly die for the snark-filled adventures of Jasnah and Wit, so...

I know she has at least one POV chapter and I'm so excited. Only in one section, though, so alas we won't get much

Let Jasnah Have A Full Character Arc 2k18

Tentative guess that the wall she's soulcasting up on the cover is in Kholinar? Though also, who the hell knows, she and Wit could go anywhere. I ship it, y’all.

Taravangian has a recurring POV this book, which I assume is true recurring and not just, like, one chapter per section. Probably his arc will involve a growing uncertainty, as reality diverges further from the Diagram and unifying the world is harder than he thought, particularly with Dalinar as competition. (Note: Dalinar does need to learn to surrender power, but...not to this guy. He’s doing a LOT of wrong things for right reasons, and a) I disagree with that personally, and more importantly b) the morals of this series disagree with that.)

He believes his intelligence is the Nightmother’s boon and his compassion is the curse, and I bet either he’s got that backwards or they’re BOTH the curse and his desired “capacity” will manifest as, like, being at the right place in the right moment, five books from now.

Venli is worth mentioning, because she has a POV every or nearly every Interlude and I thus expect she’s the Traitor named by archetype on the back of the book. I don’t know how she took stormform before telling Eshonai about it, without anyone else noticing, but she clearly did. And the effect clearly sticks, even once a Listener changes back to another form...

Worldbuilding/Plot Theories:

Quick rundown of assorted factions/secret societies, as I understand:

Galivar: Started receiving same Honor Dream Voicemails as Dalinr, believed ‘em.

Goals: Return the Listeners’ gods (did he KNOW that meant Odium? I’m guessing not, bc he told Taravangian they needed to save the world.

Resources: 1 trapped Voidspren, acquired ?????

The Diagram: Tipped off to nigh Desolation by Galivar, asked Nightmother for “capacity” to stop it, got seesawing intelligence/empathy.

Goals: Unify world under his rule, with violence and trickery if necessary, to brace against Desolation

Resources: Diagram, Death Rattles, widespread, free-ish agents in unknown locations. Significant members: Taravangian (head), Moash (confused).

Sons of Honor: Worship Heralds?

Goals: Sought return of Voidbringers in order to prompt return of Radiants and more importantly Heralds, who will return and...restore honor and piety and all that jazz?

Resources: Mostly unknown, but some scholarship. Significant members: Restares (head, not yet met), Amaram, currently in custody of Talenal but not his Blade

Ghostbloods: What do these people even want?

Goals: Urithiru; knowledge there probably. Didn’t want Jasnah spreading knowledge of Voidbringers? Or just didn’t want her to beat them to the city?

Resources: Substantial. Significant members: Thaidakar (head, not yet met), Mraize, Masked Woman [Parshendi?], Shallan, Halaran (possibly not fully.) Davars owe them money.

Envisigiants: Nice, useless cult or bigger than Teft knew? Don’t SEEM related to any of the above in goals.

In conclusion: man, fuck if I know.

Um. I actually feel very lacking in plot or worldbuilding theories right now. I think most of them slipped into the character stuff anyway.

Either “Zahel” LOST his talking murdersword (whom I love), or he GAVE IT AWAY, and either way, honestly, what a dipshit and also where hte fuck is Vivenna and how did they get here?? Worldhopping obviously but there was no sign anyone in Warbreaker (aside from Hoid ofc) knew about that, so...???

I think the Aimians, with their mild shapeshifting, must be related to the Parshendi as well (I did look up the Horneaters.) And the...whatever sort of person Lift met in Edgedancer. I literally am not sure whether it’s spoilers or just background Cosmere lore that humans re not native to this planet, though they’ve been here for millennia, but I bet all the shapeshifting species are native.

Obvious but worth saying: the Nightmother is to Cultivation as the Stormfather is to Honor, probably? More or less?

Big point of confusion, actually: Honor is dead, but I don’t think Cultivation is? Yet she’s in the same vicinity as Odium, and has been for millennia. Hiding? Hiding really well? Maybe voluntarily mostly broke herself up into spren?

Note: the Nightmother’s boons and curses appear to be mostly cerebral, matters of perception or ability, though sometimes something like a bolt of cloth. This is presumably because she’s operating in mostly the Cognitive Realm. (Lift’s boon, of course, is explicitly a...blending of Realms.) (Or possibly Lift’s Curse? You know, the whole Boon/Curse dichotomy is almost certainly a failure of human perception.)

In WoK, it sounded like Elhokar was being followed by the same sort of pattern-headed Cryptics as Shallan, but then they didn’t like being around Kaladin and that worries me, especially with Amaram (sketchy) being followed by shadows at the end of WoR. I can see Cryptics simply not liking Windrunners tbh, but...there are darker spren around, now.

The reason this Desolation seems to be starting differently than previous ones is probably a combination of the particularly long wait between them +...is it cruel of me to hope it really IS partly Wit’s fault. In interfering. I’m sure he’ll help, but you know he’s going to break something eventually.

No, it’s probably that the Oathpact is weak, on account of just one true Herald left, and Odium is preparing to blow this popstand.

The first 5 books will end with the Desolation REALLY starting, and the gap will cover the new Knights Radiant orders settling into their new roles, people dying all over but it still could be worse, etc.

Series Endgame things: I think both that we’re going to need 10 new Heralds, one per Order, AND that Odium is going o be released back into the greater Cosmere, and I’m not sure how both those things will happen but I swear they will.

If I know absolutely anything about Brandon Sanderson’s writing habits, someday a man matching Spook’s description is going to appear in a Stormlight Archive book, inevitably speaking Eastern Empire street slang, and let me tell you, I am going to scream aloud. I think we’ll get Spook before Kelsier, though they might arrive together.

Worst comes to worst, I would watch an entire film of everyone else being dead but Odium furiously chasing Kelsier around the universe, playing whack-a-mole because this single asshole just will not stay dead.

#stormlight archive #cosmere #theories #gonna read it this weekend #gonna have fun #may not sleep much #but i have a four-day weekend so I have time to both read AND sleep :D #my fave horse girl books

6 notes · View notes