Mage: The Ascension, Technocracy and science

[K]

I think it's not that consensualism that is bad for ethics, but the relativism.

I mean, if you think Black Spiral Dancers are just a different viewpoint that deserves as much respect as your own, then you are an evil fuck.

You see it a lot in certain academic circles. I was once told by a teacher that I couldn't criticize a Native American poet who called for the death of all whites because that was her "testimony" and that it had value as such.

The very idea that there are conflicting belief systems that are even slightly comparable is ethically unsound from the start.

[DoNotFeedTheHipsters]

Well the whole idea behind, say "literature" is that books are trying to tell you something on some level. RPG writers may or may not deliberately include their themes (I can't definitely determine that the Mage writers had occult beliefs, though they certainly read up on it) but certainly such themes are there and just by being present they're glorifying retardness, quite as much as including a ton of murdering and raping could be seen as glorifying sociopathy. And again, this is more of a problem than in D&D because IRL people have these sort of beliefs. There are plenty of RPGs that have magic without it being questionable.

As far as D&D goes if there's a bad theme in D&D its the racial themes - drow elves, gully dwarves etc.

Turns out some people have the belief that their deity grants them favour and/or special powers in return for worship in the real world too, but I have yet to see anyone on these boards rant and rave about how Dungeons & Dragons is basically responsible for 9/11 and AIDS in Africa because it encourages religious fanaticism. But Mage is responsible for people being narcissistic because, well, fuck those guys.

Also I don't think many people in this thread understand how Post-Modernism or Ethics actually work.

[RiotGearEpsilon]

Here, I'll throw in another:

-Username17

I must defend the object of my affection here - the sentiment expressed on the back cover does not actually penetrate past the cover of the book. It's fucking ridiculous and quite offensive, but it doesn't represent the content of the game itself - rather, it represents whatever hack they had writing the back cover.

[Username17]

I must defend the object of my affection here - the sentiment expressed on the back cover does not actually penetrate past the cover of the book. It's fucking ridiculous and quite offensive, but it doesn't represent the content of the game itself - rather, it represents whatever hack they had writing the back cover.

It's not just the back cover, though that's the punchiest example. They have whole sourcebooks that parrot that drivel. Exalted: The Lunars is pretty famous for being creepy, and the actual book does not disappoint.

-Username17

[Xenologer]

Just to really be obnoxious, I'll point out that, as far as historical morality, we *do* live in a consensual history.

Counter-example to the holocaust. Stalin during his reign had 3-4 times as many people murdered in the Soviet Union than in the holocaust. However, he was an ally of the states and the communist scare hadn't started yet, so it's glossed over in history in favor of Germany.

It wasn't until the last 30-40 years that hundreds of years of what the US did to Native Americans was considered bad.

Colonialism for hundreds of years was thought to be a good thing and now it's looked down on with distaste.

So yes, if Germany had won WW2 I imagine the holocaust wouldn't be the absolute black evil we see it to be. We probably wouldn't even know about it to be perfectly frank.

You have spent too much time in Room 101. Just because Winston Smith claims that O'Brien levitated, and O'Brien later claims that he did, does not mean it actually occurred, at least in a reality that is not consensually built.

Bringing it back to your examples, just because revisionist histories are written doesn't mean history was revised. That's the thing here. It's not merely that the Holocaust would be viewed by people now as having been "not so bad," it's that if Germany won the ideological war needed to change the consensus, the reasons the Holocaust supposedly happened (Jewish control of the media, the world economy, etc.) would have retroactively become true. The indigenous peoples wiped out by white colonials would not merely be unregretted and unmissed... they would have retroactively become savages in league with the Christian satan and bent on the destruction of white virtue and the sullying of pure white women.

That's the problem here. Revisionist histories being written doesn't mean history itself is revisable--just our understanding of it. So this whole "but WE live in a consensual reality OOOOOOH" is horse shit and fun to play with as an intellectual puzzle about the follies of memory, but it doesn't mean that what actually happened has changed.

[TheFlatline]

Apparently you missed the first sentence of my post: "Just to be obnoxious".

[CCarter]

Turns out some people have the belief that their deity grants them favour and/or special powers in return for worship in the real world too, but I have yet to see anyone on these boards rant and rave about how Dungeons & Dragons is basically responsible for 9/11 and AIDS in Africa because it encourages religious fanaticism. But Mage is responsible for people being narcissistic because, well, fuck those guys.

Sure D&D like any work of fiction comes with its own set of hidden messages - whether anyone wishes to actually rant about them depends on whether they actually find them offensive. People have already pointed out in this thread that Mage's core beliefs are more offensive than the default rules of your standard fantasy world. But if you want to rave about how D&D causes AIDS, go nuts I'd look forward to reading it.

[Xenologer]

Apparently you missed the first sentence of my post: "Just to be obnoxious".

Oh, I saw it. I just didn't think it truly did justice to how ridiculous that conflation is, and it deserved a little more clarity as to why nobody should lend it credence or take it seriously.

[tzor]

Bringing it back to your examples, just because revisionist histories are written doesn't mean history was revised. That's the thing here. It's not merely that the Holocaust would be viewed by people now as having been "not so bad," it's that if Germany won the ideological war needed to change the consensus, the reasons the Holocaust supposedly happened (Jewish control of the media, the world economy, etc.) would have retroactively become true. The indigenous peoples wiped out by white colonials would not merely be unregretted and unmissed... they would have retroactively become savages in league with the Christian satan and bent on the destruction of white virtue and the sullying of pure white women.

That's the problem here. Revisionist histories being written doesn't mean history itself is revisable--just our understanding of it. So this whole "but WE live in a consensual reality OOOOOOH" is horse shit and fun to play with as an intellectual puzzle about the follies of memory, but it doesn't mean that what actually happened has changed.

There is another angle to consider as well. If we assume that the realities overlap, that is to say the reality of everyone interferes with each other and produces a commonality, then this exists both in distance and in time. In other words the common reality of the past attempts to enforce the present (and if you really want to go crazy the common reality of the future also enforces the present). Thus any attempt to "revise" the historical reality results in a paradox attack by the past reality. Just as void mages really have to go outside earth orbit to avoid the common reality of the earth, one might have to do the same in terms of time.

So you might (if you manage to do so) change the history of the dinosaurs, but not the 20th century.

[CCarter]

In other words the common reality of the past attempts to enforce the present (and if you really want to go crazy the common reality of the future also enforces the present). Thus any attempt to "revise" the historical reality results in a paradox attack by the past reality. Just as void mages really have to go outside earth orbit to avoid the common reality of the earth, one might have to do the same in terms of time.

So you might (if you manage to do so) change the history of the dinosaurs, but not the 20th century.

oooh have +1 Arete.
I think Mage would claim that 'time' is an illusion that only exists because you believe in it as well, since the Time sphere/time travel is a completely valid misuse of your wizard powers.

[souran]

Also I don't think many people in this thread understand how Post-Modernism or Ethics actually work.

Very much have to agree with this.

This board is great for a lot of things but when it tries to do

1) Philsophy
2) MMOs
3) Literature

It starts to reveal that most people are brought here by a love of rpgs and don't really have the training needed to go deep in any of those topics.

[fectin]

Also I don't think many people in this thread understand how Post-Modernism or Ethics actually work.

Very much have to agree with this.

This board is great for a lot of things but when it tries to do

1) Philsophy
2) MMOs
3) Literature

It starts to reveal that most people are brought here by a love of rpgs and don't really have the training needed to go deep in any of those topics.

Enlighten me then: how does philosophy work?

[TheFlatline]

Apparently you missed the first sentence of my post: "Just to be obnoxious".

Oh, I saw it. I just didn't think it truly did justice to how ridiculous that conflation is, and it deserved a little more clarity as to why nobody should lend it credence or take it seriously.

So in other words, I did exactly what I stated I'd do: be obnoxious.

Thanks for the validation!

[K]

There is a big difference between understanding post-modernism and giving it any credit.

Post-modernism is basically a critique of objective truth. That works great for literature where you can argue what particular work means, but falls to shit the instant you try to apply it to science or ethics.

Anti-rationalism may be cool for the hipsters, but you don't build televisions or working societies with it.

[Blicero]

There is a big difference between understanding post-modernism and giving it any credit.

Post-modernism is basically a critique of objective truth. That works great for literature where you can argue what particular work means, but falls to shit the instant you try to apply it to science or ethics.

Anti-rationalism may be cool for the hipsters, but you don't build televisions or working societies with it.

This is true. Pomo is great for dicking around when you're high, but if you try to pretend it achieves anything tangible, you're basically talking out of your ass.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I must defend the object of my affection here - the sentiment expressed on the back cover does not actually penetrate past the cover of the book. It's fucking ridiculous and quite offensive, but it doesn't represent the content of the game itself - rather, it represents whatever hack they had writing the back cover.

I love Exalted too in much the same way I love Fist of the Blue Sky, Punisher MAX, and Star Trek: Voyager, but let's get real here. This is far from the only instance of this kind of crap from the book.

I've told this story before, but a few years ago while I was still pulling my pud in the Nav, I accidentally left out a copy of that fucking book out in the lounge while I went to go do something. When I got back, some of the other sailors had the book opened to that page with the naked fursuit loli and were speculating on who owned it. Fortunately I wasn't the only D&D player in my division and they ended up suspecting another sailor who accidentally left out his copy of rape hentai. I ended up having to sneak that fucking book out under cover of darkness on my day off.

I've given up on making apologies for this game and am resigned to getting the same reactions from people for liking this game as saying that I like to browse scat porn, eating buttered pasta with my hands, and thinking that YEC is pretty rad.

[DoNotFeedTheHipsters]

Sure D&D like any work of fiction comes with its own set of hidden messages - whether anyone wishes to actually rant about them depends on whether they actually find them offensive. People have already pointed out in this thread that Mage's core beliefs are more offensive than the default rules of your standard fantasy world. But if you want to rave about how D&D causes AIDS, go nuts I'd look forward to reading it.

My point is that

A. There's a double standard here.

B. Making fictional universes that are based on fictional cosmologies is not a bad thing. It makes them more interesting, allows new avenues of story or play (for literature or games or whatever), and is generally neato. If I were to base a book or game I was writing on the weirdo Rationalist philosophy of Berkley, I wouldn't be encouraging people to subscribe to the belief that there is no matter and all objects are just thoughts in God's mind. But that's conceptually interesting and could make a cool story. I dunno if it could make a good game, that might require some work. Similarly, I would roll my eyes at anyone who lost their shit at any work of literature, film, or whatever that could, in theory, if its in-game material were warped and extrapolated into a real-life setting, possibly imply something that would make stupid people do things that make me cross or whatever crazy logic was going on when someone was saying Mage made kids not listen to their teacher. Fiction having fictional concepts that might have weird implications in the real world doesn't turn them all into The Birth of a Nation.

And C. Turns out there is no moral absolute anyways, Christ.[/i]

[CCarter]

Sure D&D like any work of fiction comes with its own set of hidden messages - whether anyone wishes to actually rant about them depends on whether they actually find them offensive. People have already pointed out in this thread that Mage's core beliefs are more offensive than the default rules of your standard fantasy world. But if you want to rave about how D&D causes AIDS, go nuts I'd look forward to reading it.

My point is that

A. There's a double standard here.

B. Making fictional universes that are based on fictional cosmologies is not a bad thing. It makes them more interesting, allows new avenues of story or play (for literature or games or whatever), and is generally neato. If I were to base a book or game I was writing on the weirdo Rationalist philosophy of Berkley, I wouldn't be encouraging people to subscribe to the belief that there is no matter and all objects are just thoughts in God's mind. But that's conceptually interesting and could make a cool story. I dunno if it could make a good game, that might require some work. Similarly, I would roll my eyes at anyone who lost their shit at any work of literature, film, or whatever that could, in theory, if its in-game material were warped and extrapolated into a real-life setting, possibly imply something that would make stupid people do things that make me cross or whatever crazy logic was going on when someone was saying Mage made kids not listen to their teacher. Fiction having fictional concepts that might have weird implications in the real world doesn't turn them all into The Birth of a Nation.

And C. Turns out there is no moral absolute anyways, Christ.[/i]

On A) I don't care. Its a fallacy to assume that because a given person does something bad (in this case, D&D writers writing D&D), its moral for everyone to do it. Pass me your liver so I can eat it with a fine Chianti, Hannibal did it so its fine.

B) There is plenty of fiction that's deliberately written to impart a message - Narnia is Christian probaganda, The Golden Compass is atheist probaganda, Heinlein honestly believed the ethos of Starship Troopers. Were all of these people just wasting their time?

C) Expand your point here some more and I'll see if I can put some holes in this one too. As is, I'm not sure what you're saying.

[DoNotFeedTheHipsters]

On A) I don't care. Its a fallacy to assume that because a given person does something bad (in this case, D&D writers writing D&D), its moral for everyone to do it. Pass me your liver so I can eat it with a fine Chianti, Hannibal did it so its fine.

Aight, at least the hypocrisy is cheerfully admitted to.

B) There is plenty of fiction that's deliberately written to impart a message - Narnia is Christian probaganda, The Golden Compass is atheist probaganda, Heinlein honestly believed the ethos of Starship Troopers. Were all of these people just wasting their time?

Okay then, prove to me that the WoD writers specifically wanted their readers to believe that the real world was governed by consensual reality and science is a bad thing and their point in writing Mage was to impart this message and not to, I dunno, write a game about playing wizards in modern-day Los Angeles. It's easy enough to prove that Heinlein and Lewis were writing with a message, so it ought to be equally plain for the WoD writers.

C) Expand your point here some more and I'll see if I can put some holes in this one too. As is, I'm not sure what you're saying.

This was just an attack at people like fectin and K recoiling in horror at the dreaded relativism. Turns out there's obviously no such fucking thing as an objective morality in the real world anyways, and everyone seems so worried about the effects that Mage's supposed 'morality' will have on people RL.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Fiction having fictional concepts that might have weird implications in the real world doesn't turn them all into The Birth of a Nation.

I liked how you swapped out the adjective 'offensive' or 'harmful' with the euphemism 'weird', even though it's the former two which are more tangential to our rant. I mean, how can you be against something that has simply weird implications?!

B) There is plenty of fiction that's deliberately written to impart a message - Narnia is Christian probaganda, The Golden Compass is atheist probaganda, Heinlein honestly believed the ethos of Starship Troopers. Were all of these people just wasting their time?

Secondly, just because something is based on a real-world belief or message doesn't absolve it of responsibility. You certainly can't use the 'b-b-but my setting is based on Phrenology and The Bell Curve really being true, even if it's not!' excuse when someone calls your setting racist. If you absolutely have to for some reason, then you should go out of your way to say what a bad thing it is and that the authors don't endorse it, it's just there for whatever weird reason you want.

Not only does that mealy-mouthed excuse not excuse some of the more blatant cases of wrongness, there's no indication that the writers even believe that this is wrong. Granted, I have read no WoD books, but I've read plenty of Exalted books and I fully expect them to genuinely hold that attitude.

[DoNotFeedTheHipsters]

I liked how you swapped out the adjective 'offensive' or 'harmful' with the euphemism 'weird', even though it's the former two which are more tangential to our rant. I mean, how can you be against something that has simply weird implications?!

Well, I find the entire idea that the Mage universe being a universe governed by consensual reality has in any way caused harm in the real world to be fucking ludicrous and totally un-supported. As for 'offensive', that's totally subjective. I mean, oWoD's racially-themed stuff was pretty offensive, sure. But the alternate cosmology being offensive? Come the fuck on.

Plus, if you're offended by moral relativism, beyond finding it disagreeable or useless or whatever, but think it's actually offensive that some people might reject ethical teleology, you're a fucking child.

[Xenologer]

I would roll my eyes at anyone who lost their shit at any work of literature, film, or whatever that could, in theory, if its in-game material were warped and extrapolated into a real-life setting, possibly imply something that would make stupid people do things that make me cross or whatever crazy logic was going on when someone was saying Mage made kids not listen to their teacher. Fiction having fictional concepts that might have weird implications in the real world doesn't turn them all into The Birth of a Nation.

That's true, which is why no analysis or critique of fiction has ever taught anyone anything. *nodnod*

Oh, wait, no.

Also, whether there are moral absolutes is sort of out of the scope of the discussion, but we could go there, and ask whether our knowledge about life, ourselves, and whatever has taught us anything about what is good to do and what isn't, but it's way more fun to channel all that repressed anger at the English teachers who failed us for refusing to think about anything we read for class.

[Orion]

Xenologer--I agree with the spirit of your argument, but Sam Harris views on ethics are rank hypocrisy and largely bullshit. I can elaborate in another thread if you want, as I just had a really frustrating discussion about this on another site.

[DoNotFeedTheHipsters]

Wow, Xenologer managed a truly boneheaded strawman and an appeal to that recidivist Is/Ought retard Sam Harris in only, like, three sentences. I've seen better, but not much.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Well, I find the entire idea that the Mage universe being a universe governed by consensual reality has in any way caused harm in the real world to be fucking ludicrous and totally un-supported.

As people have explained in this thread, that concept is the crown jewel in the bullshit crown of anti-science even if people advocating that policy don't particularly mean to push anti-science. If you're going to do such a thing you should go out of your way to say that you're just recreating a fictional setting and that you don't really mean anything by those implications.

I find anti-intellectualism and anti-science just as important to combat as racialism and sexism, because it creates just as much harm and it's a requirement towards truly defeating the latter. Of course it's a testament to how backwards we are as a society that someone can describe themselves or their philosophy in these terms and not be a pariah.

but think it's actually offensive that some people might reject ethical teleology, you're a fucking child.

I never said that moral relativism was offensive; I said anti-intellectualism is. That's you putting words in my mouth.

My personal thoughts on moral relativism is that while it's an improvement to almost every other teleological system ever proposed (because it promotes tolerance and investigation) it's not the absolute best one because it doesn't take a strong enough stand on certain human rights abuses. Which is why I'm a Humanist Utilitarian. But as an alternative to almost every other system? You could do much, much worse.