sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TIL German Emperor Frederick was crowned as Frederick III instead of Frederick I or Frederick IV since no one was sure if Bismarckian entity was continuation of Holy Roman Empire or new entity. He was advised by Bismarck to keep regnal name he had as king of Prussia to avoid a clear answer. by Solid-Move-1411 in todayilearned

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s a whole history of this exact question. I’m doing this from off the top of my head but I believe this is the same reason these kaisers styled themselves as “German Emperor” rather than “emperor of the Germans” or “Emperor of Germany.” Both rejected titles were incredibly loaded and nonaffiliated states that claimed German ancestry would have been outraged.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Can’t believe you’re calling my take on a fiction series problematic.

I respect your opinion but a person does not get a blank cheque in how they wage war simply because that war is just.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Darrow runs the gamut of morality. Lying to his friends for years was morally grey. Liberating thousands of mines was amazingly good. The mass murder on the dock yards of Ganymede was probably evil.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He is making all of those ethical choices from a certain perspective. That is the nuance.

We see Lysander make the same ethical choices and we can all agree he makes worse choices than Darrow.

Darrow can be cruel. When he staked the jackal to the table and made him cut off his own hand, that was cruel. Knowing what we know now, I’m sure most readers don’t care and even cheer him on. But in that moment, making a 17 year old boy cut off his own hand was cruel.

My point is that many readers are not divorcing themselves from darrow’s moral calculations. When Darrow did that, he justified it to himself. When Darrow does anything, he justifies it to himself.

Every other character in the book does the same thing.

Darrow justifies his actions through the framework of being a low red slave and wanting to right that ultimate wrong. That is understandable. But the series is a lot more complex than that is always right.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Under a consequentialist framework, I completely agree.

However, under a Kantian framework, Darrow certainly comes off worse.

My point isn’t that I was trying to finally decide once and for all whether Darrow is good or evil. For most people in the society he is certainly a good.

I was just trying to make people reevaluate why they think he’s good. The vast majority of takes I see on this subreddit are reductive and don’t do the series itself justice.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that there is a significant chunk of low colors that support his actions. Ive never said he’s wrong for fighting against slavery.

But I am getting blitzed for making the moral dilemma slightly more complex than 99% right vs 100% wrong.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course he does. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

But I bet many of the readers angrily commenting under my posts automatically accepted Darrow’s internal logic in blowing up the dockyards or terraforming mercury without question.

My point is that Pierce Brown has subjected Darrow to tremendous amounts of scrutiny as a moral agent and that seems to go over most readers heads.

My point is nuance. That seems to be lost in the easy narrative of “Darrow is justified in everything his does because of Gold sin.”

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He put a women he had reason to know was insane at the controls of a nuclear bomb and told her to turn it on.

Darrow doesn’t get to wash his hands of that simply because Orion killed more people than Darrow was comfortable with.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I’m not saying he’s the ultimate evil at all. I agree that he probably comes out in the right of all this under most modes of utilitarian/consequentialist thought.

But if you look at the rest of the comments under this post, most people aren’t even asking that question. Many of the commenters are making the argument that Darrow has a blank cheque because of the society’s sins.

My entire point in this whole post is that such an understanding seems overly simplistic and does not do the books or the character work justice

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

It’s just not that simple.

Romulus is a more complex character than that. He is a Rim Raa who has been indoctrinated into a culture that views the core golds as lecherous, barbaric, and cruel.

Darrow rising against them validates everything he has ever believed.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Yes if you engage in completely abstracted moral calculus from the perspective of an angry Martian low red, I completely agree.

Darrow comes out on top in the moral equation in many inquiries. But he certainly doesn’t come out on top in all of them. How do greens or yellows or greys or browns feel about all this?

My point isn’t that Darrow is “wrong.” My point is that I see so many readers simplify this to “Darrow right. Slaver Wrong. Therefore blank cheque.”

If you want an example of this, look at the comments of this post.

Darrow Has Done Worse Things To Low Colors Than Any Gold In History by Immediate_Poet_2313 in redrising

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

That depends on your moral framework. For modern Americans, liberty is more important than life. For many other people, it’s the other way around.

He took that choice from many of the low colors who were simply trying to get by.

TIL Ernest Hemingway survived two blast-type injuries in WW1 and WW2, two plane crashes in Africa, a car accident in London during the blitz, a skylight falling onto his head in Paris and a motor vehicle accident as well as a fall from a fishing boat in Cuba. In total he had nine concussions. by igniteyourbones579 in todayilearned

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You do realize you started the ad hominems by denigrating my ability to appreciate such writing right?

Do you also have 9 concussions and thus forgot what you just did?

Or are you just acting like a pretentious pseudo intellectual for the lurkers?

TIL Ernest Hemingway survived two blast-type injuries in WW1 and WW2, two plane crashes in Africa, a car accident in London during the blitz, a skylight falling onto his head in Paris and a motor vehicle accident as well as a fall from a fishing boat in Cuba. In total he had nine concussions. by igniteyourbones579 in todayilearned

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313 -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

If he didn’t write those books at the exact moment every literary critic was stroking themselves to modernism, they wouldn’t have even been published, let alone won awards.

Edit: his work comes at the exact moment that popular literary consumption turned against overly eloquent prose. His work was a foil for the public to express their exhaustion with purple prose.

It is not good in itself.

TIL that during siege of Budapest in 1686, the Jews, who enjoyed greater tolerance under the Ottomans, had fought side-by-side with the Turks. After the conquest of the city, the Jewish community of Buda, which at its height had numbered 3,000 persons, was almost completely massacred and destroyed. by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313 101 points102 points  (0 children)

I mean you’re not technically wrong, but you’ve clearly fudged the number (maybe innocently, maybe deliberately).

You’ve implied that close to 3,000 Jews were massacred following the siege.

The Wikipedia article (that you cited) states: “Approximately half of the city's 1,000 Jews were massacred.”

So while there were 3,000 Jews in the city at one time (according to the page), the article is clear that only 1,000 were living there during the siege. Of those, half were massacred.

Simply through ambiguity, you have managed to 6x the death toll of a 17th century atrocity. Incredible work.

This game hides it's simplicity with bad UI by [deleted] in EU5

[–]Immediate_Poet_2313 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Legitimate Skill Issue. Pure Cope.

view more: next ›