The intent of Sylvanas revealed today?

[Broken Fox]

But, doesn't that mean that neither Ner'zhul or Arthas were responsible for their actions? If so, then why did Arthas go to the Maw(no clue about Ner'zhul)? He shouldn't be held responsible for something someone else made him do.

Because Arthas was always an asshole even before he was corrupted

[The One Percent]

Because Arthas was always an asshole even before he was corrupted

Revendreth is where you go for being an asshole. The Maw is for the irredeemable.

[Verdugo]

Revendreth is where you go for being an asshole. The Maw is for the irredeemable.

Like those that destroy entire worlds for their own selfish reasons. Oh wait, its Revendreth for those too.

Experimenting on humans though, thats a one way ticket to hell for attempting to mess with Golden perfection.

[Zmagoslav]

Because Arthas was always an asshole even before he was corrupted

Arthas would probably fit into Revendreth. Garrosh, who was pretty much the same kind of prideful moron, filled with self-doubt landed there...
the main difference is probably that Arthas might have pissed off the Arbitter by using maw-magic... which would have landed him in the maw, making no difference in the end.

It was actually Uther and Devos who played judge, jury and executioner and threw him into the maw. (as seen in the video)

[Super Dickmann]

Experimenting on humans though, thats a one way ticket to hell for attempting to mess with Golden perfection.

Nah, if you go full ham and dismember thousands of people for science, you get to go to Revendreth too. Here's some testimony from a patient of his, really gets those redemptive juices flowing.

"The undead surrounded us, constantly tormenting us with horrifying acts of depravity. Finally, he came. He introduced himself as Doctor Theolen Krastinov. We came to know him as the butcher...We finally understood what the screams were from. The Butcher exposed us to pain that we did not know existed. He used us in countless experiments to devise a plague. The days turned to weeks. We would have died on that first day had it not been for that cruel bastard keeping us alive through magical means....We feel nothing. Our souls remain here, in limbo. We are unable to leave until our remains are found and spirits laid to rest."

[BaumanKing]

Nah, if you go full ham and dismember thousands of people for science, you get to go to Revendreth too. Here's some testimony from a patient of his, really gets those redemptive juices flowing.

Really? I can understand someone like Sharth Voldoun ending up in Revendreth, but this guy is literally a monster.

[Super Dickmann]

Really? I can understand someone like Sharth Voldoun ending up in Revendreth, but this guy is literally a monster.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind this kind of thing at all if it were clear that the Venthyr and the Arbiter were fallible and the moral discrepancy intentional. It's also why I really liked Sharth's original description emphasizing that he got a ticket out of the Maw because he manipulated the naaru, as while this isn't really a virtue, it makes sense that it's something the Light-fearing Venthyr would value. Ditto, a torturer not being much of a big deal for a society solely based around torture also works out. Under that view, them taking more issue with his motive than the act fits the Venthyr where it's reprehensible to us as the audience.

Where it falls apart is that we're meant to view the Shadowlands uncritically. The Sharth change away from his manipulation of the naaru and towards his patriotism pushed that, as they removed that weirder, but more interesting motive for him to have a shot at Revendreth for something more conventionally heroic, but also less alien.

[Verdugo]

Nah, if you go full ham and dismember thousands of people for science, you get to go to Revendreth too. Here's some testimony from a patient of his, really gets those redemptive juices flowing.

...I give up. This is just sewage. Raw, toxic, sewage.

I am sure Aucald has an excuse for it, though.

[Aucald]

...I give up. This is just sewage. Raw, toxic, sewage.

I am sure Aucald has an excuse for it, though.

If I recall correctly, you didn't want me to respond to you going forward - if that's still the case then I'd request you not do any indirect call-outs either.

[Broken Fox]

Arthas would probably fit into Revendreth. Garrosh, who was pretty much the same kind of prideful moron, filled with self-doubt landed there...
the main difference is probably that Arthas might have pissed off the Arbitter by using maw-magic... which would have landed him in the maw, making no difference in the end.

It was actually Uther and Devos who played judge, jury and executioner and threw him into the maw. (as seen in the video)

Arthas is basically Anakin/Vader. Even if he was "corrupted" he still chose to go down that path so I guess that's taken into consideration. It's not like he was possessed by a demon or something Exorcist style.

[Vakir]

This whole thing is fixable if literally everyone can go to Revendreth, which is implied in the actual zone story. People unwilling for redemption or people who are unwilling to let go of their sins being put in the Maw. Otherwise it raises so very many questions.

[Quaade]

So deep. Guess we need to murdershit the hell out of all those progress impeding Draenei, Night Elves, remaining dragons and other ancient beings. For good and progress of Azeroth!

I'm glad to see that you're fastidious in your incredible ignorance of the issue. The members of those societies live for a long time and for that reason their birth rate is low, so doing that would do more harm than good as it would actively remove ideas from it without replacing it with anything as there are too few young people to organically reshape it.

That said, those societies are incredibly Conservative and have only really changed due to outside influences.

- - - Updated - - -

You're making no argument here. You're commenting on the inevitability of change while I'm commenting that change can be negative, so wanting it for the sake of it is a waste of time. I'm not engaging in some pseudointellectual argument on the meaning of the word, but that change can easily be towards something worse that came before. And that your own stupid position requires you to support Sylvanas as she represents change over the extant status quo.

Change is just change, it has no value and it's inevitable unless you use violence to keep it from happening. It's humans that assign a value to change, and you then attach a value to change and make a strawman of me in the same breath, that makes it change for the sake of change and that's bad. You then make another strawman where you state that the logic of the argument means we must assist Sylvanas because she wants change.

Are you incapable of debating honestly and without making strawmen of your opponent's arguments? I've argued with you before and this is the first time you've gone mask off and veered full-throated into Conservatism as the "change for the sake of change and that's bad change" is a Conservative argument.

[Super Dickmann]

Change is just change, it has no value and it's inevitable unless you use violence to keep it from happening. It's humans that assign a value to change, and you then attach a value to change and make a strawman of me in the same breath, that makes it change for the sake of change and that's bad. You then make another strawman where you state that the logic of the argument means we must assist Sylvanas because she wants change.

Are you incapable of debating honestly and without making strawmen of your opponent's arguments? I've argued with you before and this is the first time you've gone mask off and veered full-throated into Conservatism as the "change for the sake of change and that's bad change" is a Conservative argument.

The former paragraph is meaningless sophistry, which to be fair is par for the course. Change does take place, but that change can be positive or negative. If your position is that change is inevitable and should not be opposed or as you say elsewhere, that it is good for things to die so that new things, which are inherently better, can take their place, then you should logically support Sylvanas because she is both younger and different from what came before while her opponents are ancient. You however oppose her, because you realize that while what she is doing is a stark break from the Arbiter and the extant afterlives, it's also worse and you are capable of making a value judgment on top of simply observing whether something is the same or not. Ergo, not even you genuinely have this position and neither does anyone else who wouldn't be better off in a mental institution.

Capitalizing Conservative like you're casting a curse is funny, but anyone who's not fallen on their head as a child is aware that wanting to alter a status quo simply because it'll inevitably be altered anyway is a barking position, regardless of political alignment. To give just one example, the deindustrialization and neoliberalism that Thatcher heralded in the UK was a massive change from the post-war consensus, but it was vigorously opposed by the left. Any political movement will obviously oppose changes that they don't agree with, even if social currents are pushing in that direction, because they're stakeholders in an extant situation and would like to maintain it and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Soon-TM]

Well, if they redeem Sylvanas somehow, it's sort of liking Stalin because he helped kill Hitler. He's still Stalin and killed many on his own, despite that good thing he did.

Well, tbh Stalin did get a free pass in the West for quite some time - and would have probably continued to do so, had his successor Jruschov not denounced his "methods".

[Super Dickmann]

Well, tbh Stalin did get a free pass in the West for quite some time - and would probably continued to do so, had his successor Jruschov not denounced his "methods".

Not so much that as the Axis being defeated and Stalin now being their chief rival. The US were doing crap like Mission to Moscow during the war to drum up more support for the USSR, just like how Germany pivoted from talking about Judeobolsheviks to saying how Stalin and Soviet Russia were great guys between Molotov-Ribbentrop and Barbarossa then back again. Once the war ended, those with their interests in mind decided that there was no more point in running interference for the show trials and purges. The useful idiots do it to this day.

[Quaade]

The former paragraph is meaningless sophistry, which to be fair is par for the course. Change does take place, but that change can be positive or negative. If your position is that change is inevitable and should not be opposed or as you say elsewhere, that it is good for things to die so that new things, which are inherently better, can take their place, then you should logically support Sylvanas because she is both younger and different from what came before while her opponents are ancient. You however oppose her, because you realize that while what she is doing is a stark break from the Arbiter and the extant afterlives, it's also worse and you are capable of making a value judgment on top of simply observing whether something is the same or not. Ergo, not even you genuinely have this position and neither does anyone else who wouldn't be better off in a mental institution.

Capitalizing Conservative like you're casting a curse is funny, but anyone who's not fallen on their head as a child is aware that wanting to alter a status quo simply because it'll inevitably be altered anyway is a barking position, regardless of political alignment. To give just one example, the deindustrialization and neoliberalism that Thatcher heralded in the UK was a massive change from the post-war consensus, but it was vigorously opposed by the left. Any political movement will obviously oppose changes that they don't agree with, even if social currents are pushing in that direction, because they're stakeholders in an extant situation and would like to maintain it and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

No, change is just change. To make it positive or negative is in the eye of the beholder. For a fly being caught in a spiderr's web it's positive change for the spider and a negative change for the fly.

And no there is "Conservative" which is the ideology and "conservative" which is an attitude that people can have. And your arguments are Conservative in nature regardless of how any other political reality.

And you mentioning Tatcher, that was a highly positive change for people that adhered strongly to the Conservative ideology and a highly negative change for anyone wanting a well-functioning country.

The meaning is in the name of the ideology. Conservative is to Conserve things, in this case conserving the hierarchies as they want them to be. The opposite is Progressivism, which is to progress things. Words are important, they all have subcultural meanings those are the reason we can play word-association games.

You might think you have an argument and you have none when faced with someone that has more knowledge about it than you.

[Super Dickmann]

Parsing your argument as you flit back and forth between sentences to try and maintain a coherent worldview makes me cross-eyed, but it is funny.

First, you agree that change has a moral value that's ascribed to it separate from whether change itself happens or not:

No, change is just change. To make it positive or negative is in the eye of the beholder. For a fly being caught in a spiderr's web it's positive change for the spider and a negative change for the fly.

But before then, you've described change by itself as being inherently good and established ideas and concepts are by virtue of being extant or old, inherently inferior:

People dying is a good thing for progress as it means that their ideas and ways of doing things will be replaced by the ideas and ways of doing things by the next generation. It's how a society progresses and evolves. The longer you live the more conservative you are since you wish to cling to the things being as you remember them instead of letting them change because change is scary.

You seem to back this up in this part, where you say that by capital C Conservatism you mean the extant status quo and not a particular political bend:

And no there is "Conservative" which is the ideology and "conservative" which is an attitude that people can have. And your arguments are Conservative in nature regardless of how any other political reality.

Except one moment later, you use capital C Conservative to refer to Thatcher's Conservative party and criticize it for being a shit change, despite neoliberalism being a newer concept than the post-war economic consensus and thus per your previous statement, being superior by virtue of this since it is replacing older thinking:

And you mentioning Tatcher, that was a highly positive change for people that adhered strongly to the Conservative ideology and a highly negative change for anyone wanting a well-functioning country.

Only to then pivot in the very next paragraph to an entirely different definition, going on about the maintenance of (power?) hierarchies, despite neoliberalism being a rebuttal of the extant order in both the Conservative party - the political organisation, hence the wet-dry divide and in what you described as Capital C Conservatism, namely the status quo, for all of one sentence. Instead, you now contrast this maintenance with progressivism, which you don't define:

The meaning is in the name of the ideology. Conservative is to Conserve things, in this case conserving the hierarchies as they want them to be. The opposite is Progressivism, which is to progress things. Words are important, they all have subcultural meanings those are the reason we can play word-association games.

So which one is it? Do you think change and the movement away from extant ideas is inherently good or not? Under the framework of your argument, was Arthur Scargill, a Marxist, a Conservative because he wanted to maintain the existing livelihood of industrial workers or was he progressive because he was opposing the Conservative ideology? Because just operating off of one post of yours, one could reach either conclusion, let alone bringing in other comments. For instance, how does the inherent fault of conservatism in the meaning of maintaining extant hierarchies gel with this observation of yours, re: Devos, which amounts to an appeal to tradition. A correct one at that, but one that is anathema to a position that rejects what is already established on the basis of it being already established:

As was Devos' perspective. Death follows life, that's just how it is. Every living being moves on a trajectory of from the cradle to the grave and end that trajectory is a god complex at best and pure unbridled malignant narcissism and utter stupidity at worst.

Words do indeed mean things. You, I and everyone who's engaged you and others over this post is well aware of what they mean by both change and by positive or negative, and have thus dropped definitional games in favor of arguing the actual topic at hand. Switching definitions mid-stream or engaging in semantic minutiae is impressive in sophistry courses but fail when trying to communicate any idea or having a real conversation. They fail even more when the sleight of hand is carried out as clumsily as you've done in this and every topic.

You might think you have an argument and you have none when faced with someone that has more knowledge about it than you.

I entirely agree with that last part. It's rare to talk to someone who writes like a walking parody. Genuinely, what's your degree in? You keep talking about it, and I simply have to know. You write like someone who's read one summary of Chomsky or taken Linguistics and Social Sciences 101 and now thinks he needs a heavy goods vehicle to lug his brain around. All the while not just discussing completely banal concepts that a T-rated mass market video game is pushing, but managing to make a dog's breakfast even of that.