Democrats already proposing austerity before DNC even ends

[Eacaraxe]

The point of the story is that Geralt tries to be above it all, to not choose sides because he refuses to interact with evil, but instead of coming out clean he ends up doing more evil then if he had actively picked a side or pushed back against both.

No. He tried to stay out of it, then was provoked into inadvertently taking the greater evil's side. We can talk about that one quote all day, or we can talk about these three:

“I pity you,” she said slowly, gazing at the medallion. “You claim a lesser evil doesn’t exist. You’re standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can’t choose, but you had to. And you’ll never know, you’ll never be sure, if you were right…And your reward will be a stoning, and a bad word. I pity you…”

And...

“You’ve made your choice,” she said slowly. “Are you sure it’s the right one?”
“This won’t be another Tridam,” Geralt said with an effort.
“It wouldn’t have been. Stregobor laughed in my face. He said I could butcher Blaviken and the neighboring villages and he wouldn’t leave his tower. And he won’t let anyone in, not even you. Why are you looking at me like that? Yes, I deceived you. I’ll deceive anyone if I have to; why should you be special?”

And...

Stregobor, seeing the raised blade, jumped aside and waved his staff. “All right!” he shouted. “As you wish! But you’ll never know! You’ll never be sure! Never, do you hear, witcher?”
“Be gone.”
“As you wish.” The wizard turned away, his staff hitting the flagstones. “I’m returning to Kovir. I’m not staying in this hole another day. Come with me rather than rot here. These people don’t know anything, they’ve only seen you killing. And you kill nastily, Geralt. Well, are you coming?”

Aridea and Stregobor created "Shrike". Aridea to kill Renfri so her own children would be the heirs-apparent, Stregobor by wanting to hunt, capture, and Vivisect Renfri based on malicious rumor and theory. And where Renfri fucked up, was assuming assuming Stregobor had a shred of human decency in him that the Tridam ultimatum might work.

And what Geralt would never know, was whether Renfri would have gone through with it. Stregobor's preoccupation with whether Renfri was a mutant was never the point to begin with, it was just his excuse.

 

[SupahEwok]

And what Geralt would never know, was whether Renfri would have gone through with it. Stregobor's preoccupation with whether Renfri was a mutant was never the point to begin with, it was just his excuse.

Yet even that is morally grey. Sapkowski layered in enough strange things about Renfri, her childhood sociopathy, her immunity to magic, that Renfri claimed silver hurt her, with the further context throughout his canon that destiny and curses are very real and active things, that she may indeed have been what Stregobor claimed. The point of the story is that there isn't any judging of the degree of evil at all. Evil is evil, and the world is full of evil, regardless of if you accept it or not, regardless of if you fight against it or with it. There was never a "good" choice available to Geralt, and it is impossible for him to evaluate how evil any of his available choices were, even the one he chose.

 

[Buyetyen]

Yet even that is morally grey. Sapkowski layered in enough strange things about Renfri, her childhood sociopathy, her immunity to magic, that Renfri claimed silver hurt her, with the further context throughout his canon that destiny and curses are very real and active things, that she may indeed have been what Stregobor claimed. The point of the story is that there isn't any judging of the degree of evil at all. Evil is evil, and the world is full of evil, regardless of if you accept it or not, regardless of if you fight against it or with it. There was never a "good" choice available to Geralt, and it is impossible for him to evaluate how evil any of his available choices were, even the one he chose.

Indeed, part of the message appears to be that when confronted with evil, all you can do is use your judgment in the moment. And in the process, mistakes will be made. Evil is a part of the human condition enough that at some point you have to realize that there is no getting around having to interact with it eventually. Even by refusing to take a side, you are still making a choice that has consequences, most of which you will not be able to foresee. Geralt's insistence on trying to stay above it all brings him nothing but grief, because sooner or later his decisions and the evils he tries to ignore catch up with him.

 

[Revnak]

Half this country's population of eligible voting age doesn't vote. That's a flexible definition of most. I'm angry too, dude, but I actually regret when I take it out on other people.

Projection. My frustration is that way less than half of people engage in anything even resembling what I point out as a solution, but you don’t fucking care because fetishization of the vote is all that’s available to your overly abstracted view of modernity.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You can, sure. But if you sum up or exemplify your beliefs by providing a quote, belief or ideology that's wrong in the context in which it appears (compare to Film Crits Hulk essay on how writers misunderstand or misframes a famous Chandler quote about how to keep suspense up) then you come off as misled at best and ignorant at worst.

Or that you simply disagree with either the work or that interpretation of it.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Yet even that is morally grey. Sapkowski layered in enough strange things about Renfri, her childhood sociopathy, her immunity to magic, that Renfri claimed silver hurt her, with the further context throughout his canon that destiny and curses are very real and active things, that she may indeed have been what Stregobor claimed.

All of which was hearsay from a suspect man, which was the point and the source of much of the story's ambiguity. Except, there's a much more definitive source in that very story as to what may or may not be going on. I'll draw your attention to one thing in those earlier quotes:

"... she said slowly, gazing at the medallion ..."

"Grain of Truth" earlier in the same book established what Witcher medallions do and don't do in the presence of monsters, powerful magics, and curses. What was Geralt's medallion not doing in that entire chapter of the story, and what might have been Sapkowski's intent drawing such heavy attention to Geralt's medallion during his dialog with Renfri?

 

[Buyetyen]

Projection. My frustration is that way less than half of people engage in anything even resembling what I point out as a solution, but you don’t fucking care because fetishization of the vote is all that’s available to your overly abstracted view of modernity.

Or maybe because I'm not selfish enough to want to punish everybody for my grievances. As it is, you're barking too loud to hear anybody over the sound of your own misery.

 

[Revnak]

Real world where gotchas and memes about The Witcher are the kings of arguments

 

[Revnak]

Or maybe because I'm not selfish enough to want to punish everybody for my grievances. As it is, you're barking too loud to hear anybody over the sound of your own misery.

Projection. And what is this punishing the world, precisely? What are you so sure I’m doing?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Real world where gotchas and memes about The Witcher are the kings of arguments

Could be worse.
Could be Harry Potter.

 

[Buyetyen]

Projection. And what is this punishing the world, precisely?

Multiple people have said they can't afford to wait through another Trump term. They won't make it. Not once have I seen you engage with that. All I've seen you do is snarl at everybody and talk about "not rewarding" the system. That is not an argument for policy, but retribution.

Or that you simply disagree with either the work or that interpretation of it.

Still only as good as what you back it up with.

 

[Revnak]

Multiple people have said they can't afford to wait through another Trump term. They won't make it. Not once have I seen you engage with that. All I've seen you do is snarl at everybody and talk about "not rewarding" the system. That is not an argument for policy, but retribution.

I... what. Rewarding the system? I gave up on that having any validity years ago. As for not being able to survive another Trump term, well that’s potentially exaggeration in its specificity, but I largely agree in that most people will suffer extensively under another Trump term. I consider a clear Trump victory to be the worst possible outcome after all.

 

[Buyetyen]

I consider a clear Trump victory to be the worst possible outcome after all.

Then act like it. If that suffering means anything to you, why add to it?

 

[Revnak]

Then act like it. If that suffering means anything to you, why add to it?

Because Joe Biden winning also means all those people are fucked if direct action isn’t taken and we don’t come up with some methods to deal with the incoming crisis that aren’t reliant on our failed state.

 

[Buyetyen]

Because Joe Biden winning also means all those people are fucked if direct action isn’t taken and we don’t come up with some methods to deal with the incoming crisis that aren’t reliant on our failed state.

I am aware the establishment Dems are beholden to the Donor Class as well. This is not privileged information. I guess you just see it as more intractable?

(sigh) If you're in a position where you don't need to pick your fights as carefully, good for you. I say that unironically. I'm not. And no matter how much you condescend to or belittle me and others, it doesn't change the fact that we're voting in the interests of our self-preservation. This was not a decision arrived at flippantly. When Bernie withdrew, I spent a few nights in the woods emotionally until I started figuring what my next step was going to be. I'm not going to get in your way. You don't need to show me your teeth. I'm not your enemy.

 

[Revnak]

I am aware the establishment Dems are beholden to the Donor Class as well. This is not privileged information. I guess you just see it as more intractable?

(sigh) If you're in a position where you don't need to pick your fights as carefully, good for you. I say that unironically. I'm not. And no matter how much you condescend to or belittle me and others, it doesn't change the fact that we're voting in the interests of our self-preservation. This was not a decision arrived at flippantly. When Bernie withdrew, I spent a few nights in the woods emotionally until I started figuring what my next step was going to be. I'm not going to get in your way. You don't need to show me your teeth. I'm not your enemy.

I’m unsure what you think you’re doing or who you think you’re arguing with but have a nice time with it.

 

[Buyetyen]

I’m unsure what you think you’re doing or who you think you’re arguing with but have a nice time with it.

I was trying to make peace. If that's not what you want, okay.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I was trying to make peace. If that's not what you want, okay.

You make peace by projecting your arrogance on condescension onto others?

 

[Revnak]

I was trying to make peace. If that's not what you want, okay.

I do not care. You projecting random arguments onto me isn’t really that bothersome.

 

[Agema]

On the point we're using the Witcher books to debate morality, we might as well consign civilisation to the grave anyway.