What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?

[boredviewer1234]

Going to sound a bit bizarre but '''copy paste'' Confederacy is a thing that tends to show up in American timelines.

For the Union being pretty status quo with slavery on border states if they sided with the government in some cases till December 1865 if the USA is far more radical about the subjects these states will never think of joining the CSA, try and bargain for their support as they did in the OTL or be altered in any large ways despite arguably at the center of the conflict given their geography.

That's not saying they all joining would make the CSA win but rather would allow for a much longer and bloody war given they represented close to near 10% of the participants of the war, would explain the general decades long military occupation of the south that tends to happen if it was a near 100% clear break between slave and free states.

Instead seems the CSA will always form with the exact same strength, state and situation enough to guarantee no matter what happens in America.

 

[Xel]

One thing that often comes up in comments, discussions and some stories is "They will do this because it is the most pragmatic thing" or some variation of "No one would actually ignore X because of Y reasons, its not pragmatic!" when that is absolute bullshit. If nations were wholly pragmatic we'd have dealt with the climate crisis by now but cos some rich people benefit from killing the planet we have to keep pretending science is fucking debate club. You expect me to believe if say, magic was proven to exist various religions whose entire ethos is built on the concept "Only our god has power" wouldn't try and squash it to maintain hegemony? Absurd. People, politics and militaries are not wholly rational actors and never well be no matter how dire the circumstances.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

People, politics and militaries are not wholly rational actors and never well be no matter how dire the circumstances.

True, and as we know from our world, nothing is too absurd

 

[Viking25]

One thing that often comes up in comments, discussions and some stories is "They will do this because it is the most pragmatic thing" or some variation of "No one would actually ignore X because of Y reasons, its not pragmatic!" when that is absolute bullshit. If nations were wholly pragmatic we'd have dealt with the climate crisis by now but cos some rich people benefit from killing the planet we have to keep pretending science is fucking debate club. You expect me to believe if say, magic was proven to exist various religions whose entire ethos is built on the concept "Only our god has power" wouldn't try and squash it to maintain hegemony? Absurd. People, politics and militaries are not wholly rational actors and never well be no matter how dire the circumstances.

Hell, Xenophobia is by its definition irrational and yet its strongly influenced the politics of basically every state to ever exist in at least some part of its history.

 

[Xel]

True, and as we know from our world, nothing is too absurd

Indeed, a sad fact but true.

Hell, Xenophobia is by its definition irrational and yet its strongly influenced the politics of basically every state to ever exist in at least some part of its history.

Very true, its complete absurdity but it informs so much of political development and its a very recent invention too so its not like one can blame it on some innate instinct, its just a shitty ideology that's bled into so many cultures.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Very true, its complete absurdity but it informs so much of political development and its a very recent invention too so its not like one can blame it on some innate instinct, its just a shitty ideology that's bled into so many cultures.

Xenophobia just makes sense to the primeval mind: if someone comes from a place you don't know, how can you trust them? And hell, these days, if someone you don't know tries to enter your home uninvited, what do you do?

That said, xenophobia as a political ideology, in its scaled-up version where you determine who a person is based on arbitrary factors like skin color, or what arbitrary imagined community they belong to, is definitely off.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Some event occurs (a country suddenly magically changes to a new religion, is replaced by a counterpart from another time/universe, is the scene of a discovery that breaks with everything we know, a mixture of both) that in theory should assume some massive geopolitical change worldwide, or at least regionally, if only for the moment WTF that would generate in the neighbors of the place where said change has occurred...

....but the rest of the countries persist in ignoring this event and behave at all times as if it were OTL and NOTHING had changed. And it's not just that the "hey, maybe we should evaluate our data and rethink our strategy" people are being ignored, but these people just don't exist.

Another one that I also find very upsetting: The aforementioned potentially disruptive change occurs... but the question is "How will this affect the economy?"

Does that matter? Or more specifically, are people who see that kind of obviously supernatural event going to be thinking about currency units, macroeconomic indicators and quarterly balance sheets while trying to understand what happened?

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Going to sound a bit bizarre but '''copy paste'' Confederacy is a thing that tends to show up in American timelines.

For the Union being pretty status quo with slavery on border states if they sided with the government in some cases till December 1865 if the USA is far more radical about the subjects these states will never think of joining the CSA, try and bargain for their support as they did in the OTL or be altered in any large ways despite arguably at the center of the conflict given their geography.

That's not saying they all joining would make the CSA win but rather would allow for a much longer and bloody war given they represented close to near 10% of the participants of the war, would explain the general decades long military occupation of the south that tends to happen if it was a near 100% clear break between slave and free states.

Instead seems the CSA will always form with the exact same strength, state and situation enough to guarantee no matter what happens in America.

I personally think it's because people like everything to be as OTL-like as possible.

It's not much different from the fact that the American Civil War will ALWAYS be about slavery and for slavery and pit slave states against non-slave states. Even if you introduce variables like it is the North that secedes, they will do so because they hate being chained to slave states.

In the same way, the country that calls itself "United States of America" is the one that will keep the most territory (when it is more likely that, in a "the North secedes apart" scenario, they would take with them ALL territories, resulting in "United States of America" being reduced to a stripe that is more or less similar to OTL CSA).

 

[Mitridates the Great]

One thing that often comes up in comments, discussions and some stories is "They will do this because it is the most pragmatic thing" or some variation of "No one would actually ignore X because of Y reasons, its not pragmatic!" when that is absolute bullshit. If nations were wholly pragmatic we'd have dealt with the climate crisis by now but cos some rich people benefit from killing the planet we have to keep pretending science is fucking debate club. You expect me to believe if say, magic was proven to exist various religions whose entire ethos is built on the concept "Only our god has power" wouldn't try and squash it to maintain hegemony? Absurd. People, politics and militaries are not wholly rational actors and never well be no matter how dire the circumstances.

As I said in the other thread, I think that would only work in a "magic suddenly appears" scenario. In a situation where magic has existed throughout history, any religion would necessarily incorporate it into its belief system and try to co-opt it.

Taking a hardline "magic is evil and so are its users" stance anyway... would only make sense in a case where this religion is a split from the mainstream religion, such as Protestants vs. Catholics, and is desperate for improving their legitimacy and showing their strength by persecuting anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[Xel]

As I said in the other thread, I think that would only work in a "magic suddenly appears" scenario. In a situation where magic has existed throughout history, any religion would necessarily incorporate it into its belief system and try to co-opt it.

Taking a hardline "magic is evil and so are its users" stance anyway... would only make sense in a case where this religion is a split from the mainstream religion, such as Protestants vs. Catholics, and is desperate for improving their legitimacy and showing their strength by persecuting anyone who disagrees with them.

And I stand by my disagreeing with you on that front, even ignoring the act that there's no reason to assume a magic user/users would just obediently fall in line with any given church (And if they did would they not seek power thus creating impetus to resist them internally?) But also because co-opting something you can control for manipulation purposes and something completely beyond your control are two entirely different ball games. The various churches could equate whatever local deities they wanted with demons and Jesus or what have you because they were in a position of power to do so and were angling for conversion and smooth control. That does not apply to someone levitating tanks and throwing them at you.

 

[Synecdoche]

Hell, Xenophobia is by its definition irrational and yet its strongly influenced the politics of basically every state to ever exist in at least some part of its history.

playing on irrational fears is a good way to shore up support for your party or regime without much effort

 

[Mitridates the Great]

And I stand by my disagreeing with you on that front, even ignoring the act that there's no reason to assume a magic user/users would just obediently fall in line with any given church (And if they did would they not seek power thus creating impetus to resist them internally?) But also because co-opting something you can control for manipulation purposes and something completely beyond your control are two entirely different ball games. The various churches could equate whatever local deities they wanted with demons and Jesus or what have you because they were in a position of power to do so and were angling for conversion and smooth control. That does not apply to someone levitating tanks and throwing them at you.

Of course, this depends a lot on the character of the magician and the advantages that the Church can offer him.

For all we know, this could be a deal where the wizard simply has to do "wizard stuff" X times a year on set dates and outside of that the Church will let him do what he wants within reason. (Does the wizard have weird taste? Let's just pretend we haven't seen anything. Does the wizard kill someone? He better have a good reason.)

Regarding wizards seeking power within the structure of the Church, it is a risk that you run even if you have non-magical cardinals (just look at the history of our Churches), so in any case I would see that special measures are taken anti magical influence. (Which is not so different from using specific procedures to choose Pope).

It also depends on the kind of magic, but I wouldn't say a magician is necessarily going to be "out of control" either. Even wizards have human bodies.

And if the wizard is so powerful that it's effectively out of control anyway, I'd say going blatantly hawkish and yelling that you intend to kill every wizard you come across seems like a great way to invite them to destroy you and your Church.

Even if it's simply because the mages don't want to have to keep an eye out for a priest trying to kill them.

 

[Xel]

Of course, this depends a lot on the character of the magician and the advantages that the Church can offer him.

For all we know, this could be a deal where the wizard simply has to do "wizard stuff" X times a year on set dates and outside of that the Church will let him do what he wants within reason. (Does the wizard have weird taste? Let's just pretend we haven't seen anything. Does the wizard kill someone? He better have a good reason.)

Regarding wizards seeking power within the structure of the Church, it is a risk that you run even if you have non-magical cardinals (just look at the history of our Churches), so in any case I would see that special measures are taken anti magical influence. (Which is not so different from using specific procedures to choose Pope).

It also depends on the kind of magic, but I wouldn't say a magician is necessarily going to be "out of control" either. Even wizards have human bodies.

And if the wizard is so powerful that it's effectively out of control anyway, I'd say going blatantly hawkish and yelling that you intend to kill every wizard you come across seems like a great way to invite them to destroy you and your Church.

Even if it's simply because the mages don't want to have to keep an eye out for a priest trying to kill them.

Ah but who says its a him?

This relies on the world basically being totally unchanged and the person in question just obediently accepting the Church should be in charge regardless pf who they are, where they are from or what they believe and the Church not being at all distressed by the existence of magic, which I again find suspect for an organization that had its inquisition harass and threaten people over the rotation of the sub or thinks wearing masks is an offence to gods perfect breathing apparatus.

I think you are missing my point that people will general covet their own positions and powers and not want to risk some new person from de-stabilizing it or supplanting them.

That doesn't mean they have to be under the control of a Church.

Who said anything about yelling?

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Ah but who says its a him?

This relies on the world basically being totally unchanged and the person in question just obediently accepting the Church should be in charge regardless pf who they are, where they are from or what they believe and the Church not being at all distressed by the existence of magic, which I again find suspect for an organization that had its inquisition harass and threaten people over the rotation of the sub or thinks wearing masks is an offence to gods perfect breathing apparatus.

I think you are missing my point that people will general covet their own positions and powers and not want to risk some new person from de-stabilizing it or supplanting them.

That doesn't mean they have to be under the control of a Church.

Who said anything about yelling?

Blame the translation program for the "him".

I think you are assuming here that all churches will necessarily adopt the attitudes of 21st century American evangelicals (the reference to masks is more than obvious) even if, as I said, magic is supposed to have been around from the beginning instead of appear from one day to the next.

(I'm not sure what "the rotation of the sub" is supposed to be so I can't comment much on that.)

And it's not like I'm missing your point about "people who fear losing power decide to take action on it." I'm just skeptical that the first, last, and seemingly only possible reaction to such a situation would be to brandish the torches and yell "Kill him, kill him!"

I mean, if that were true, translating this "no choice but to squash the threat" stance, the US would have declared war on Japan in 1981 as soon as it looked like Japan was going to outpace them economically (it was a very serious fear at the time). And currently we would be talking about the ongoing war between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China.

Since your proposal is that the Church would take a diehard stance against wizards, as well as based on their persecution and possibly extermination, the resource and troop movements required to do that would be apparent to governments and the populace.

Given that the Churches are based on the principle that people listen to priests (and you have implied that this is the case here by using the masks as an example), it is certain that a good part of the priests will launch aggressive preaching against the magic and magicians, as well as encouraging its faithful to report any suspected magic to the authorities.

So it would be impossible to keep something like that a secret even if they tried (and most likely won't even try).

 

[Xel]

Blame the translation program for the "him".

I think you are assuming here that all churches will necessarily adopt the attitudes of 21st century American evangelicals (the reference to masks is more than obvious) even if, as I said, magic is supposed to have been around from the beginning instead of appear from one day to the next.

(I'm not sure what "the rotation of the sub" is supposed to be so I can't comment much on that.)

And it's not like I'm missing your point about "people who fear losing power decide to take action on it." I'm just skeptical that the first, last, and seemingly only possible reaction to such a situation would be to brandish the torches and yell "Kill him, kill him!"

I mean, if that were true, translating this "no choice but to squash the threat" stance, the US would have declared war on Japan in 1981 as soon as it looked like Japan was going to outpace them economically (it was a very serious fear at the time). And currently we would be talking about the ongoing war between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China.

Since your proposal is that the Church would take a diehard stance against wizards, as well as based on their persecution and possibly extermination, the resource and troop movements required to do that would be apparent to governments and the populace.

Given that the Churches are based on the principle that people listen to priests (and you have implied that this is the case here by using the masks as an example), it is certain that a good part of the priests will launch aggressive preaching against the magic and magicians, as well as encouraging its faithful to report any suspected magic to the authorities.

So it would be impossible to keep something like that a secret even if they tried (and most likely won't even try).

Fair enough.

I think its reasonable to use an extremely powerful, influential and wealthy church as an example when discussing how religious organizations might respond to something disruptive to the status quo.

I meant rotation of the sun and how people try and dismiss the Catholic Church taking issue with that reality as though it wasn't something they had edited out of books and threatened people over.

I never said that was the only option, my entire initial post was merely finding it suspect that any new thing/idea/ETC would just be blindly adopted and welcomed by everyone because "Its pragmatic" or "Its reality" when that's not reflective in history. Magic was just an example I threw out there cos it was on my mind for totally different reasons and it seemed like a given that organizations whose entire ideology is built on "Our way or the high way" would not welcome a wholly new highway being built next door.

Everything else has just been me responding to counter scenarios presented.

 

[da Racontor]

Ah but who says its a him?

This relies on the world basically being totally unchanged and the person in question just obediently accepting the Church should be in charge regardless pf who they are, where they are from or what they believe and the Church not being at all distressed by the existence of magic, which I again find suspect for an organization that had its inquisition harass and threaten people over the rotation of the sub or thinks wearing masks is an offence to gods perfect breathing apparatus.

I think you are missing my point that people will general covet their own positions and powers and not want to risk some new person from de-stabilizing it or supplanting them.

That doesn't mean they have to be under the control of a Church.

Who said anything about yelling?

Blame the translation program for the "him".

I think you are assuming here that all churches will necessarily adopt the attitudes of 21st century American evangelicals (the reference to masks is more than obvious) even if, as I said, magic is supposed to have been around from the beginning instead of appear from one day to the next.

(I'm not sure what "the rotation of the sub" is supposed to be so I can't comment much on that.)

And it's not like I'm missing your point about "people who fear losing power decide to take action on it." I'm just skeptical that the first, last, and seemingly only possible reaction to such a situation would be to brandish the torches and yell "Kill him, kill him!"

I mean, if that were true, translating this "no choice but to squash the threat" stance, the US would have declared war on Japan in 1981 as soon as it looked like Japan was going to outpace them economically (it was a very serious fear at the time). And currently we would be talking about the ongoing war between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China.

Since your proposal is that the Church would take a diehard stance against wizards, as well as based on their persecution and possibly extermination, the resource and troop movements required to do that would be apparent to governments and the populace.

Given that the Churches are based on the principle that people listen to priests (and you have implied that this is the case here by using the masks as an example), it is certain that a good part of the priests will launch aggressive preaching against the magic and magicians, as well as encouraging its faithful to report any suspected magic to the authorities.

So it would be impossible to keep something like that a secret even if they tried (and most likely won't even try).

How many churches react, especially the Catholic Church, would be dependent on how the magic functions.

Thaumaturgy (magic comes from other worldly brings, i.e. angels, demons, fairies, etc.): It's going to be regulated in some form. While angelic help would be acceptable the others not so much.

Necromancy (magic comes from the dead): that is explicit outlawed in the Old Testament. Granted it was technically attempting necromancy or deceiving someone with pretending since it's not a actual thing.

Something like rune magic: may just be treated like other tools. (Using a bow and arrow is not sinful, using it to murder someone is.)

The Force-like magic (I'm lumping in most modern fantasy interpretation here): probably depends on how much study is needed to gain proficiency. If it's relatively easy it may turn out like rune magic. If it takes a long time and lots of study, wizards may actually be monks as they would be the only people who'd have the time. And that would be highly regulated, but it may only be because of how everything is regulated in monastic life.

If there is a combination of methods of magic, then there would definitely be an attempt at regulation, but the specifics would depend on the exact scenario.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Fair enough.

I think its reasonable to use an extremely powerful, influential and wealthy church as an example when discussing how religious organizations might respond to something disruptive to the status quo.

I meant rotation of the sun and how people try and dismiss the Catholic Church taking issue with that reality as though it wasn't something they had edited out of books and threatened people over.

I never said that was the only option, my entire initial post was merely finding it suspect that any new thing/idea/ETC would just be blindly adopted and welcomed by everyone because "Its pragmatic" or "Its reality" when that's not reflective in history. Magic was just an example I threw out there cos it was on my mind for totally different reasons and it seemed like a given that organizations whose entire ideology is built on "Our way or the high way" would not welcome a wholly new highway being built next door.

Everything else has just been me responding to counter scenarios presented.

It is reasonable if the same organization is mentioned throughout the discussion. But the problem is that here the medieval/Renaissance Catholic Church has been mixed with the American evangelicals of the 21st century, when the only thing these entities have in common is a nominal loyalty to the same God.

About the sun's rotation, I'd say that was a mixture of overreliance on the classical texts and the fact that it seemed like the kind of thing you can only prove to another astronomer.
(Not unlike the perception of economists as dishonest, liars, and smoke-mongers who seek to harm people in the name of their lust for riches.) It's not so much an excuse as an explanation (the Church was very wrong to try to suppress that).

I would venture to suggest that the origin of the discussion was the use of an inappropriate example. Inappropriate in the sense that magic is not something "opinionable" as a new idea might be (the Citizen's Bill of Rights, for example). Rather, it is something that can be proven to exist (even if you don't understand how it works).

Like I said, it sounds more like the Church trying to preach that gravity doesn't exist. As much as you try to assassinate all the wizards, that's not going to make them lose their magical powers, whereas (in theory) an idea can be buried by destroying all records of its existence and killing those who know of it.

Probably a better example would have been to use the Declaration of Human Rights itself, in the sense that it more closely fits your description (a new idea that threatens the privileges of the powerful elites of the Old Regime, and which is known to historically there were determined efforts to crush it no matter the cost).

From what I've seen almost all of the objections (including mine) focused specifically on the "Church tries to squash magic" scenario rather than pretending it was a discussion about the general attitudes of the powerful towards new ideas.

On the idea of a powerful organization trying to squash new ideas, I refer to the example I gave: I agree that too many will actually do that, to hell if it's practical or not. In fact, I've also criticized the assumption that they wouldn't, when I complain about people denying their beliefs just because you tell them they're uneconomical.

 

[Xel]

I think at this point we are just eating up forum space and never going to see eye to eye, so I'm done, sorry.

 

[Metempsychosis]

One thing that often comes up in comments, discussions and some stories is "They will do this because it is the most pragmatic thing" or some variation of "No one would actually ignore X because of Y reasons, its not pragmatic!" when that is absolute bullshit. If nations were wholly pragmatic we'd have dealt with the climate crisis by now but cos some rich people benefit from killing the planet we have to keep pretending science is fucking debate club. You expect me to believe if say, magic was proven to exist various religions whose entire ethos is built on the concept "Only our god has power" wouldn't try and squash it to maintain hegemony? Absurd. People, politics and militaries are not wholly rational actors and never well be no matter how dire the circumstances.

This is true, though by the same vein, people and politics and the military are not wholly irrational actors. The Catholic Church, for one, has not survived centuries by being a completely irrational entity reacting to any change with vicious rage. Culture is not an immutable blob, it is a town hall of many voices, some clamoring for reason and others going utterly insane, one way or another. For every Torquemada, there is a Las Casas.

 

[holycookie]

If nations were wholly pragmatic we'd have dealt with the climate crisis by now but cos some rich people benefit from killing the planet we have to keep pretending science is fucking debate club.

What is good for some is bad for others, you assume that solving the climate problem is a priority for most of the world, which is wrong. Apart from the developed countries, the rest primarily use the destruction and extraction of the environment as a way to generate wealth. Industries cannot compete with those of developed countries and sectors that do are barred from entering these countries (for fear of them losing space). Discussion on climate change is above all about prestige and not about solving the problem. The idea that the problem of the environment is about a kabal of rich people wanting to destroy the planet strikes me as naive that I found in first world countries. With people don't understanding the vast complexity of the situation in the rest of the world.

You expect me to believe if say, magic was proven to exist various religions whose entire ethos is built on the concept "Only our god has power" wouldn't try and squash it to maintain hegemony?

it is obvious that they would try to destroy it, probably seeing it as sorcery by the enemy of god X, with the secondary effect of maintaining hegemony.