Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2020
- Messages
- 957
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 keep the show going pleaseMan what the fuck ever since the fucking time travel bullshit the writing has gone down the drain like wtf is even happening rn
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 keep the show going pleaseMan what the fuck ever since the fucking time travel bullshit the writing has gone down the drain like wtf is even happening rn
Nope. The part I actually cared about was reading comments about the chapter I just read. Instead what I saw was 80% placeholder comments and the other 20% were 4 words or less, or didn't really say anything. And if you think what I said there is being an asshole, your skin is too thin to be on the internet.oh wow look mom a hypocrite! you DO care enpugh to be an asshole
ummm . . . . Isn't Linda, like, a 300+ year old elf? With a whole lot of power in her own right, as well as enormous experience that even Yvonne with her game-lore can't match?Of course not. She is a servant under direct, immediate and clear orders. What she's doing, starting with complacency in her mistress' poisoning, goes directly against her obligations - both legal and moral.
It is not her place to decide on anything. This is not a freelence social support gig. She has a job to serve and protect which requires a lot of trust from her LONG time employer. She throws all that out the window the moment she swayed by the words of an outsider. If all your workers start to do what they think is right, you and your plans will be fucked in short order.Given that, why on earth is it so horrible and terrible that Linda decided to change her mind?
First, in what comes to changing her mind: it would've been non-controversial if she were, say, a friend of the family just staying over. But she is not, she is an employee under direct and clear orders by her superiour - and it matters not if said superiour is 6 or 96, as long as they're recognized as capable of giving orders.ummm . . . . Isn't Linda, like, a 300+ year old elf? With a whole lot of power in her own right, as well as enormous experience that even Yvonne with her game-lore can't match?
Sure, she's decided to sign up as a loyal support for Yvonne (and her mother before that), but does that mean she has to forfeit her right to make decisions for herself, based on her own experience and judgement? Particularly when she's serving someone who (as far as she knows) is what, 6 years old? A remarkably mature, intelligent, well informed and sensible 6 year old, but still a child.
If it's such a good case, why not bring it before Yvonne, instead of betraying her?Changing your mind about something after considering it for a bit longer seems like it should always be allowed, particularly when it's something as significant and life threatening as this. And don't forget that this is happening /after/ Elsa made a decent case that she might be able to handle the curse better than Yvonne.
Well that's too bad, because those two are separate statements with different purposes, and I was asking for your subjective opinion. In my subjective opinion, a lie does not turn into a betrayal if it under a certain threshold of consequences (and some other factors). If any lie and deception is betrayal, then there's no point in having separate words for concepts of "lie" and "deception", since "betrayal" would fully cover their meaning.You answered your own question for yourself...
If Linda decides to use this situation to sell the duchess' comatose body to old geezers from the tower for a million gold coins, would that be betrayal fuller stop? Or would that be a betrayal of the same severity as the one she's committed now?If Yvonne feels betrayed then its betrayal full stop.
A digression from the topic, and I guess we'll know once the next chapter comes out, but does she? Or would she be like, "That is my miscalculation. I incorrectly gauged the authority I have over Linda and the authority she has over me, but I appreciate her taking care of me and preventing me from commiting self-harm"?If Yvonne feels betrayed
I kinda conceded that it is a betrayal of a certain kind and severity when I said that it is a "betrayal of trust", and I am not talking about somebody else's potential feelings when experiencing betrayal, that's like totally not the point I am making. "Without any other qualifiers" is an important part of what I am talking about - later in your post you describe how not every betrayal needs to be seen in negative light and that there's nuance to the betrayal of this particular situation. If you were to reduce this situation to just "betrayal", you would lose every bit of context that would allow you to make a proper judgementThere is no "Well acktually its not really betrayal since someone else potentially would not feel betrayed in a hypothetical what if"
Particularly when she's serving someone who (as far as she knows) is what, 6 years old? A remarkably mature, intelligent, well informed and sensible 6 year old, but still a child.
both of these involve a child with Elsa being the younger meaning you you are saying she should just ignore the child because they are a child and she is an adult (fair), but then say its completely fine for her to turn around and just decide this other child who is less mature, less informed, and less capable of doing anything right now is completely in the right and is the only option which makes no sense by your own logicAnd don't forget that this is happening /after/ Elsa made a decent case that she might be able to handle the curse better than Yvonne. Given that, why on earth is it so horrible and terrible that Linda decided to change her mind?
Neither your nor my subjective opinion means anything when we're talking about an objective fact. Your subjectively not liking something doesn't suddenly make it untrue or invalid. Your question wasWell that's too bad, because those two are separate statements with different purposes, and I was asking for your subjective opinion. In my subjective opinion...
to which you even admit yes that is the caseCan an ordinary and inconsequential lie be called a betrayal?
since your own words say betrayal does not always have to be something with massive weight behind it. Something you are now arguing against by sayingEven among the things to be considered "betrayal", there's a different weight to them. Like, the first definition presented sounds way heavier than, say, the third one, isn't it?
something you said did happen by admittingIn my subjective opinion, a lie does not turn into a betrayal if it under a certain threshold of consequences (and some other factors).
to me showing you the definition of betrayal is to violate trust with you clearly stating in your own words this was not an inconsequential violation and as such as heavy weight behind itNot saying that what Linda did is an inconsequential lie, far from it, but there are degrees of violating the trust
You just proved you have no idea what you are talking about here given you just gave the definition of a synonymIf any lie and deception is betrayal, then there's no point in having separate words for concepts of "lie" and "deception", since "betrayal" would fully cover their meaning.
Even synonym itself has synonyms. Every language, English included, has synonyms and antoynms and english has loads of them with lie and deception simply being two of betrayal, and while I won't sit here listing every synonym in english just to prove my point on how what you said makes no sense I will say "betrayal" has over a dozen synonyms that are not even lie or deception including "to stab in the back", "double-crossing", and "disloyalty" all of which mean to betray but I will specifically show disloyal to prove my point of LindaNoun
synonym (plural synonyms)
- (semantics, strictly) A word whose meaning is the same as that of another word.
Synonym: equivalent
Antonyms: antonym, opposite- (semantics, loosely) A word or phrase with a meaning that is the same as, or very similar to, another word or phrase.
“Happy” is a synonym of “glad”.
It says right there being disloyal is betrayal. Full stop. There is no arguing "well I don't agree in my subjective opinion" since at that point I can simply say I subjectively don't agree with your opinion being right and think its wrong which is equally valid by that same logic hence why we don't use that in arguments of objectivity.Noun
disloyalty (countable and uncountable, plural disloyalties)
- (countable) An act of being disloyal; a betrayal, faithbreach.
- (uncountable) The quality of being disloyal.
Nice strawman. We both know betrayal has levels severity so by making up a false premise, attaching it to me, and trying to tear it down as ridiculous is a strawman through and through and is called a logical fallacy for a good reason. If you're going to argue something, at least make it make senseIf Linda decides to use this situation to sell the duchess' comatose body to old geezers from the tower for a million gold coins, would that be betrayal fuller stop? Or would that be a betrayal of the same severity as the one she's committed now?
If betrayal is binary, i.e. it is either not a betrayal, or it is a betrayal "full stop", then that would mean that any betrayal should warrant the same kind of reaction and response
This not only has zero evidence to even suggest this is the case, but is also arguing "et tu Brute?" when Julius Caeser was stabbed to death shouldn't be a betrayal either where he only responded famously with "and you, Brutus?" since she literally saysA digression from the topic, and I guess we'll know once the next chapter comes out, but does she? Or would she be like, "That is my miscalculation. I incorrectly gauged the authority I have over Linda and the authority she has over me, but I appreciate her taking care of me and preventing me from commiting self-harm"?
This is just admission of everything you have and continued to argue against I will just sayI kinda conceded that it is a betrayal of a certain kind and severity when I said that it is a "betrayal of trust"
I am not talking about somebody else's potential feelings when experiencing betrayal
And more than that, Yvonne can feel rightfully betrayed by Linda, i.e. "I can't trust you to follow my orders and act upon my wishes anymore"
Yes you are.A digression from the topic, and I guess we'll know once the next chapter comes out, but does she? Or would she be like, "That is my miscalculation. I incorrectly gauged the authority I have over Linda and the authority she has over me, but I appreciate her taking care of me and preventing me from commiting self-harm"?
Plenty of qualifiers have been shown in express detail, you just subjectively don't like them since they go against your point of "Linda did nothing wrong even when I admit she actually did" so disregard them and then ask for more qualifiers when you mean qualfiers that prove your argument which don't exist as what Linda did was objectively bad. We explained why it's terrible from every possible angle and you refuse to accept that the qualifiers when applied actually make it worse, not better, for Linda instead."Without any other qualifiers" is an important part of what I am talking about
As I just pointed out, no one but you is being reductive to point of making it so that "betrayal = treacheous scumbag". I personally gave her every possible good faith argument I could give and, as you say here, am the one who said betrayal is nuanced with context mattering to why they betrayed someone. That doesn't mean its not magically betrayal just because they had nuance. It still is betrayal.later in your post you describe how not every betrayal needs to be seen in negative light and that there's nuance to the betrayal of this particular situation. If you were to reduce this situation to just "betrayal", you would lose every bit of context that would allow you to make a proper judgement
You are doing the exact same thing by reducing betrayal to a single word, removing all context and nuance from said word, and then complaining no one is taking her actions in context to understand the nuance while dismissing when people do as it goes against your argument. I even explained that betrayal isn't a loaded word in reality. Its a neutral one. We only think of it as loaded since we often see it in loaded contexts, like this one, but it can even be used as simple as "I betrayed my own ideals" in which it is not loaded at all. You can make a polemic of anything by refusing to listen to a word anyone has to say, making up logical fallacies like strawmans, and then resorting to just making things up in disgression.@danvolodar 's position is that "Linda and Elsa betrayed Yvonne, and since they weren't known for betraying Yvonne before, the manhua's writing is inconsistent and bad". You see what kind of polemic you can create if you were to reduce everything down to a single loaded word?
I told you I don't want to join your perspective as objective nonsense argument as I clearly showed above why it is a fool's errandthe manhua's writing is inconsistent and bad"
Objective fact about subjective definitions, sure. Several people in this thread say they don't consider what Linda and Elsa did a betrayal, does this mean they are objectively wrong according to your objective unsourced definition, or would that mean that there's no universally accepted boundaries of what constitutes a betrayal, and that the topic is inherently subjective?we're talking about an objective fact
Do I? The sentence quoted does not even have the word "lie" in it.to which you even admit yes that is the case
Even among the things to be considered "betrayal", there's a different weight to them. Like, the first definition presented sounds way heavier than, say, the third one, isn't it?
My hair is blondeto which you even admit yes that is the case
Do I need to draw a diagram to stop you from inventing new meanings to my words? By my own words, that something should have some weight to it for it to be considered a betrayalsince your own words say betrayal does not always have to be something with massive weight behind it. Something you are now arguing against by saying
In my subjective opinion, a lie does not turn into a betrayal if it under a certain threshold of consequences (and some other factors).
Do you though? "Betrayal full stop" tells me that there's no middle ground to interpreting betrayal. But I am glad that my "strawman" was helpful in convincing you otherwise.We both know betrayal has levels severity
I would like to note that Thesaurus does not list "lie" and "betrayal" as synonymous to each other.Every language, English included, has synonyms and antoynms and english has loads of them with lie and deception simply being two of betrayal
Keeping her safe and staying loyal to her mother's wishes? Does not sound like "nothing to support it" to meshe should be thankful to Linda for
Now I know you're being disingenious. My point from the very begining is that "there's nothing to suggest that Linda's actions are inconsistent with what we were shown of her prior to this point". To put things into perspective, my knee jerk reaction after reading the chapter was "the bitch should be fired and exiled", and only mid-discussion, after considering the fact that Yvonne is a bloody toddler, and that Linda is subordinated to Yvonne's mother first and foremost, did I start thinking that maybe there's a merit to what she's done. But, once again, my personal feelings about Linda's actions have nothing to do with whether they are consistent within the manhua's writing.your point of "Linda did nothing wrong
Is a figure of speech, with "betrayed" used for dramatic effect, to make it sound more loaded and accentuate negative feelings about doing something not in line with one's beliefs.I betrayed my own ideals
Said word is eight symbols long so there's not much information you can fit in it by itself, and intrinsically has significant weight and negative connotation (it is not a neutral word) unless supplied with clarifying context. Meanwhile the situation in the manhua involves urgency and severity (there are souls at stake, maybe the whole dukedom, or worst case scenario, the whole kingdom, and there's not much time left to make a decision), different levels of authority (we do not know what kind of contract Linda has with the duchy, what orders was she given by the duchess and how much free agency she has), their motivations, their personal feelings towards one another, their personalities, and then there's the act of betrayal. If you were to condense all that into a single word, you will lose most of the information conveyed, and the single word chosen was "betrayal", which is by far not the most important part of the situation.You are doing the exact same thing by reducing betrayal to a single word, removing all context and nuance from said word
Story of my life man, nobody listens to a word I say, resorting to instead inventing whatever the hell they want from anything I writeYou can make a polemic of anything by refusing to listen to a word anyone has to say
Like that one time when my position was made into "Linda did nothing wrong"making up logical fallacies like strawmans
But you did anyway, unless you joined because you wanted to take some cheap shots at "Linda did nothing wrong"I told you I don't want to join
Wow - I mean, maybe it's just me, maybe it's just the culture I was brought up in (apparently Australians make lousy servants?), or maybe it's just, you know, the whole arc of the last several hundred years of Western philosophy, but this idea that as an employee she needs to just do what she's told regardless is just ridiculous. It'd be laughable, only it's actually pretty scary to think that people would argue like that in this day and age.First, in what comes to changing her mind: it would've been non-controversial if she were, say, a friend of the family just staying over. But she is not, she is an employee under direct and clear orders by her superiour - and it matters not if said superiour is 6 or 96, as long as they're recognized as capable of giving orders.
Employees following the orders of their superiours is expected even today, but it holds even more true for a noble house's servants in a roughly medieval setting.
Sure, she's a trusted servant, and these get to bend the rules a bit - but she's not acting on her own capacity, or reinterpreting the vague orders given to her, or anything of the sort, she is acting in direct violation of what she was told just seconds prior.
That's what comes to legal obligations.
As for moral obligations: she is quite literally complicit in a poisoning of her mistress. Being a part of a household presupposes a certain degree of trust, and looking out for other members of the household when threatened like this is a given part of said trust. Thus, this trust is betrayed by her (even if we suppose that it's a poisoning with an absolutely safe magical sedative that doesn't have a significant risk of the victim not ever waking up, as is the case in real life).
In any remotely realistic setting, Linda would be losing her position in the blink of an eye, and likely either face criminal prosecution, or be hunted by the noble house she betrayed.
If it's such a good case, why not bring it before Yvonne, instead of betraying her?
Following orders of your employers is now "signing away your basic rights"?Wow - I mean, maybe it's just me, maybe it's just the culture I was brought up in (apparently Australians make lousy servants?), or maybe it's just, you know, the whole arc of the last several hundred years of Western philosophy, but this idea that as an employee she needs to just do what she's told regardless is just ridiculous. It'd be laughable, only it's actually pretty scary to think that people would argue like that in this day and age.
It doesn't matter what role she's playing, what kind of contracts or agreements she's made, none of that removes her right to self determination. The fact that she's an employee doesn't mean the only ethically acceptable option for her is to be subservient to her employer. And don't try and wave around things like legal obligations - no modern legal framework anywhere would support that kind of argument, it's literally not legally possible to sign away your basic rights, any contract that attempted to do that would be nullified as soon as one party decided to challenge it.
There are two broad lines of argument being made in this discussion: zOMG betrayal!, and zOMG disloyalty/disobeying orders/being a very naughty servant! Both of those lines of argument got very heated very quickly, going well beyond "oh, this is a sad/distressing/frustrating thing to see happening in this story".Following orders of your employers is now "signing away your basic rights"?
Sorry, I don't think there's even a need to argue with that line of reasoning, much less the generalizations like "the whole arc of the last several hundred years of Western philosophy is that you aren't obliged to do what you are contractually and morally obligated to do" it relies on.
We don't really know why Linda has helped Elsa with this plan, not yet - all we can do is make assumptions based on very limited evidence, evidence that was obviously presented in a way that would heighten the dramatic tension.Ok I’m too mad and that stuff but like.. there is one thing that is really bothering me
Linda disobeyed Evie because.. there is someone else that is willing to bear the curse, so she did that to Evie..
But like.. isn’t Evie already WILLING to be the one bearing it..?!
Like.. this isn’t about “having someone willing to do that for her” it’s more about Linda’s own desire to protect her (which’s would be understandable if Evie got really mad after that)