|
Post by tema on Feb 23, 2022 14:09:09 GMT -5
this thread is gonna get long Don't worry, if I see another point as silly as "the Sisters held Leafstar hostage by not telling SkyClan they had her," I'm just going to post a face and leave.
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Feb 23, 2022 14:41:02 GMT -5
this thread is gonna get long Don't worry, if I see another point as silly as "the Sisters held Leafstar hostage by not telling SkyClan they had her," I'm just going to post a face and leave. "There won't be trouble. Keeping these cats will send an important message to their clans" Is this not very implicatory of a the whole thing being blatant extortion? What other message exactly do you think is being sent here?
|
|
|
Post by tema on Feb 23, 2022 14:45:31 GMT -5
Don't worry, if I see another point as silly as "the Sisters held Leafstar hostage by not telling SkyClan they had her," I'm just going to post a face and leave. "There won't be trouble. Keeping these cats will send an important message to their clans" Is this not very implicatory of a the whole thing being blatant extortion? What other message exactly do you think is being sent here? Extortion and hostage-exchangement imply that one party is coercing power over another for some gained benefit that the victimized group actively can provide. The "message" the Sisters are trying to send is that 'the territory isn't free for the Clans to visit, it is dangerous for them, there is something in that territory that will resist their exploration.' There's nothing that the Sisters want from the Clans at this point other than to be left alone to their own territory; they want the former status quo of nonactivity maintained, not anything the Clans have to give.
|
|
|
Post by *•.¸♡𝘥𝘢𝘸𝘯𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦♡¸.•* on Feb 23, 2022 14:51:34 GMT -5
What happened with this thread
|
|
|
Post by downfalls on Feb 23, 2022 14:52:04 GMT -5
woah what happened??
|
|
|
Post by Saint Ambrosef on Feb 23, 2022 15:22:22 GMT -5
It is entirely unreasonable to have expect the Sisters to have known the intentions of Leafstar and Squirrelflight couldnt they have just asked though like its unreasonable for the sisters to just read their mind but they could have easily just been like "yo who are you guys? this is our territory" and squirrel/leaf could be like "oh sorry we didnt know other cats were over here, we were just checking the area out". its kinda crazy that the sisters immediate reaction was "how DARE you not know we were here, we are keeping you prisoner as punishment"
|
|
|
Post by tema on Feb 23, 2022 15:29:48 GMT -5
It is entirely unreasonable to have expect the Sisters to have known the intentions of Leafstar and Squirrelflight couldnt they have just asked though like its unreasonable for the sisters to just read their mind but they could have easily just been like "yo who are you guys? this is our territory" and squirrel/leaf could be like "oh sorry we didnt know other cats were over here, we were just checking the area out" Squirrelflight and Leafstar could have lied for all the Sisters knew. We as readers who followed the two know they weren't, but to the Sisters these were complete strangers, and the Clans could have been willing to drive the Sisters out if the scouting cats reported back the Sisters' numbers... Which is along the lines of what ShadowClan ends up instigating after their initial fight. (Though I will point out the justification or lack-of for the two's capture was only brought up to deflect from the fact that it was the Clans who made first contact.) The Clans have done this before as well to trespassing cats. Yellowfang started as a prisoner.
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Feb 23, 2022 15:33:40 GMT -5
"There won't be trouble. Keeping these cats will send an important message to their clans" Is this not very implicatory of a the whole thing being blatant extortion? What other message exactly do you think is being sent here? Extortion and hostage-exchangement imply that one party is coercing power over another for some gained benefit that the victimized group actively can provide. The "message" the Sisters are trying to send is that 'the territory isn't free for the Clans to visit, it is dangerous for them, there is something in that territory that will resist their exploration.' There's nothing that the Sisters want from the Clans at this point other than to be left alone to their own territory; they want the former status quo of nonactivity maintained, not anything the Clans have to give. No, active benefit has nothing to do with it. Keeping a hostage to insure an opposing party's passivity is also absolutely a thing. By your logic here, if a mobster kidnapped a DA's family member and held them captive while wanting them to not prosecute one of their fellow mobsters, this is not actually hostage taking. After all, all the mobster wants is the retainment of the status quo and doesn't want anything actively done by the DA. They just want them not to do something. If that's not hostage taking to you then you must be aware that this isn't the definition most people use. Like, what the Sisters did is actively more aggressive than something like the Sankin-koutai in Japan where the shogun kept the families of the daimyo nearby as an insurance policy to insure loyalty (the shogun certainly didn't kidnap the families when he did this!), and everyone calls that a hostage situation, why is this any different? The whole thing was a move to try to exert power over the clans and insure they acted in accordance with what was convenient for the Sisters, it's a clear-cut hostage situation.
|
|
|
Post by tema on Feb 23, 2022 15:46:00 GMT -5
No, active benefit has nothing to do with it. "Obtaining" something is part of the literal definition of "extort." Keeping a hostage to insure an opposing party's passivity is also absolutely a thing. By your logic here, if a mobster kidnapped a DA's family member and held them captive while wanting them to not prosecute one of their fellow mobsters, this is not actually hostage taking. False equivalence. A DA being bribed to not pick up a case means that an arrest has already occurred or that a charge is ongoing. The mobster in your example wants the release of his fellow gamgster or the charge to be dropped from the court's docket. Using the gangster comparison, your logic would be like kidnapping an officer's child so that the officer doesn't investigate the for kidnapping their child and make an arrest over the crime. Like, what the Sisters did is actively more aggressive than something like the Sankin-koutai in Japan where the shogun kept the families of the daimyo nearby as an insurance policy to insure loyalty (the shogun certainly didn't kidnap the families when he did this!), and everyone calls that a hostage situation, why is this any different? ...You're asking me how keeping family members in danger to ensure a position of power is different than keeping two captive trespassers temporarily? Seriously? The whole thing was a move to try to exert power over the clans and insure they acted in accordance with what was convenient for the Sisters, it's a clear-cut hostage situation. You tried to make a fuss earlier of the Sisters not telling the Clans about "muh hostages." Are you seriously going to flip-flop again?
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Feb 23, 2022 15:55:20 GMT -5
No, active benefit has nothing to do with it. "Obtaining" something is part of the literal definition of "extort." Keeping a hostage to insure an opposing party's passivity is also absolutely a thing. By your logic here, if a mobster kidnapped a DA's family member and held them captive while wanting them to not prosecute one of their fellow mobsters, this is not actually hostage taking. False equivalence. A DA being bribed to not pick up a case means that an arrest has already occurred. The mobster in your example wants the release if his fellow gamgster. Using the gangster example, your logic would be like kidnapping an officer's child so that the officer doesn't invastigate you for kidnapping their child. Like, what the Sisters did is actively more aggressive than something like the Sankin-koutai in Japan where the shogun kept the families of the daimyo nearby as an insurance policy to insure loyalty (the shogun certainly didn't kidnap the families when he did this!), and everyone calls that a hostage situation, why is this any different?[/break] ...You're asking me how keeping family members in danger to ensure a position of power is different than keeping two captive trespassers temporarily? Seriously? You tried to make a fuss earlier of the Sisters not telling the Clans about "muh hostages." Are you seriously going to flip-flop again? If you obtain someone's preservation via threatening their leaders, that is in fact extortion, yes. Yes, that would still be taking a hostage even in your example. Threaten someone so they lay off of you and let you keep doing what you're doing. But that's literally what the Sisters are doing, keeping valued members of the clans in a position where they can be hurt at a moment's notice if the clans don't act in accordance to the Sister's desires. You're acting as though it was just some punishment for trespassing, but it's not. It was from the beginning a method to control the clans and have them do what the Sisters wanted to do. By the way, the Sisters don't even believe in boundaries anyway, so it's not as if they cared about them trespassing either. I'm not flip-flopping here when I say that taking them hostage without telling the clans is worse. That inspires more of a panic and more uncertainty in the clans than if they came to them with terms, which would still be extortionary but at least it would have given terms and been a heck of a lot more diplomatic than just unilaterally deciding to keep them around as insurance.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 16:10:25 GMT -5
Um...anyway Tribe sucks
|
|
|
Post by tema on Feb 23, 2022 16:11:48 GMT -5
If you obtain someone's preservation via threatening their leaders, that is in fact extortion, yes. Okay... But that's not what happened. Yes, that would still be taking a hostage even in your example. Threaten someone so they lay off of you and let you keep doing what you're doing. ...To "lay off of you" doing... The exact transgression you're trying to stop them from interrupting... Which is the one you're doing to stop them from... . . . But that's literally what the Sisters are doing, keeping valued members of the clans in a position where they can be hurt at a moment's notice if the clans don't act in accordance to the Sister's desires. ... The Sisters do not even bother to alert the clans about having taken these hostages, which makes it even worse. Bruh... You're acting as though it was just some punishment for trespassing, but it's not. It was from the beginning a method to control the clans and have them do what the Sisters wanted to do. By the way, the Sisters don't even believe in boundaries anyway, so it's not as if they cared about them trespassing either. ...But even in the post that the above quote came from, you kept trying to pass it off as "accidental trespassing..." I'm not flip-flopping here when I say that taking them hostage without telling the clans is worse. That inspires more of a panic and more uncertainty in the clans than if they came to them with terms, which would still be extortionary but at least it would have given terms and been a heck of a lot more diplomatic than just unilaterally deciding to keep them around as insurance. A'ight. Imma call it here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2022 16:26:01 GMT -5
Why so condescending though
|
|
|
Post by Sand 🎃 on Feb 23, 2022 16:29:33 GMT -5
This looks... interesting. Locking so I can catch up.
|
|