"Are we the baddies?" Self-awareness of the Horde?

Let’s freeze-frame right here, class!

So this is a fallacy known as a ‘Motte and Bailey’ in which, in order to push a contentious claim, the fallacious debater substitutes a more secure claim and then switches between them, positing the ‘bailey’ (the hard-to-defend position) but then defending the ‘Motte’ (the easy-to-defend position).

Because Pheandra’s Bailey is that the Horde were never good, that the Horde has always been written as villains and monsters that deserve to be exterminated and that liking the Horde makes you a bad person. Pheandra’s Motte is that, in BFA, the Horde’s actions, especially Teldrassil, have been evil. The latter is an easy-to-defend position; burning Teldrassil was an evil thing to do. That’s why, as a person who liked when the Horde were good guys, I didn’t like that it happened, as I’m sure we can all agree, right, class?

In this specific quote, the claim being argued is, to paraphrase Akaachi, ‘it is wrong to believe that the Alliance has always been in the moral right, and that the story of Warcraft is a simple story of good vs. evil’. This claim is an attack on Pheandra’s Bailey, and so to defend it, they fall back to the Motte, by demanding that their opponent justify one specific unjustifiable thing.

Now, my fellow Logic-Reason-Explordinaires will have already noticed that this is not an attack on Akaachi’s actual position - in order to attack Akaachi’s position, they would need to make a case not that the Horde was wrong once, but that the Horde had never been right. However, it seems to the uninformed viewer to be an effective counterattack. In the following posts, we see Akaachi take the appropriate response to someone attempting such an obviously intellectually dishonest and bad faith approach to debate, by refusing to engage in the conversation.

Why am I not doing that, you ask? Because bad arguments are catnip to me and I am thrice-cursed to debate with this image of a glowing goat-lady until rising sea levels finally, mercifully swallow the earth.

Remember, class: when you see someone replacing a contentious claim with an easy-to-defend position when faced with criticism, that’s a Motte and Bailey!

This brief lesson in Critical Thinking has been brought to you by Arcand’Os. Arcand’Os: twice the mana, half the carbs!

16 Likes

You also need to defend the Horde’s actions AFTER Teldrassil.

Its been a year since Teldrassil.
I don’t have a Motte and Bailey. I have a Krak des Chevaliers.

The Horde hasn’t done ONE evil but many. Consistently and continiously over a long period of time throughout their history.

You can’t justify it. You can’t justify any of it but you still claim that the Horde are good and only misunderstood.

Laughable.

1 Like

I love being right.

3 Likes

There is also wrath, cata, mop and wod.
Which one do you want to talk about? Clearly you don’t read what people say.

Ah, see, see! Now you want to defend the Bailey. Good for you. Good for us. I’m glad we got there together.

As far as which one I’d like to talk about, I figured I’d just wait in the wings until you say some dumb stuff, and then swoop in, insult your intelligence, then get six or seven likes from the same six or seven people. You know, how we normally do this?

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about.

My sole concern is how someone can look at the Horde over the course of WoW.
See them continuously behave terribly and yet STILL insist they are the good guys.

You got a WoD mass genocide the orcs try to do.
You got Garrosh and the Horde from Cata to MoP committing endless attrocities.
You got Wrath where Horde would rather backstab Alliance than fight the scourge together.
You got Blood Elves enslaving a Naruu turning into a dark Naruu.

I mean the list goes on and on and on.

Then we got BFA with everything the Horde has done so far being compounded into their magnum opus. Teldrassil.
And what happened after it? Nothing.

All Horde leaders unite under Sylvanas and come to her defense when the Alliance tried to bring her to justice. Again they fight together with yet another mass murdering warchief for a whole year. Half the expansion is already over with nothing happening.

And you will sit there and justify all of this as… misunderstanding? A few bad apples? How rotten is this barrel of apples that we keep finding rotten fruits in it for 15 years?

He pursued a demon and honestly a city of zombies. There was no right answer for him.

Can you reference where anyone maintains she is guilty of Arthas’ crimes?
Because of that is how it works then Thrall is guilty of Groms and all previous warchiefs before him.

We can go down this road. You won’t like it.

And Sylvanas killed the remaining ones. How does she get a pass and not Arthas?

The dead are the dead. They can’t claim anything. The city belonged to the living and Sylvanas killed them and took the throne from its rightful ruler. Calia Menethil.

All living Lordaeronians can claim their kingdom as their own. And with an heir like Calia they have a much stronger claim than Sylvanas does.
Like you said. She forged new kingdom. Her presence in that throne room was a desecration.

That’s not how it works but then again might makes right in medieval politics.
Calia has the strongest claim. What remains to be seen who has the armies to back up who’s claims.

Because they murdered the last of Lordaeron citizens after betraying them. Why do you keep dodging this?

while i have my own opinions on the horde i don’t think that you need to remind them every 2 seconds what blizzard has done to them.

i mean sure, i sometimes do it to defend my arguments but it seems like your only purpose is to make people feel bad, please, don’t.

it’s already hard for all of us endure this expansions seeing people attacking each other having fans vs fans…
like i said i too do it when i defend my interests but i don’t do it to make people feel bad, that is not my purpose. i do it so they can understand it.
please be nice shiny goat :goat:

11 Likes

Even Menethil acknowledged the claim of the Forsaken to the City. You don’t even have a ghost of a leg to stand on.

Undercity belongs to the Forsaken by rights of both history and possession. The livng survivors forfeited their claims when they joined the enemies of Lordaeron.

1 Like

They may have a claim perhaps but not the only ones that do.

That’s what a forsaken may believe but not the true living Lordaeron citizen who was able to get away from the scourge AND Sylvanas.

Is there anything I say that is untrue? Answer me that.
Do I get personal and insult them or call the players themselves evil somehow?

Did I not warn you of the PHD posts which would come screaming right out of them?

You have now learnt your first lesson when dealing with Horde lore posters who aren’t like their usual sensible types: They might make a post about how Barnes and Noble are like Alliance and Horde and write tripe to eventually say “Ha! So you like Barnes and do not despise Noble so you see Horde aren’t bad”.

If I offend anyone except OP with this post I sincerely apologize, night elves specially since yall have it rough now.

There’s three options on how the narrative can go this expansion:
Alliance, passive army of church boy’s, no thanks, I miss Varian.
Sylv Horde: I’m not a fan of her and she killed her own forsaken who were coming back from reuniting with her families, Im sorry to her fanboys, she is a horrible human (dead elf) being who parallels Arthas idk how the irony is lost on some belves and forsaken.
Saur Horde: Saurfang is just as guilty as her cuz he planned teldrassils invasion but at least hes sorry so if you wanna play Horde you HAVE to side with him.

Im sorry nelves I didnt want to burn your tree, in my headcannon i didnt participate. As for Pheandra, yeah were all EVIL cuz we play Horde, if youre what good is I dont want to be good. Stop trying to make people feel bad, just take a chill pill man, like legit.

3 Likes

Well, no.
Arthas was convincing himself that what he’s doing is for the better, and had an internal logic that what he did was for the best until he went full DK. Sylvanas never had that moment. At best she convinced Saurfang that an attack on Darkshore was better than not doing it, which I cannot see any direct similarity to except the mass murder and burning a city.

Sylvanas is evil and acts the way she does because she’s warcheif now, something that she didn’t even want, a lot like Garrosh. While I don’t agree with the expansion ending quite like MoP, I can’t disagree with the idea that’s been passed around that so far the Garrosh analogy holds strong.

Tgank you for that correction, further helps my point my fellow Chadalari

She has no claim becaue the Menethil throne ceased to exist after Arthas’ act of patricide.

And at that point they stopped being citizens of Lordaeron, they had quit their claims.

The Forsaken are not dead. They walk, they talk, they feel, they bleed, they have all the aspects that define the living as alive. By stereotyping them because of certain cosmetic attributes you prove pretty much a full example of Alliance bigotry and hypocrisy.

Calia Menethil was never a ruler of anything so she can not be described as a "rightful ruler’. What she attempted to do was insurrection.

2 Likes

Do you have a reference where the Lore considers Calia no longer a proper claimant to the throne?

Or is it purely your own conjecture?

Because hereditary monarchy is a meme, claims to the throne are fake and none of us should care about them?

Look, I know Blizzard’s had a hard-on for hereditary monarchy since every King of Stormwind was the Bestest Lad Ever, but let’s not act like it’s not a bad system of government. The Forsaken don’t need Sylvanas, but they sure as heck don’t need some spoiled royal who isn’t one of them and has nothing in common with them.

3 Likes

Pretty much all of WoWs goverments with exception of maybe the dwarves and the zanchuli council if we didnt have a king/queen, suck

2 Likes

You’re the one making the assertation that flies in face of all common sense and practical reality this woman who came out of the shadows after two decades suddenly is entitled to a non-existent throne.

That would be like a Romanov making a claim for the throne of Russia.

Yours is the burden of proof.

4 Likes