Elaina Schill
Posts: 191
11/14/2018
|
I've been scribbling along for a couple months, trying to wrap up a rather torrid self-insert/Pirate-Poet fanfiction and because of the Poet's occupation and stance on the issue of Clay Men, I've been doing a lot of thinking about it myself. So I'm throwing it out to everyone to discuss because I'm curious. Do you believe Clay Man labor is moral? They are sentient automatons, created in Polythreme by the King with a Hundred Hearts, so in theory their autonomy would not belong to themselves. But then again, wouldn't this stance fall apart when compared to child rearing? Do children belong to their parents, bowing to their every want and whim? I understand that Clay Men are paid as a tithe to London, and that the 'Unfinished' ones are more likely to be the ones with a higher developed sense of self and emotions. The Pirate-Poet is not Unfinished but instead 'wrote herself free,' or somehow broke that agreement with her writing. It's sort of unclear. What would also be interesting would be bringing the race card into it, and comparing the issue with American slavery. That might be a bit overboard.
In any case, I'd like to hear your thoughts! If I've said anything wrong, please let me know!
--
Main, Phiri Ulfur, the Cunning Shadow. Their heart belongs to a Pirate-Poet across the Zee.
Alt Vermillion Liminate, the Tragic Scholar.
Alt #2,Lady Jacqueline Blackwood, the Savage Beauty.
Alt #3, Veracity Taylor, the Dame of the Docks.
The Dogged Seeker, self explanatory.
I will accept any social actions on Fallen London(unless its a box of live rats. I already got rid of the d---ned things once and am not eager to repeat the endeavor).
|
|
|
0
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
11/14/2018
|
Well, I think you will find arguments for and against, based on the lore. But the thing is..
the way they are written, it does seem that their position is an unfair one. There is an air of melancholy around them, of wrongness concerning their labours, even when they themselves work without rxactly protesting.
It might wll be that we project, from our own history. But I think the nagging sense that they should not be here, is entrenched in the narrative.
edited by Jolanda Swan on 11/14/2018
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
0
link
|
Ixc
Posts: 365
11/14/2018
|
I think they’re like children, honestly. They haven’t really had a life other than working. I think they can learn to think for themselves (judging by Lyme).
Also, your character sorta tries to make choices for them (on the card for the clay bearers), where you set out to teach them “whether they like it or not”, which seems to me to be a reflection of London’s view on them as a whole. I think London views them as wanting to be forced to work, which reminds of the attitudes of Americans towards slaves.
Anyway, it’s definitely not moral.
--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
PSGarak
Posts: 834
11/14/2018
|
In a certain sense, Clay Men are a part of ol' Hundred-Hearts. From that perspective, all of Clay Labor together is actually one guy working part-time. If there is immorality in this arrangement, it is in Hundred-Hearts' vassalage to the Masters. The indentured nature of the Clay Men is just a reflection onto the human scale of the reduced state of that King and his country. Which one might interpret as a statement on the nature of colonialism.
...I think I'm in over my head on this train of thought. I'm not entirely on board on the axiom that there is only one "person" in this picture. But, it is justifiable in the lore.
Is there any evidence that the Clay Men have a spot on the Chain, and if so, where?
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/PSGarak
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Elaina Schill
Posts: 191
11/15/2018
|
PSGarak wrote:
In a certain sense, Clay Men are a part of ol' Hundred-Hearts.
That's true, but do we know for sure the full extent of the relationship between KWHH and the Clay Men besides the fact that they're spawned from his dreams. Can he exert control over them? Are the emotions they feel his emotions? Are their opinions his? Etc etc. I believe they still have some sort of individuality, and just because he created them, unless they are LITERALLY part of him instead of using a part of him to be created (like the parent metaphor I was trying to make sense of) then I'm with you in believing there's multiple 'people' involved.
I have no idea about the Chain thing. Sorry.
--
Main, Phiri Ulfur, the Cunning Shadow. Their heart belongs to a Pirate-Poet across the Zee.
Alt Vermillion Liminate, the Tragic Scholar.
Alt #2,Lady Jacqueline Blackwood, the Savage Beauty.
Alt #3, Veracity Taylor, the Dame of the Docks.
The Dogged Seeker, self explanatory.
I will accept any social actions on Fallen London(unless its a box of live rats. I already got rid of the d---ned things once and am not eager to repeat the endeavor).
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 770
11/16/2018
|
Iona Dre'emt wrote:
PSGarak wrote:
In a certain sense, Clay Men are a part of ol' Hundred-Hearts.
That's true, but do we know for sure the full extent of the relationship between KWHH and the Clay Men besides the fact that they're spawned from his dreams. Can he exert control over them? Are the emotions they feel his emotions? Are their opinions his? Etc etc. I believe they still have some sort of individuality, and just because he created them, unless they are LITERALLY part of him instead of using a part of him to be created (like the parent metaphor I was trying to make sense of) then I'm with you in believing there's multiple 'people' involved.
These are all excellent questions ... with no clear answers. But the individual Clay Men we have lore for certainly appear to have differentiated personalities, so I agree with the multiple people line. If this is, in fact, the case, then the most moral form of employment of Clay Men is one that treats them with kindness and provides them with opportunities for personal development and, ultimately, the independent pursuit of their own interests and full citizenship.
A trickier question is whether or not London should cease the importation of Clay Men entirely.
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
PSGarak
Posts: 834
11/16/2018
|
Somewhere it is claimed that the Clay Men all share a single soul (assumedly the King's), and that's why the Devils show no interest in them. That claim is the basis of my argument.
That doesn't really answer the question, though. We don't even know the full relationship between a regular human and their own soul, much less exceptional cases like the King With a Hundred Hearts. They certainly appear to have their own individual motivations and desires, even though they don't pursue them.
It really depends on to what degree your ideal of morality is based on metaphysics. Contemporary London would have tied the two together much more than our modern sensibilities would, and the question of whether Clay Men have a soul would likely have a big place in any discourse on the topic. It would also probably have a prominent place in the same debate in Fallen London, but in a rather different manner.
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/PSGarak
|
|
|
+1
link
|
PSGarak
Posts: 834
11/16/2018
|
I just remember the source: it's a rare success when upconverting wines!
https://fallenlondon.fandom.com/wiki/The_Affable_Monsignor_has_a_particular_taste_for_the_'44
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/PSGarak
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Guest
11/19/2018
|
Equating the relationship between Clay Men and the KWHH to a child & their parents seems like a false equivalency.
When two people conceive a child they're effectively creating a younger version of themselves- meaning a being with: needs, wants & potential equal to their own. This is not the case with the Clay Men & the KWHH... the more apt comparison would be: homunculus & alchemist. They're objectively lesser beings, a small portion of a greater whole split off and sold to pay the KWHH's debts.
Also, am I the only person who thinks that lobbying to give Clay Men equal rights with the rest of London's population is a terrible idea? That would effectively mean making every Clay Man Unfinished all at once. Now think, who are the two most prolific Unfinished Men in the setting? *Jasper & Frank*. Do you *really* wanna find out what happens when several thousand immortal golems with the strength to tear through a brick wall with their bare hands start prioritizing their own self interest?
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/19/2018
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
11/20/2018
|
Different rights?
Any way you put it other than equal rights, immediately summons the arguments of racists everywhere, which is very interesting.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
0
link
|
Guest
11/20/2018
|
Maybe, but like so many hamfisted fictional metaphors for the racially persecuted (IE: robots, monsters, witches, mutants, etc.) Clay Men are objectively dangerous in ways that normal humans just aren't.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/20/2018
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3493
11/20/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
That would effectively mean making every Clay Man Unfinished all at once.
How so?
--
Sir Frederick, the Libertarian Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
|
|
|
0
link
|
Ixc
Posts: 365
11/20/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
Also, am I the only person who thinks that lobbying to give Clay Men equal rights with the rest of London's population is a terrible idea? That would effectively mean making every Clay Man Unfinished all at once. Now think, who are the two most prolific Unfinished Men in the setting?
Unfinished Men and rebellious Clay Men actually appear to be different, as in being a rebellious or thinking clay man does not mean they’re Unfinished. Also, giving them the vote would not cause them to become Unfinished, as it’s something a Clay Man is ‘born’ with.
Also, Clay Men are really only a little stronger than humans, as you, early in your Dangerous career, are able to beat them at arm wrestling and even kill one (when Jack possesses one). So giving those hamfisted stand-ins for racial minorities equal right wouldn’t hurt; in fact, giving them legal protection and protection against discrimination would allow them to have standing in society, giving them legal means of earning a living and a voice in gov.
--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Guest
11/20/2018
|
You manage to arm wrestle one successfully by employing thirteen different kinds of dirty tactics all at once and pinning the thing while it puts up literally no resistance at all, and you employ similarly opportunistic means to kill one.
Contrarily when a Clay Man bodyguard took a swing at me in deadly earnest in an exceptional story I just went through his fist quite literally goes clean through a brick wall (which he subsequently gets caught in momentarily allowing an escape). Really wasn't exaggerating in the slightest.
And is there a difference? The PLACE WITH VERY LITTLE SCREAMING seems to imply Unfinished Men and otherwise independent Clay Men are one and the same- it's just that the former are "born" that way with common physical markers denoting their condition.
As to why it would hurt:
You know those dockside riots (that appropriately enough are largely about Clay Men edging out other workers)? Yeah, imagine that same riot with Clay Men doing the rioting. They could tear apart half the city without breaking a sweat.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/21/2018
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Ixc
Posts: 365
11/21/2018
|
But the question is, why they would want to do that. If they had equal rights, truly equal rights that made equal to a human in London, they would have virtually no reason to riot.
--
Pleased to meet you. Ixc, spy and detective. Inventor of the Correspondence Cannon.
Are you a Paramount Presence? Record your name here. For posterity, of course.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
|
|
|
0
link
|
Guest
11/21/2018
|
Past grievances (which are many and grievous), backlash from what would definitely be heightened tension with the human population they'd be competing with for employment and space, desire to secede from the empire and govern themselves, bargains struck with a rival power, desire for hegemonic primacy over their physical inferiors, there's lots of reasons.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/21/2018
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
11/21/2018
|
Huh. Put that way, anything but equal rights seems insane and cruel.
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Lady Sapho Byron
Posts: 770
11/21/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
Past grievances (which are many and grievous), backlash from what would definitely be heightened tension with the human population they'd be competing with for employment and space, desire to secede from the empire and govern themselves, bargains struck with a rival power, desire for hegemonic primacy over their physical inferiors, there's lots of reasons.
edited by Isaac Gates on 11/21/2018
These are reasons to riot whether or not one has citizenship.
Also, as to the second point, there's no in-game text I'm aware of suggesting that Londoners oppose the importation of Clay Men on economic grounds. That is, the human labour pool seems insufficient and/or insufficiently motivated to provide the services rendered by Clay Men. Further, there is text implying London is less populous than before the fall, so at present there is enough space for a considerably larger population.
Edit: Ooops, some Dockers don't like Clay Men impinging on their labour.
edited by Lady Sapho Byron on 11/21/2018
--
http://fallenlondon.com/Profile/Lady%20Sapho%20L%20Byron
Fighting the Menace of Corsetry Since 1892.
|
|
|
0
link
|
Jolanda Swan
Posts: 1783
11/21/2018
|
It would be. This is an urban population, so not very geared towards manual labor, and there is no immigration from the colonies so...
--
Lover of all things beautiful, secret admirer of ugly truths, fond of the Parabola Sun... and always delighted to role play.
http://fallenlondon.com/profile/Jolanda%20Swan
|
|
|
0
link
|
Azothi
Posts: 586
11/21/2018
|
Isaac Gates wrote:
Equating the relationship between Clay Men and the KWHH to a child & their parents seems like a false equivalency.
When two people conceive a child they're effectively creating a younger version of themselves- meaning a being with: needs, wants & potential equal to their own. This is not the case with the Clay Men & the KWHH... the more apt comparison would be: homunculus & alchemist. They're objectively lesser beings, a small portion of a greater whole split off and sold to pay the KWHH's debts. It is a false equivalency, in my opinion, but not for the reasons you suggest, as your premises are flawed. While describing children as younger forms of their forebears, with equal needs, wants, and potential, this is not necessarily true. The needs and wants of children are shaped by their environment, while potential derives from the inheritance of genes from both parents. While the vast majority of DNA will be the same for all humans - and, in this sense, relative to a species like the Clay Men, individual humans have much closer needs, wants, and potential - the individual variation from human to human is far greater than can simply be dismissed with flowery language.
The case for comparing Clay Men to children places the Clay Men in a formative period of childhood, I believe. They are the equivalent of a young child, just coming into self-awareness, albeit lacking the life and energy that characterizes children. More precisely, the vast majority of Clay Men exist in a state where they have not yet come into awareness about their full potential, as children have not yet realized theirs. Both simply toil away at the whims of industry and the state (bear in mind that this is Victorian London - child labor remains very prominent, drawing further parallels between the Clay Men and human children). The Unfinished can realize their full potential as something other than manual labor. The Pirate-Poet is an independent artist capable of exerting her own identity. Jasper and Frank chose to become enforcers of the Masters, just like many humans do. Lyme has clearly demonstrated a soft spot for animals and an interest in photography. In Factory of Favours, when allowed to exist in separation from overseers and supervisors, regular Clay Men integrate into an economy and contribute art in the form of sculpture, taking their inherently destructive potential and applying it to the one art form that creates through destruction.
Isaac Gates wrote:
Also, am I the only person who thinks that lobbying to give Clay Men equal rights with the rest of London's population is a terrible idea? That would effectively mean making every Clay Man Unfinished all at once. Now think, who are the two most prolific Unfinished Men in the setting? *Jasper & Frank*. Do you *really* wanna find out what happens when several thousand immortal golems with the strength to tear through a brick wall with their bare hands start prioritizing their own self interest? You can't look at two individual cases and use that to judge an entire population. If you want to make the case that Jasper and Frank are representative of the Clay Men as a whole, therefore it is unideal to give them equal rights, you have to first demonstrate that they are, in fact, representative. Drawing statistical correlations from a sample size of two is unlikely to give reliable information. I could just as easily say, now think, who is one of the most prolific Clay Man in the setting? Lyme. Do you really want to find out what happens when several thousand Lymes with their "remarkable facility for reading" and gentle hands start integrating into society?
Now, addressing the main point, the structure of democracy and rights is to allow individuals to prioritize their own self-interest with minimal violence. By giving all individuals equal rights, they are guaranteed a basic standard of dignified living that others are not permitted to violate. When they inevitably are, the individuals can appeal to a higher structure - the state - to enforce the protection of their rights. Within a democratic system, the state emerges from the will of the people. Where you see activism is where a group believes itself to be (relatively) disempowered but that they can be empowered by the system. Where you see violence is where a group believes itself to be disempowered and cannot be empowered by the system, and where they have the means to violently revolt. The most dangerous way forward, then, is to not give Clay Men equal rights, because then they are disempowered in such a way that they cannot be empowered so long as the power structures of humanity exist. Docile yet oppressed populations are kindling for a black swan revolution.
Isaac Gates wrote:
Maybe, but like so many hamfisted fictional metaphors for the racially persecuted (IE: robots, monsters, witches, mutants, etc.) Clay Men are objectively dangerous in ways that normal humans just aren't. Humans are objectively dangerous in ways that normal Clay Men just aren't. Humans are capable of destruction on absolutely enormous scales. Consider the implicit assumptions to this argument. Suppose we have an extraordinarily strong bodybuilder. Their capability to destroy with just their bare hands far exceeds that of a normal human being. Would you advocate denying them their rights? I would believe your answer is no. Therefore, the difference in physical strength alone must not be the source of denying them their rights.
Consider now the case of their mental state. Clay Men appear to be less capable of abstract thought and critical reasoning than humans. This appears to be more of a cultural difference than a biological imperative (we see many Clay Men displaying these capabilities when separate from the broader population), but even if you assume that all Clay Men are inherently less mentally capable than humans, there's still another question to ask: would you advocate denying children their rights? They have not yet fully mentally developed, after all. To me, the answer is no; then again, I have a narrow view of what constitutes "rights". I would believe that we can agree that some rights apply to all people, including children. If this is the case, then the difference in mental capability must not be the source of denying them their rights.
Isaac Gates wrote:
And is there a difference? The PLACE WITH VERY LITTLE SCREAMING seems to imply Unfinished Men and otherwise independent Clay Men are one and the same- it's just that the former are "born" that way with common physical markers denoting their condition. The interpretation is debatable, I think. All we know is that the act of rebelling gives you the quality of being "Unfinished". It's debatable whether an individual is born "Unfinished" in the mind or if it is the act of rebelling (advanced by having physical characteristics marking one unfit for manual labor) that creates the Unfinished. My interpretation is that all Clay Men have the capability to be "Unfinished", so to speak, so long as they choose to rebel.
The problem, however, is in the semantics. "Unfinished" has a highly negative connotation because it is associated with the Clay Men who have otherwise lost restraint and have become menaces to society. Your case is essentially that enfranchising Clay Men makes them Unfinished, and because Unfinished are dangerous, enfranchising Clay Men is dangerous. This sounds good on the surface, but your premises rely on two different definitions of Unfinished.
To take your words, you say, "THE PLACE WITH VERY LITTLE SCREAMING seems to imply Unfinished Men and otherwise independent Clay Men are one and the same." Let's apply that, then by setting Unfinished = "independent Clay Men". To apply that to your words:
"Also, am I the only person who thinks that lobbying to give Clay Men equal rights with the rest of London's population is a terrible idea? That would effectively mean making every Clay Man independent Clay Men all at once ... Do you *really* wanna find out what happens when several thousand immortal golems with the strength to tear through a brick wall with their bare hands start prioritizing their own self interest?" (Emphasis mine)
And this returns us to the earlier problem of not being able to cite Jasper and Frank as good evidence because they are just two individuals and not necessarily reflective of the population. Because you redefined Unfinished, it loses the connotation of danger, and as a result, it does not follow that giving Clay Men equal rights is dangerous without further evidence. This evidence could exist - I've simply not seen it.
Isaac Gates wrote:
You know those dockside riots (that appropriately enough are largely about Clay Men edging out other workers)? Yeah, imagine that same riot with Clay Men doing the rioting. They could tear apart half the city without breaking a sweat. Human rioters can easily destroy half a city, albeit while breaking a sweat (from the heat of the flames, of course). Have you seen human riots? They're not pretty. There's a lot of fire and broken glass, and smoke and shouting. We don't deny humans our rights because of it, though. And if we're being technical, those weren't riots by the dock for the most part - it was a strike. The kind that unions do. The first violent action is by the neddy men (the strikebreakers) against the dockers. It only really became a riot during the Battle of Wolfstack Docks, where the dockers marched on Gibbet's Wharf to defeat the neddy men.
My point in describing this distinction is to highlight how effective Clay Men would be at peaceful protest. What drives the dockers to leave their defensive position (striking) to their offensive position (battle) is the fact that they are continually hurt by the protest as the neddies attack. The Clay Men are far more resilient. This argument is essentially pointing at a case where dockers made a targeted strategic attack on their enemy to try to protect their privileges - privileges that they felt had been denied them - and comparing that to a hypothetical scenario where Clay Men riot and destroy half the city. They're incomparable.
--
Azoth I, the Emissary of Cardinals - A Paramount Presence (not currently accepting new Proteges)
Away to where the Chain cannot bind us.
 Hesperidean.
|
|
|
0
link
|