drael6464
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by drael6464
-
-
Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god.
As the OP shows, yes, yes they can be. There's also Gamergate, the ridiculous "uproar" over women in Battlefield, the predictable whining whenever a game doesn't cater exclusively to white boys and the constant hilariously ineffective attempts to force developers to continue developing 99% of games for that demographic, instead of spreading out and developing just 95% of them...
What's even more ridiculous is that by any definition, Obsidian's games have always been SJW games. Literally none of them are reactionary in themes, writing, or other types of execution.
You don't think the animancer plot in poe1 was a bit reactionary? Or the concern about eothos in this one? Or Huana tradition versus trading company progress. I think reactionary-ness sort of sits a little bit in these games, but rather than force the player into a conclusion, they let them make their mind up where they want to sit.
-
1
-
-
Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.
It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.
A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”
The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."
If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.
Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.
It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.
You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes.
Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.
Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.
There's always darkness in the human heart too. And people who feel jilted, oppressed or hard done by and like other people owe them something for their feelings. People are basically selfish creatures, by and large, and they'll project their negative experiences onto other people if they go the wrong way. I prefer to spend my time amazed and in admiration of those with large stores of compassion and optimism, which is probably more remarkable given how life can be pretty hard.
*Actually you know what that all reminds me of? The moral panic thing? The animancy plot in poe1 - how everyone thought they were the end of civilisation.
"Incel" is not merely a new word for virgin and it's not something that others have ascribed to this group – it's a name that they have chosen for themselves as a sort of badge of martyrdom. Incels blame women for their singlehood and view the fact that they aren't having sex as an injustice committed against them by a degenerate society that refuses to see their value. They feel entitled to sex, hold beliefs deeply grounded in heterosexism, openly entertain violent fantasies, and have a lot of (not surprising) crossover with gamergate.
I'm all for freedom of expression and anti-alarmism, but you can't call a group a "Boogeyman" "invented" by the left once they've actually started killing people. Collier Township, Santa Barbara, and now Toronto were all carried out by angry men active in the incel community.
You don't have to believe that a group is actually going to bring about a male supremacist social shift to recognize it as a threat for wanting to.
Well, as I said in my last post, I think that's sort of a yes and no. Yeah it is a former reddit community and an online presence but it's also a virgin shaming word. Most of the time when you here it used in conversation, it's used to describe other people, not self-describe. I guess those communities are pretty insular.
It's interesting actually the cultural emergence of this, well to me. It coincides with some large changes in the millennial sexual dynamic. Record low marriages, women under 30 have twice the number of partners as men under 30, and there is a roughly 150 percent increase in the number of millienials who are virgins at 26. Sort of a tinder culture, hypergamy thing - some people are having a lot more sex, most are having less. Of course there's other factors in that social insulation, social media, and less social capital or community in society.
I mean this all from a detached, sort of human psychology archetypal type POV, it's not 'interesting" in the sense that two young men have gone jihadi over it.
Gamergate is a whole nother issue, it's kind of a weird little thing, and it's another divisive topic, so I'll just leave that one.
-
I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.
Who is the villain? Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.
Which gods get the most screen time by far? The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female. Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah. Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.
When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically. But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing. There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael.
Then you look at faction leaders. There are technically six potential faction leaders. Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol.
Four of them are women. Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women. Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place. Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two. I will let guess which two. Also the leader of the slavers? Yeah, it's a man.
It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions. Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum. All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.
So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here. I don't think there is, but I can see it.
For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods. Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.
The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint. The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.
Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god.
She's a likeable assassin though. She feels bad afterwards lol. And she doesn't like slavery. Wait, xoti can be a psychopathic serial killer?
Yeah, if you take her down the path of pushing her towards hoarding souls and "looking for the darkness", she goes ****ing *NUTS*.
That actually sounds like fun. The things you miss out on when you are not an arsehole in game!
-
I don't think the game is pro feminism man hating propaganda, but I would be lying if I say I didn't notice a lot of the things the OP is mentioning.
Who is the villain? Eothas technically.... one of the depicted as male gods.
Which gods get the most screen time by far? The female aspect of Berath (only see the male version in opening), Hylea, Magran, Ondra, and Woedica. All female. Wael is up there too, and seems to have a male voice, but.... yeah. Abyddon felt oddly absent and seemed to have no care of White March events, Galawain was practically missing, Skaen had little presence too as anything other than a Woedica lackey, and Rymrgand definitely went more cruel/evil in his screentime, which was fairly short.
When you break down the God genders there are more male gods, five specifically. But two of them are Skaen and Rymrgand who at this point can clearly be defined as evil, then there is Eothas which is a whole other thing. There are meanwhile 4 female gods (Ondra is beginning to push it, but only Woedica is clearly evil and to be fair the "god of law and rule" being clearly evil feels like a political statement), and two gender neutral gods Berath who is both, and Wael who is ... Wael.
Then you look at faction leaders. There are technically six potential faction leaders. Aeldys, Furrante, Onekaza, Karu, Alvari, and Castol.
Four of them are women. Only two of the four main factions have leaders that can't be overthrown from within, both of them are lead by women. Both of the factions that can overthrow their leader are lead by men, even if one of the "overthrows" felt tacked on and sort of out of place. Of all the faction leaders in favor of slavery/working with the slavers, there are only two. I will let guess which two. Also the leader of the slavers? Yeah, it's a man.
It get's worse if you check out who leads the various Amaua groups in game, cause there are three outsider groups beyond the main factions. Tikiwara, Port Maje Amaua, and another group I won't mention as this is the spoiler free forum. All but one of them is lead by a woman, and the only leader who is considered incompetent by their tribe is... you guessed it, the lone man.
So yes, I can easily understand someone thinking there is a hidden agenda happening here. I don't think there is, but I can see it.
For example you could argue the female gods get so much representation because Eothas is the main antagonist and they didn't want all the screentime going to male gods. Also Galawain and Abyddon got a lot of play in the last game, and one of the biggest sidequests and backer beta was knee deep in Skaen.
The faction leader stuff is a lot harder to explain, especially considering I have posts claiming Aeldys is the only reasonable faction leader from a morality standpoint. The Amaua being only lead by women seems a bit odd too, I hoping Josh has some cultural backstory reason there.
Woedica is literally the worlds biggest bitch, Xoti can become a psychopathic serial killer, and Maia is an assassin. Are men really so insecure that they can interpret having the main villain be a bad guy as an attack on our sex? Dear god.
She's a likeable assassin though. She feels bad afterwards lol. And she doesn't like slavery. Wait, xoti can be a psychopathic serial killer?
-
Well I won't disagree that evolution can happen in shorter time spans, when there is a serious survival pressure. We've seen it happen in less than a century in other animals. But generally speaking it takes longer time periods, when it's merely adaptive rather than something that predicts life and death. Depends on the strength of the pressure. Food sources for survival is obviously reasonably pressing.
In what ways are humans less sexually dimorphic than other primates?
Males weigh, on average, about 15% more than females--this is reduced from other primates, where males are on average 25%-30% larger than females. In all other primates, males have elongated canines compared to females--this is not present at all. The same is true of brow ridges, which in other apes are much more pronounced in males. There's also the matter of hidden estrus; in the vast majority of other primates (excluding bonobos), females in estrus have physiological changes that strongly differentiate them from males and allow the males to know that they are fertile; humans do not have any form of estrus at all, so these physiological distinctions don't exist.
There is also what's called "general robustness". That is, the average difference in muscle mass and physical strength is much higher between other male and female primates than it is among human males and females.
I thought it would be size differences. Maybe theres a greater difference in prenatal testosterone.
That's an interesting question for a study. In general I would postulate that human beings have generally lower levels of testosterone as compared to the other apes, because this would correlate with a more highly cooperative, less aggressive setting especially among the male population.
Indeed, it would reduce the amount of "aggression under the perception of threat". Other things like lowered risk perception, honesty in bargaining, and protection of women and children would also be lessened needs in a more cooperative society, especially a nomadic one, where intertribal warfare and interaction was less common. Increased spacial reasoning, I suspect, like all forms of intelligence seems to come with some evolutionary downsides, certain diseases, potentially including autism, increased nutritional requirements so too much testosterone could have also upset the delicate balance of our newly increased cognition.
-
Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.
It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.
A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”
The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."
If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.
Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.
It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.
You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes.
Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.
Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.
It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.
Incel was coined as a derogatory term for virgin. It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. Incels didn't invent the term, nor stacy, nor chad.
These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. if it's become associated with some subreddit, or online subculture, that's secondary to it's inception, and general meaning - an insult for guys who can't get sex.
When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Feminists have latched onto this term much like they did "nice guy tm". Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic.
Source? Because this article claims something completely different.
Summarized. The term is coined by a woman for herself and to look for like-minded people. Wasn't meant as an insult, nor focused solely on men.
I think know your meme is generally pretty accurate. According to this:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/involuntary-celibacy-incel
It says the word does originate in an online community in 1993. But it became popular as an internet meme (at least partly for virgin shaming), AND THEN, in 2013 the subreddit was created where people expressed toxic ideas. Then that subreddit was parodied, and then the attacks took place, which thrust the idea into the public awareness.
So I think on this basis, there is some truth to the idea that it is/was "a community", with certain ideas AND that it is a derogatory word used for virgin shaming.
-
She tried to hop unto my Watcher love train before I even left Port Maje. That was before patch 1.0.2 though. I turned her down initially and had easy ways to resume relationships with every part of her lantern quest.
I am curious now. Also hopefully, that “every one want ps to bang my Watcher” won’t be a thing anymore. Maybe your dispositions aren’t up to her standards? When I played it I had maxed out almost all dispositions quite early into the game.
Perhaps I blasphemed lol.
-
Well I won't disagree that evolution can happen in shorter time spans, when there is a serious survival pressure. We've seen it happen in less than a century in other animals. But generally speaking it takes longer time periods, when it's merely adaptive rather than something that predicts life and death. Depends on the strength of the pressure. Food sources for survival is obviously reasonably pressing.
In what ways are humans less sexually dimorphic than other primates?
Males weigh, on average, about 15% more than females--this is reduced from other primates, where males are on average 25%-30% larger than females. In all other primates, males have elongated canines compared to females--this is not present at all. The same is true of brow ridges, which in other apes are much more pronounced in males. There's also the matter of hidden estrus; in the vast majority of other primates (excluding bonobos), females in estrus have physiological changes that strongly differentiate them from males and allow the males to know that they are fertile; humans do not have any form of estrus at all, so these physiological distinctions don't exist.
There is also what's called "general robustness". That is, the average difference in muscle mass and physical strength is much higher between other male and female primates than it is among human males and females.
I thought it would be size differences. Maybe theres a greater difference in prenatal testosterone.
-
Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.
It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.
A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”
The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."
If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.
Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.
It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.
You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes.
Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.
Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.
It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.
Incel was coined as a derogatory term for virgin. It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'. Incels didn't invent the term, nor stacy, nor chad.
These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things. if it's become associated with some subreddit, or online subculture, that's secondary to it's inception, and general meaning - an insult for guys who can't get sex.
When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Feminists have latched onto this term much like they did "nice guy tm". Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic.
I'm sorry, but you're *dead* wrong about this. The term "incel" derives from "Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project", a website from 1997, whose first newsletter was titled "INVCEL". The term is self-derived within the founding of the subculture.
Well it's definately used as an insult for men who can't have sex in the same way virgin was. And I don't think that it's only use these days is people who self-describe as incels and have a particular ideology. That's not how I see the word used - it's generally used by people to describe other people, not people to describe themselves. As you can see, chad and stacy are not incel inventions:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/chad-thunder****
Maybe I don't attend the right websites, but I've never seen anyone ask if someone identifies as an incel before they use the word to describe other people.
Chad came from the bodybuilding community, same as "soyboy".
-
Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.
It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.
A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”
The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."
If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.
Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.
It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.
You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes.
Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.
Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.
It's *really* important to note that "incel" is *NOT* simply another term for a virgin. EVERYBODY is a virgin until a certain point in their lives; not everybody is an incel. "Incel" is a term *from their subculture* that is used by people to self-identify as members of a particular subculture. This subculture revolves entirely around these mens inability to obtain a sexual relationship, to such an extent that they consider "not having sex" to be a, perhaps the, *defining trait* of their life. They've developed all sorts of subcultural jargon revolving around this aspect of their lives; "incel", "a chad", "a stacy', etc. It's highly interwoven with the "pick-up artist" subculture, as the people who describe themselves as "incels" are basically the monetary bread-and-butter of the pick-up artists "self-help" career.
It's a meme. Much like "chad" is a meme. And 'stacy'.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/involuntary-celibacy-incel
These are all just words millennials made up online, in their little jingoistic way to describe things.
When you look at the hackjobs the left have done on MRAs or the new right, or centrists like Jordan Peterson, I'd definately be relunctant to get my info directly from them. Could be that this subculture of people who self-describe as incels is exactly as you say. Or maybe it's exaggerated. Hard to say, but the feminist quarter doesn't have a good track record in hyperbole and moral panic. Perhaps that's just a boy who cried wolf thing - I've heard it so much, I don't really believe it any more, even if it is true.
I'd like to hear less emotive accounts, and primary sources, before I make my own mind up. Either way it's definately used as an insult, in the same fashion "virgin" was.
-
Well I won't disagree that evolution can happen in shorter time spans, when there is a serious survival pressure. We've seen it happen in less than a century in other animals. But generally speaking it takes longer time periods, when it's merely adaptive rather than something that predicts life and death. Depends on the strength of the pressure. Food sources for survival is obviously reasonably pressing.
In what ways are humans less sexually dimorphic than other primates?
-
Interesting, just skimming the news and I came upon this article... which for some reason reminded me of this thread.
It talks about the so called "incels", involuntary celibates.
A group of men who believe among other things that “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering” and “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”
The article says that the so called "Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof."
If you have any difficulties to understand the mindset of certain people, try reading that article. To me, it certainly explains, where some ideas in this thread are coming from.
Incel is just a new word for virgin. Like thot is a new word for s**t. That's all it means - it's a way of shaming men who haven't had sex, or aren't "studs". Every male who has ever existed has seen this in high school - the sex bragging etc. It's in its way a very teenage word.
It's just the rebirth of a very old idea. I'm not sure its accurate to ascribe political ideology to a word that just means you can't get laid. I'd personally be suspicious of any doomsdaying threat narrative article that does so, especially if peoples way of doing so is taking the ideas of some subreddit as an emergent ideological faith.
You can't get by a day without some moral panic from the left about some new bogeyman - Nazi's, the far left, the alt-right, mra's, male supremicists and how they are all going to take over the world and bring about the demise of liberal democracy. I guess that's why the handmaidens tale does so well. The right used to do the same thing, banging on about satanic child abuse, reds under the bed, or how d&d turns people into serial killers. They still do sometimes.
Maybe sometimes those risks are valid, but most of the time a moral panic seems to be unjustified. Personally as someone who is 40, I've got no time for people who think being a virgin is something to be ashamed of. You shouldn't seek your validation in other people, life will teach you that one way or another.
Nor do I have much time for moral panics either - civilisation is probably an instable proposition anyway. Everything from food scarcity as the population grows, war, to national debt causing a global depression, to an asteroid wiping us out is always on the cards. Those threats are always there. Society is changing at a pace, and that itself could be unstable. Easier just to enjoy what you have, support reasonable thinking, and accept that not everything is in your control.
There's always darkness in the human heart too. And people who feel jilted, oppressed or hard done by and like other people owe them something for their feelings. People are basically selfish creatures, by and large, and they'll project their negative experiences onto other people if they go the wrong way. I prefer to spend my time amazed and in admiration of those with large stores of compassion and optimism, which is probably more remarkable given how life can be pretty hard.
*Actually you know what that all reminds me of? The moral panic thing? The animancy plot in poe1 - how everyone thought they were the end of civilisation.
-
1
-
-
Xoti is a bit of an exception, because she's warm. I think she might be the only warm or vulnerable female NPC I encountered in the game. For whatever reason though, she's very flirty but I was never able to produce a full romantic relationship with her. Might be a bug, IDK, or perhaps you need 5 reputation or something or maybe that's how they intended it. But warm and or vulnerable is a big no no in feminist inspired writing, so it's not _entirely_ progressive.
There is nothing anti-feminist or unprogressive about warmth or vulnerability as character traits for characters of any gender.
Also, reputation levels max out at +2/-2 and Xoti has a full romance. You can look it up on YouTube.
Is it a bug then that it never happened for me? I did all the character quest, all the dialogue options, and had a decent reputation and it never became a courting, let alone a relationship. Perhaps I should report this somehow if that's the case.
I agree, although I am not a feminist. I mean really anything can be considered 'feminist" or not depending on how you spin it.
But because under intersectionality characters become considered avatars for their demographic by the audience, writers tend to stray away from giving their characters any weakness and therefor depth or room to grow. If a character is too stereotypically feminine, as xoti's traits might be classed, then that can be seen as "disempowering". I mean that's not my perspective, I've just seen this sort of commentary plenty of times, that the preference is for "strong characters".
Although I am sure this is also just related to the public hunger for wish forfillment, of which straight men certainly had their fill in the 80s.
It very well could be a bug? I don't know. Either that or you expected more romance content than is in the game.
That isn't a definition of intersectionality that I'm familiar with. It just means that women's experiences with oppression are not uniform and are inextricably linked to other aspects of who they are like social class, ethnic background, nationality, disability, etc. A "strong character" is too nebulously defined to really be a worthwhile category. Maybe if you gave specific examples of writers, media or commentary you are referring to?
That's easy enough. We were already talking about star wars. But you could arguably say that game of thrones treatment of female characters and male characters is distinct from the books as well. That story has completely diverged from the books, seemingly because of a desire to promote strong female characters.
Strong female characters are one of the driving facets about the Game of Thrones novels. If anything, the women in the books are *stronger* female characters, with more things to do and more people to do it to--this is especially notable with the Sand Snakes. The only female character in the books who displays typical markers of femininity is Sansa, and...well, that doesn't go well for her.
The first pillars was correct on this point: no intense SJW propaganda IMO (maybe just the Sagani' story with her role of hunter and her husband who stay at home for the children but it's light) and I LIKE THAT SO MUCH.
What the ****?
So let me get this straight. A female goes out on an adventure while her husband stays home and that's SJW propaganda?
But....why? I don't ****ing understand this. Why does it have be some kind of propaganda for women to go do stuff while men watch the children?
Isn't that just people being ****ing people? What, do you demand that no man ever watches children or else it's SJW propaganda? Are men just not allowed to nurture their young or something?
I personally would not make that statement, but in a tribal hunter gatherer society, where the capacity to breed is the basis for your survival as a tribe, typically such groups do not risk the wellbeing of those that can have babies. So that does seem a tad atypical, although it's possible she's past breeding age, and typically the older people in such communities try to stay as useful as humanly possible when they pass reproductive age.
Actually you can see this prototypical "usefulness to the group" manifest in the huana caste system. Although its portrayed as a bad thing.
Sagani is 57, which puts her at middle age for a species with an average lifespan of 110, and has already had five children--so if "breeding" is a factor, then she's already accomplished that. Beyond that, though--it isn't even true. Some hunter-gatherer societies have division of labor like that, other's don't. Among the Aeta people of the Philippines, who are a modern-day hunter/gatherer tribe that live in isolated groups on the tropical jungle-covered mountains, 85% of women hunt together in small groups using dogs and are almost twice as successful at it as the groups of men--although interesting fact, *mixed-gender groups* are the most successful of all.
That's on top of the fact that modern archeology has shown that pre-Neolithic homo sapiens were quite a *bit* less patriarchal than used to be thought. Modern anthropology considers the division of labor/housekeeping along sex lines to have originated around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, when agriculture brought an excess of stored food such that half the population *could* be kept out of food production without everybody starving to death.
Honestly I think this is an area where having studied, in an academic setting, comparative cultural anthropology has done me some big favors. A *lot* of things people think of as universal human behaviors--like the men hunter/women gatherer division--simply isn't anywhere *close* to universal.
That sounds like an interesting case study. I wonder what they hunt? Maybe their population is abundant/stable, and the prey generally not dangerous. They do seem to have iron weapons, and using dogs as a domestication practice changes things a bit. Obviously there must be no survival anxiety related to hunting hazards, or tribal warfare - the fact they are isolated would help there.
Anyway, more broadly -If that was the case, what you say about the Neolithic - why would we be sexually dimorphic at all? Testosterone for example makes men less anxiety prone, and studies have shown women have lower pain tolerance. Oxytocin makes one more inclined to bond and be social. The absence of testosterone accelerates social and language development, and the presence of it accelerates systemic reasoning - special logic for example. Recent studies of personality metrics, show that all personality differences accounted for - there is around 10 percent overlap. That's quite a bit of psychological and behavioural differences.
The Neolithic is too late for genetic evolution to have occurred. If there was no role specialisation in the paleolithic, where did all the biological differences come from? Primates? And why did they have no impact on stone age society? Agriculture certainly could have deepened gender roles - before industrialisation and machinery, it was pretty much dependant on male labour. In the same way the industrial revolution has minimised gender roles - there's still role diversity, large amounts of it, on aggregate (say nurses versus labourers, or engineers versus biochemists), but we live in safe times, with no fertility threat and little warfare - and a lot of labour can be machine assisted.
I think a similar thing happened when we first started building cities, and even in the late stone age, where there was a deeper abundance and safety - you can see the goddess cults in the late paleolithic, and there's some very matriarchal accounts of the Babylonian era.
-
2
-
-
Actually I thought my last post could use some clarity. I've played through twice with two different play styles. One I played pirate.
I romanced Miai. I explored all her dialogue options, and did her side quest. There wasa clear start, middle, begining and ending. I felt like my character was in a relationship. The story arc had a conclusion. If asked, my character would have said they were dating, lovers or courting at various points.
I did the same with Xoti on my other play through - the one where I earned level 20, did all the quests I could, explored all the map, and played benevolent and passionate.
Did her quest, earned rep with her, explored all her dialogue options. Where it ended and still can be found, in my endgame saves, is "warm appreciation". Not something I'd call definate dating, or lovers, or even courting. more like a sort of "maybe state" where it seems like she might be crushing on me. I've had closer encounters with serafan, to romantic or sexual intimacy, as warm and appreciative as she is, it just never seems to "become" anything.
And this is what I mean by "it goes nowhere". Now maybe I've got a bug, or it's broken or many you need 5 reputation to get anywhere with this plot, but in my experience xoti is not a romancable character, she's a highly flirty character that never makes her intentions clear. Sort of if anything, a frustrating dialogue hole that doesn't feel conclusive. Feels like it never really ends.
Drinks at the bar with Miai, feels like - cool, that ended somewhere, even if everyone sails off into the sunset. Xoti, nothing really, just a lot of oh you are special and thank you.
I have no idea if you had a bug or not as I never romanced her, but maybe you missed a trigger. For Tekehu, you have to go to a specific place and initiate dialogue with him in order to finish the romance.
I don't think there is a quest trigger, from what I've seen, but perhaps there's something in the dialogue that has to happen with other companions first (maybe you need eder or miai in the party IDK). It's definately not as easy to trigger as miai for me, and despite her flirtations with basically everyone that exists lol, her character makes her the most relatable/likeable female IMO. It's weird because she gets this point where everything she says seems …"fond", and then nothing.
I guess relationships aren't exactly the focus of the game, but was a slight disappointment for me. I might start another thread and ask what starts it for others.....
If it makes you feel and better, I wasted my canon Watcher trying to romance Aloth and am closer to -1 than to +1 with hardly any of the game left, and in spite of warping his personality to please Aloth and reloading almost every time Mister Rolleye sighed through his nose, etc
So now my fav Watcher is still single, just like he was in POE1 and never even got to shag a prostitute xDlol, that is disappointing. Some of the npc's just huff about everything don't they? It's kind of realistic though, I mean aloth is sort of a pickle of a personality - introverted, judgemental.
Miai is an easy romance. Her and serafen together make great companions for an evil-lish watcher, lots of jokes and ribbing. I quite enjoyed that, but it's not my style of watcher. I'm so sentimental I can't help but want to play the good guy.
You know who I miss? That crazy drug monk from white march. He was cool. He did all sorts of stupid things. I wouldn't want to romance him, but he was really amusing.
-
2
-
-
How is this triggered?
I have the latern quest done. Fixed her soul issues. No more nightmares. I've got a good rep with her. Explored all the dialogue options. Finished the game (explored all the map). Had her in the party from the start. There's no eder or miai for her to fall for (lol - one is unavailable emotionally, and the other is the thing she hates, an atheist). She basically seems to become "fond and grateful" and that's it. No courting, no relationship.
So for those who have done this, as apparently it can be done - how'd you do it? Or does anyone know what the triggers are?
-
Actually I thought my last post could use some clarity. I've played through twice with two different play styles. One I played pirate.
I romanced Miai. I explored all her dialogue options, and did her side quest. There wasa clear start, middle, begining and ending. I felt like my character was in a relationship. The story arc had a conclusion. If asked, my character would have said they were dating, lovers or courting at various points.
I did the same with Xoti on my other play through - the one where I earned level 20, did all the quests I could, explored all the map, and played benevolent and passionate.
Did her quest, earned rep with her, explored all her dialogue options. Where it ended and still can be found, in my endgame saves, is "warm appreciation". Not something I'd call definate dating, or lovers, or even courting. more like a sort of "maybe state" where it seems like she might be crushing on me. I've had closer encounters with serafan, to romantic or sexual intimacy, as warm and appreciative as she is, it just never seems to "become" anything.
And this is what I mean by "it goes nowhere". Now maybe I've got a bug, or it's broken or many you need 5 reputation to get anywhere with this plot, but in my experience xoti is not a romancable character, she's a highly flirty character that never makes her intentions clear. Sort of if anything, a frustrating dialogue hole that doesn't feel conclusive. Feels like it never really ends.
Drinks at the bar with Miai, feels like - cool, that ended somewhere, even if everyone sails off into the sunset. Xoti, nothing really, just a lot of oh you are special and thank you.
I have no idea if you had a bug or not as I never romanced her, but maybe you missed a trigger. For Tekehu, you have to go to a specific place and initiate dialogue with him in order to finish the romance.
I don't think there is a quest trigger, from what I've seen, but perhaps there's something in the dialogue that has to happen with other companions first (maybe you need eder or miai in the party IDK). It's definately not as easy to trigger as miai for me, and despite her flirtations with basically everyone that exists lol, her character makes her the most relatable/likeable female IMO. It's weird because she gets this point where everything she says seems …"fond", and then nothing.
I guess relationships aren't exactly the focus of the game, but was a slight disappointment for me. I might start another thread and ask what starts it for others.....
-
1
-
-
The first pillars was correct on this point: no intense SJW propaganda IMO (maybe just the Sagani' story with her role of hunter and her husband who stay at home for the children but it's light) and I LIKE THAT SO MUCH.
What the ****?
So let me get this straight. A female goes out on an adventure while her husband stays home and that's SJW propaganda?
But....why? I don't ****ing understand this. Why does it have be some kind of propaganda for women to go do stuff while men watch the children?
Isn't that just people being ****ing people? What, do you demand that no man ever watches children or else it's SJW propaganda? Are men just not allowed to nurture their young or something?
I personally would not make that statement, but in a tribal hunter gatherer society, where the capacity to breed is the basis for your survival as a tribe, typically such groups do not risk the wellbeing of those that can have babies. So that does seem a tad atypical, although it's possible she's past breeding age, and typically the older people in such communities try to stay as useful as humanly possible when they pass reproductive age.
Actually you can see this prototypical "usefulness to the group" manifest in the huana caste system. Although its portrayed as a bad thing.
-
You really need help... You seem upset that one of the characters wasn't white - how does that make it an agenda? And which ugly women?I think it's about Star Wars VIII, withoutsoul and an agenda of racial quota and ugly women in the Resistance.
The latest star wars Film was great and Rei and fynn (not sure how their names are spelt in the film) are very funny and just what the star wars films needed
The treatment of luke for example, was completely out of character - dude tries to save his dark side dad, and turns around and tries to kill a child because he might get up to no good.
No, actually, he doesn't. He thinks about it *for a moment*, and then he *chooses not to*. At that point Kylo wakes up, senses the thought, and attacks him.
And Luke is *horrified* at himself for even having the thought.
It's still out of character IMO. The new verson of luke, IMO, doesn't seem to remotely resemble the old version.
-
Xoti is a bit of an exception, because she's warm. I think she might be the only warm or vulnerable female NPC I encountered in the game. For whatever reason though, she's very flirty but I was never able to produce a full romantic relationship with her. Might be a bug, IDK, or perhaps you need 5 reputation or something or maybe that's how they intended it. But warm and or vulnerable is a big no no in feminist inspired writing, so it's not _entirely_ progressive.
There is nothing anti-feminist or unprogressive about warmth or vulnerability as character traits for characters of any gender.
Also, reputation levels max out at +2/-2 and Xoti has a full romance. You can look it up on YouTube.
Is it a bug then that it never happened for me? I did all the character quest, all the dialogue options, and had a decent reputation and it never became a courting, let alone a relationship. Perhaps I should report this somehow if that's the case.
I agree, although I am not a feminist. I mean really anything can be considered 'feminist" or not depending on how you spin it.
But because under intersectionality characters become considered avatars for their demographic by the audience, writers tend to stray away from giving their characters any weakness and therefor depth or room to grow. If a character is too stereotypically feminine, as xoti's traits might be classed, then that can be seen as "disempowering". I mean that's not my perspective, I've just seen this sort of commentary plenty of times, that the preference is for "strong characters".
Although I am sure this is also just related to the public hunger for wish forfillment, of which straight men certainly had their fill in the 80s.
It very well could be a bug? I don't know. Either that or you expected more romance content than is in the game.
That isn't a definition of intersectionality that I'm familiar with. It just means that women's experiences with oppression are not uniform and are inextricably linked to other aspects of who they are like social class, ethnic background, nationality, disability, etc. A "strong character" is too nebulously defined to really be a worthwhile category. Maybe if you gave specific examples of writers, media or commentary you are referring to?
That's easy enough. We were already talking about star wars. But you could arguably say that game of thrones treatment of female characters and male characters is distinct from the books as well. That story has completely diverged from the books, seemingly because of a desire to promote strong female characters. Obviously it's still much better writing that star wars. It's pretty common these days, that you get two dimensional female characters, particularly in action films. It's not entirely distinct, it reminds one of james bond, chuck Norris or neo of the matrix films. It's wish forfillment. But it's fairly common these days in story telling. Typically like james bond, the character is without flaw, a little emotionally cold, generic, doesn't grow, does everything without difficulty.
As some counterpoints - westworld's lead has some complexity, originally some frailty and now some darkness. It has strong female characters, but it doesn't entirely shirk the bio sex as a concept - the creators all primarily male for example, as techies typically are. I think this character kind of stands out, because I think they are turning her into a villan, or making her 'loose her way". and female villans are both not that common, and often even more 2 dimensional - sexual, but not creepy, manipulative, attractive etc.
The AO is an amazing TV show that deals with transgenderism, and has strong female characters- but they are filled with confusion doubt, the story doesn't make any assumptions about the audience, and tries to draw you in to those complexities.
-
The first part of this post is fair enough. It doesn't really invalidate these being topics that might rile people up on both sides of the political fence, but it's fair enough, and if that's what they wanted to do, that's fair and well.
As I said, I enjoyed the game, and these felt, as a whole (mostly), more as options or side elements than anything central.
I don't think I am off base in assuming who the ordinary person is, or the typical rpg gamer (which is a crowd that is probably more diverse than the mainstream but still has it's demographic averages), but perhaps I am in who the target audience is. Certainly pillars of eternity isn't for the proper mainstream - it's not an action RPG full of gore, it's a story based tale thats a bit niche.
I think probably what's happening here is that because obsidian work with backers, they feel a duty and desire to please them as much as possible, rather than the typical commercial set-up of trying to appeal to a larger demographic. And the crowd that does play rpgs, rather than shooters etc is a tad more diverse than that demographic, and so obsidian wants to please everyone in that group rather than the bulk of them. And likely yes, the coders are reasonably diverse too. So they decided to go in a direction that was influenced by that backer process.
It's a bit of a contrast with poe1 though - the animancy plot for example.
As I said, I'm not going to tell anyone how to create, as if they had to listen.
I personally thought it could have gone in a more adult type direction, especially for a pirate setting. Kinda safe in some ways. And the main arc, didn't have a character conflict - you had a slight influence on the ending and that's it. You almost could have not been there. The broader plot was well connected to the main one. There was art in there. I loved the game, but there are those complaining about the writing, and I can kind of see why.
But I did play the game twice, so it's definately fun, and better in many ways than the first. But perhaps the complaint of some people (and not really me, because I did enjoy the game thoroughly), is it might feel like in trying to cater for everyone that they (whomever they are) weren't catered to. And maybe they are just used to being the focus demographic historically for these sort of games. Which isn't invalid, but it's also up to the creators whom they serve.
I guess, that this isn't really a power fantasy, or hero's journey and more as you suggest, more of an idealistic or optimistic tale. Different groups gets along, gender and sexual equality, the pirates have moral standards, everything has clean moral lines, commerce is evil etc and apart from the cliffhanger, everyone sails off into the sunset.
I did at one point feel like I should empathise with the lizard people for quasi-environmental reasons. Which isn't at all typical for a rpg game. And it has those themes of progressive leaning films of being anti-traditional, and pro 'progress' too. So maybe all that was the intent, deliberate. It certainly was packed with subtle political innuendo, whether than was intentional or just a product of the creative teams bent. It's certainly the creators right to express what ever ideas they wish, and the audiences right to make what they will of it.
So if I'm understanding you correctly, your argument is that Obsidian is trying to cater to their backer audience but is misguided as to who their audience is and what they want? I'm not sure what you mean by a more "adult" direction either unless you mean that including women, LGBT people and people of color as oppressed groups would make the setting grittier and therefore less "safe".
I also disagree that the story is idealistic or optimistic, firstly because it has variable endings, but more importantly because bigotry, caste systems, slavery, colonialism, and all sorts of other gritty elements exist in the setting, they just don't affect the same groups who are overwhelmingly affected by this stuff in real life. Not to mention that the resolution to most of the conflicts in the quests are firmly in morally grey territory. Your other points about the writing are valid but seem irrelevant to the argument you were making, at least as I understood it.
I don't think I was making an argument, just sharing my thoughts.
With the backer thing, I was just saying that "trying to please everyone" might be a tendancy that direct engagement and dependence on crowdfunding could produce, whereas in a conventional art as commerce company, you would look to your major demographics rather than trying to please everyone at once. IDK, if this is true or not. But it seems like a reasonable, logical possibility. Much like direct engagement and dependence on your consumers as a salesperson would give you a less detached view than being a CEO (as well as a more detailed picture)
My comment on "more adult" was really just a seperate opinion. The first game kind of broke ground by having a fair bit of swearing etc, and not being mainstream or under the control of a distribution company seems like an ideal time to go full game of thrones - and have gore, sex, swearing, drug use as central elements in the main story. Whilst there are things like slavery in the game, and caste systems, it's not super punchy. Some of it is. I did like the sense of desperation in that poor distrinct. That seemed colourful, and compelling. The miai quest had some punch too.
Perhaps you are right though in your statement about optimism - there are plenty of darker themes in the game, and some of them are quite compelling. And it is probably safer using species as a metaphor for race than actually using race (not safer as in bad, safer as in a smarter commercial choice, less divisive way to handle the same topics). There is certainly some optimism in the plot though, it's not really dark or optimistic. Sort of a mixture. Some of the gods rants are a tad bleak.
When it comes to adult, IDK, I look at something like "black sails". for comparison here on the pirate setting. The social taboo in that plotline (outside of the pirate community) for the main characters gay relationship was very compelling. The grit of the violence and betrayal, the greed. I guess this is not typically, what crpgs do, this whole prestige TV style grit, but it would IMO, be fun to see. To be visceral, such a story would need to be more than words on a screen though - it would need to be imagery at least, something with a more visual/sonic punch. Emotive.
Fantasy is a traditionally more optimistic and family friendly genre. Game of thrones/fire and ice has shown us, that it doesn't have to be. I just wonder what a story of betrayal, scheming, affairs, war would look like in a crpg.
I guess such a game would be slightly less divine/magic oriented, and probably need to be more action/difficulty oriented. Not exactly the same kind of game, but a story rich arpg with adult themes, meaningful choices and a sprinkle of moral greyness, could really push an envelope in gaming. Put in some saucey storylines and place some battles in the centre of an epic battlefield. It would be very interesting to see conflict of that scale in this unique setting too. But as I say, maybe that would be a different game altogether.
-
I did like the writing for the two companies versus the natives. That's probably one of the strongest points of the game - yes, neither of the companies is entirely good or bad (although there is a cut-throat element that's emphasized, it's not all their is), and the huana are in a strict and confining caste system. It's one of the choices that felt quite meaningful, and told a compelling story.
You are right though that the disposition/reputation system, it's doesn't exactly track. But I've honestly never seen a system like that, which is unbreakable.
-
2
-
-
You really need help... You seem upset that one of the characters wasn't white - how does that make it an agenda? And which ugly women?I think it's about Star Wars VIII, withoutsoul and an agenda of racial quota and ugly women in the Resistance.
The latest star wars Film was great and Rei and fynn (not sure how their names are spelt in the film) are very funny and just what the star wars films needed
I'm going to have to disagree with that, but for entirely different reasons. The latest movie changed/altered the lore, and the historical characters. It was a very intentional act to sever star wars from it's ancestory based, monastic, religious and classical thinking underpinnings. The treatment of luke for example, was completely out of character - dude tries to save his dark side dad, and turns around and tries to kill a child because he might get up to no good. To many fans of the series, that's a turn against the prior movies, and a bit of an insult to the fanbase.
Personally I could forgive the left leaning narratives if they had not done this. They are distracting when you personally no longer think that way for the most part, but It's hard to find a movie out of hollyweird that doesn't have that bent so you best get used to it. Either than or take up reading
-
1
-
-
Xoti is a bit of an exception, because she's warm. I think she might be the only warm or vulnerable female NPC I encountered in the game. For whatever reason though, she's very flirty but I was never able to produce a full romantic relationship with her. Might be a bug, IDK, or perhaps you need 5 reputation or something or maybe that's how they intended it. But warm and or vulnerable is a big no no in feminist inspired writing, so it's not _entirely_ progressive.
There is nothing anti-feminist or unprogressive about warmth or vulnerability as character traits for characters of any gender.
Also, reputation levels max out at +2/-2 and Xoti has a full romance. You can look it up on YouTube.
Is it a bug then that it never happened for me? I did all the character quest, all the dialogue options, and had a decent reputation and it never became a courting, let alone a relationship. Perhaps I should report this somehow if that's the case.
I agree, although I am not a feminist. I mean really anything can be considered 'feminist" or not depending on how you spin it.
But because under intersectionality characters become considered avatars for their demographic by the audience, writers tend to stray away from giving their characters any weakness and therefor depth or room to grow. If a character is too stereotypically feminine, as xoti's traits might be classed, then that can be seen as "disempowering". I mean that's not my perspective, I've just seen this sort of commentary plenty of times, that the preference is for "strong characters".
Although I am sure this is also just related to the public hunger for wish forfillment, of which straight men certainly had their fill in the 80s.
-
TBH, it's hard to write moral tales for the modern audience. You have this increasing political divide, with the new right, new centrists and then progressives, and they have completely different ideas what makes a moral right. How do you write to that?
You don't. You write however you want to. It's your prerogative as an artist. And it's fiction so you don't have to care about anyone in particular.
Well that's true and it isn't. I mean a studio like obsidian has to fund it's employees, hopefully grow. Like any art that is commercial, be it movies or tv, or video games it has to contend with what the audience wants, and be entertainment first, and messaging and art second. Or otherwise blend the two.
Obsidian isn't entirely a startup indie, but isn't a massive software studio either, so it gets room for creativity for sure.
When it comes to increasing ideological differences in this age, that means ideally, you either try and balance it all, or you pick a lane. I don't think these decisions have majorly or minorly effected its saleability, but I am just saying that if I was a writer, this would be something I would consider - the ideological device in the current year, even if many writers don't. It makes some story lines more broadly appealing, and some more divisive.
In a way, it's easier to default to a classic story writing mode, like game of thrones, westworld or the walking dead rather than going left wing IMO, for broad appeal. Mass audiences these days seem to respond to epic tales with grit, violence, sex and moral greys. I think the same would be true of video games. Here, rather than having the morals of the story be dictated by political leaning, they simply having a few strong characters of all demographics. And I think that's changed versus five years ago even where progressivism was more dominant.
The world, is in a way, still dealing/struggling with the changes, let alone adapted and aware of them. It's strange because in a way, this is the centre and the right as it's always been - conserving traditions, upholding biological absolutes - preservation oriented, value and duty orientated. But suddenly in the last decade or so, these have been classes as "enemy" positions and incomprehensible, despite a constant right wing drift of all generations as the age (including millennials according to recent studies).
So now my fav Watcher is still single, just like he was in POE1 and never even got to shag a prostitute xD
Is Pillars of Eternity II men hating pro feminist game.
in Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire General Discussion (NO SPOILERS)
Posted · Edited by drael6464
I know this is well outside of the forum topics. But lets say you are right- let's say there is an emergent reactionary movement in the form of gamergate thats growing. How did it come about. What were the conditions that caused it uniquely to emerge now instead of say, in the nineties? How do we alter those conditions to change the outcome?
It's a common human reaction to see something and be like 'that's bad, boo'. But that's a form of reactionary response in itself. It's not nessasarily the adaptive response that will find a solution.
It's a little like drug policy. Sure it's not helpful or productive to use any psychoactive for mood. But people do. Banning them doesn't stop them, condemning them doesn't stop it, and liberalising all drugs is off the table. So instead of working from a framework of moral judgement, you work from the perspective of reducing the side effects - cleaner drugs, lower harm drugs, market controls, education etc.