Fable: The Rings of Power

[Bertram_Tung]

Why do you think the words "pressured", "coerced", and "forced" can apply to someone who's already willing to do something?

False premise and totally ignored what I said. Nice little communist struggle session attempt, but I'm good, bro.

What are you even trying to argue here? It sounded like you were trying to argue that game devs weren't libtarded before Sweet Baby Inc.

Nope, re-read all my posts.

[Stack of Turtles]

False premise and totally ignored what I said. Nice little communist struggle session attempt, but I'm good, bro.

What are you even trying to argue here? It sounded like you were trying to argue that game devs weren't libtarded before Sweet Baby Inc.

Nope, re-read all my posts.

The problem is that you have this habit of using words according to your own personal definitions, so it can be a bit hard to follow. At this point, though, I have become convinced that nothing you said actually matters, so we can just give up on this now if you want.

[ThulsaDoomer]

I personally don't think understanding why it was done is not important at all, only the question of if its gay matters for the purposes of whether you or your fellow chuds should play the game. Full condemnation of 2 men kissing even if they had a really good reason is the best and most efficient position for gaming, and presumably the rest of life.

I agree, I believe I missed the point I was trying to make there. What I meant was that by analysing subversive and ideological media, you can make better judgements in the future and contribute to helping others understand what they are consuming is negatively impacting their lives, as well as others. I also personally care about the ideological motivations and justifications people employ, but I concede that is not a relevant interest for most, who rightfully just don't want to engage with such rancid content. I got jdcp to ignore me over quoting Pat Buchanon's views on homosexuals, I'm right there with you on them being vile evil creatures who should be cleansed from the earth.

[DDC]

Yeah but imagine if every time devs made a really good game they didn't add sections where you have to pretend to be a woman to progress the main story. The prospective audience for any new promising games with gay **** in it could embargo the game until the devs are forced to capitulate and patch out the gay stuff, its never been more achievable now that games can be changed in real time over opinionated players pressuring and harassing devs. We would be fools to not use the benefits of modern times, and harassing libtards who put annoying **** in videogames to spite you is a Divine mission.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
That's actually one of the many reasons it's different now than it used to be, which (I think) is part of what Kolgrim was saying.

Fair, its hard not to be overly harsh when looking back in posterity. But the least you can do is to admit that the things in the past were less gay only because the heat in the pot hadn't been brought to a boil yet. If even many of the all time classics had annoying woke moments in them, that just means we haven't seen the true golden age of gaming yet. Better times are yet to come.

The inquiry I always make is whether the intent of the content was to normalize [woke thing]. There is a subset of young chuds these days who will automatically brand something as "woke" if it has anything on a certain checklist, not understanding that the intent in including them may have been very different decades ago. Is two dudes kissing automatically woke? No, there was a time when the developer expected the vast majority of the playerbase to naturally feel revulsion and disgust, and the player's disgust would be riffed off of for laughs. That's very different from trying to portray faggotry in a sensitive and positive way. Was the original FF7 cross-dressing scene "woke"? I've never thought that. It's supposed to be humorous, working from the premise that engaging in crossdressing is humiliation rather than a positive thing. But I have seen it claimed otherwise. You have the same thing in Persona 3. Did they have "***** representation" in the original game, or were they mocking (rather than normalizing) ******?

https://www.ign.com/articles/persona-3- ... f-dialogue

You cannot evaluate old media using current frameworks because the decision process was so different then. Today if you put a ***** in a game, 99.9% of the time it was a carefully considered decision designed to normalize and increase representation. But 20-30 years ago, it wouldn't have been thought about nearly as much, and in all likelihood, someone threw it in off the cuff for laughs, and the creator himself probably thought ******** and ******* were deviant freaks. So, I would argue that many things in the past seemed less gay because they actually were less gay, and that applying current "purity tests" is unfair.

[Bertram_Tung]

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
That's actually one of the many reasons it's different now than it used to be, which (I think) is part of what Kolgrim was saying.

Fair, its hard not to be overly harsh when looking back in posterity. But the least you can do is to admit that the things in the past were less gay only because the heat in the pot hadn't been brought to a boil yet. If even many of the all time classics had annoying woke moments in them, that just means we haven't seen the true golden age of gaming yet. Better times are yet to come.

The inquiry I always make is whether the intent of the content was to normalize [woke thing]. There is a subset of young chuds these days who will automatically brand something as "woke" if it has anything on a certain checklist, not understanding that the intent in including them may have been very different decades ago. Is two dudes kissing automatically woke? No, there was a time when the developer expected the vast majority of the playerbase to naturally feel revulsion and disgust, and the player's disgust would be riffed off of for laughs. That's very different from trying to portray faggotry in a sensitive and positive way. Was the original FF7 cross-dressing scene "woke"? I've never thought that. It's supposed to be humorous, working from the premise that engaging in crossdressing is humiliation rather than a positive thing. But I have seen it claimed otherwise. You have the same thing in Persona 3. Did they have "***** representation" in the original game, or were they mocking (rather than normalizing) ******?

https://www.ign.com/articles/persona-3- ... f-dialogue

You cannot evaluate old media using current frameworks because the decision process was so different then. Today if you put a ***** in a game, 99.9% of the time it was a carefully considered decision designed to normalize and increase representation. But 20-30 years ago, it wouldn't have been thought about nearly as much, and in all likelihood, someone threw it in off the cuff for laughs, and the creator himself probably thought ******** and ******* were deviant freaks. So, I would argue that many things in the past seemed less gay because they actually were less gay, and that applying current "purity tests" is unfair.

This is a well-reasoned and logical take that will ring true for anyone who lived through that era, so naturally it will draw disagreement from zoomer contrarians born a decade after those games and foreigners who got their first computer in 2014.

[TKVNC]

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
That's actually one of the many reasons it's different now than it used to be, which (I think) is part of what Kolgrim was saying.

Fair, its hard not to be overly harsh when looking back in posterity. But the least you can do is to admit that the things in the past were less gay only because the heat in the pot hadn't been brought to a boil yet. If even many of the all time classics had annoying woke moments in them, that just means we haven't seen the true golden age of gaming yet. Better times are yet to come.

The inquiry I always make is whether the intent of the content was to normalize [woke thing]. There is a subset of young chuds these days who will automatically brand something as "woke" if it has anything on a certain checklist, not understanding that the intent in including them may have been very different decades ago. Is two dudes kissing automatically woke? No, there was a time when the developer expected the vast majority of the playerbase to naturally feel revulsion and disgust, and the player's disgust would be riffed off of for laughs. That's very different from trying to portray faggotry in a sensitive and positive way. Was the original FF7 cross-dressing scene "woke"? I've never thought that. It's supposed to be humorous, working from the premise that engaging in crossdressing is humiliation rather than a positive thing. But I have seen it claimed otherwise. You have the same thing in Persona 3. Did they have "***** representation" in the original game, or were they mocking (rather than normalizing) ******?

https://www.ign.com/articles/persona-3- ... f-dialogue

You cannot evaluate old media using current frameworks because the decision process was so different then. Today if you put a ***** in a game, 99.9% of the time it was a carefully considered decision designed to normalize and increase representation. But 20-30 years ago, it wouldn't have been thought about nearly as much, and in all likelihood, someone threw it in off the cuff for laughs, and the creator himself probably thought ******** and ******* were deviant freaks. So, I would argue that many things in the past seemed less gay because they actually were less gay, and that applying current "purity tests" is unfair.

I think you're actually quite close the truth.

There is probably an element of the bleeding edge of subversion hidden in there too. In Fable 1's case, I am certain being a *** was supposed to be a joke, rather than something to be taken seriously. Even in Fable 2, people reacted with disgust if you wore female armour / clothing.

Yet, you have to wonder, why was it put in the game for the player to engage in? You could have used it as a humour device with just NPC's. An example would be French Tom from GTA IV.

It's difficult to not view the past with our current lens, because libtardery is an all-encompassing zero-sum game. But I think we can just refuse to play their game.

[Acrux]

What about those of us born in the 70s for whom this doesn't ring true? Who saw culture get dismantled bit by bit by corporations who were trying to have it both ways? "Republicans buy sneakers, too" was bigger than just Michael Jordan.

[Algol]

I wonder if this new Fable is the "last breath" of the trannypocalypse that's been in gayming now for far too long?

[TKVNC]

I wonder if this new Fable is the "last breath" of the trannypocalpyse that's been in gayming now for far too long?

Sadly I doubt it.

Until the studios are dismantled and the IP's are abandoned, it's not going to end.

[Stack of Turtles]

I think you're actually quite close the truth.

There is probably an element of the bleeding edge of subversion hidden in there too. In Fable 1's case, I am certain being a *** was supposed to be a joke, rather than something to be taken seriously. Even in Fable 2, people reacted with disgust if you wore female armour / clothing.

Yet, you have to wonder, why was it put in the game for the player to engage in? You could have used it as a humour device with just NPC's. An example would be French Tom from GTA IV.

It's difficult to not view the past with our current lens, because libtardery is an all-encompassing zero-sum game. But I think we can just refuse to play their game.

The core issue is that there were multiple people involved with competing intentions, and making something a joke is in itself a form of normalization.

For example... one of the most common ways to make crossdressing a joke, like in that Final Fantasy game, is by having a man fall for it and be attracted to the crossdressing guy. That, in itself, is a way to spread the idea that a man in a dress can look like an attractive woman. That was part of what made it permissible to liberals to make those jokes back then.

[TKVNC]

I think you're actually quite close the truth.

There is probably an element of the bleeding edge of subversion hidden in there too. In Fable 1's case, I am certain being a *** was supposed to be a joke, rather than something to be taken seriously. Even in Fable 2, people reacted with disgust if you wore female armour / clothing.

Yet, you have to wonder, why was it put in the game for the player to engage in? You could have used it as a humour device with just NPC's. An example would be French Tom from GTA IV.

It's difficult to not view the past with our current lens, because libtardery is an all-encompassing zero-sum game. But I think we can just refuse to play their game.

The core issue is that there were multiple people involved with competing intentions, and making something a joke is in itself a form of normalization.

For example... one of the most common ways to make crossdressing a joke, like in that Final Fantasy game, is by having a man fall for it and be attracted to the crossdressing guy. That, in itself, is a way to spread the idea that a man in a dress can look like an attractive woman. That was part of what made it permissible to liberals to make those jokes back then.

Fair point.

[Bertram_Tung]

I think you're actually quite close the truth.

There is probably an element of the bleeding edge of subversion hidden in there too. In Fable 1's case, I am certain being a *** was supposed to be a joke, rather than something to be taken seriously. Even in Fable 2, people reacted with disgust if you wore female armour / clothing.

Yet, you have to wonder, why was it put in the game for the player to engage in? You could have used it as a humour device with just NPC's. An example would be French Tom from GTA IV.

It's difficult to not view the past with our current lens, because libtardery is an all-encompassing zero-sum game. But I think we can just refuse to play their game.

The core issue is that there were multiple people involved with competing intentions, and making something a joke is in itself a form of normalization.

For example... one of the most common ways to make crossdressing a joke, like in that Final Fantasy game, is by having a man fall for it and be attracted to the crossdressing guy. That, in itself, is a way to spread the idea that a man in a dress can look like an attractive woman. That was part of what made it permissible to liberals to make those jokes back then.

You went from "every dev was woke to begin with" to "erm people can have competing intentions" pretty quickly!

[maidenhaver]

What about those of us born in the 70s for whom this doesn't ring true? Who saw culture get dismantled bit by bit by corporations who were trying to have it both ways? "Republicans buy sneakers, too" was bigger than just Michael Jordan.

Don't let any son of a ***** tell you what you saw.

[Stack of Turtles]

I think you're actually quite close the truth.

There is probably an element of the bleeding edge of subversion hidden in there too. In Fable 1's case, I am certain being a *** was supposed to be a joke, rather than something to be taken seriously. Even in Fable 2, people reacted with disgust if you wore female armour / clothing.

Yet, you have to wonder, why was it put in the game for the player to engage in? You could have used it as a humour device with just NPC's. An example would be French Tom from GTA IV.

It's difficult to not view the past with our current lens, because libtardery is an all-encompassing zero-sum game. But I think we can just refuse to play their game.

The core issue is that there were multiple people involved with competing intentions, and making something a joke is in itself a form of normalization.

For example... one of the most common ways to make crossdressing a joke, like in that Final Fantasy game, is by having a man fall for it and be attracted to the crossdressing guy. That, in itself, is a way to spread the idea that a man in a dress can look like an attractive woman. That was part of what made it permissible to liberals to make those jokes back then.

You went from "every dev was woke to begin with" to "erm people can have competing intentions" pretty quickly!

I'm not going to explain this to you when you're just being petulant. It's already become clear that you and I define "woke" differently.

[Bertram_Tung]

The core issue is that there were multiple people involved with competing intentions, and making something a joke is in itself a form of normalization.

For example... one of the most common ways to make crossdressing a joke, like in that Final Fantasy game, is by having a man fall for it and be attracted to the crossdressing guy. That, in itself, is a way to spread the idea that a man in a dress can look like an attractive woman. That was part of what made it permissible to liberals to make those jokes back then.

You went from "every dev was woke to begin with" to "erm people can have competing intentions" pretty quickly!

I'm not going to explain this to you when you're just being petulant. It's already become clear that you and I define "woke" differently.

So can they have competing and different interests or was every single dev working on video games for the last 35 years a woke libtard like rusty, oyster and you have been asserting?

You don't have to remain dug in to such a delusional take just for turtle points, you can be reasonable. I've seen you do it before.

[Bertram_Tung]

What about those of us born in the 70s for whom this doesn't ring true? Who saw culture get dismantled bit by bit by corporations who were trying to have it both ways? "Republicans buy sneakers, too" was bigger than just Michael Jordan.

Don't let any son of a ***** tell you what you saw.

Don't worry, I won't.

[rusty_shackleford]

fable?

[Bertram_Tung]

fable?

Who cares about fable, that game sucks.

[maidenhaver]

[Stack of Turtles]

So can they have competing and different interests or was every single dev working on video games for the last 35 years a woke libtard like rusty, oyster and you have been asserting?

These aren't mutually exclusive.

Essentially every media creator of any kind for the last 100 years has been a libtard, because they're virtually all drawn from the same educated middle-class stratum where pretty much everyone has been raised to be a libtard since libtardery conclusively became the default elite opinion centuries ago. (Striver classes always adopt perceived elite aesthetics.) Yes, "essentially", "virtually", if you can't handle the basic concept of exaggeration then you're just being a prick for no reason.

25+ years ago, it was considered okay for libtards to make jokes about ******** in order to promote the liberal ideology of being "edgy", which is to say, subversive. This was essentially due to a complex calculus where ******** were not yet considered the most important oppressed class, while making jokes about them was a way to increase their "visibility" and thereby raise their status in the victim hierarchy. Libtards making jokes don't process this consciously; instead they are policed by public reaction, where they learn not to "go too far" by what causes some advocacy group to demand an apology, which they always give because they're nice libtards who hasten to reassure everyone that they never meant any offense against any real-life ******** in particular.

We had this same conversation before about South Park and it's a perfect encapsulation of this phenomenon. You can see it in, eg, the gay and occasionally transsexual teacher. You'd be an idiot if you think the libtard creators hate gays. Rather, at any given social moment, they understand subconsciously that they are allowed to make certain jokes about gays because making jokes about them is itself a normalizing, "humanizing" process.

This is not because they "weren't woke". They were libtards with the same essential nature today as they had then. The difference is that today, the acceptable limits of behavior which have been programmed into them have become narrower as these groups have already been brought into mainstream visibility, so instead of "haha, isn't it funny how they're like that?", it becomes necessary to move to a deprogramming phase of "isn't it funny that some people think they're like that when they aren't really like that?", so that everyone can be taught to remember that stereotypes are bad; and once a group feel secure in being mainstreamed, suddenly the stereotype becomes fine again because it's perceived as harmless because "it's funny how they're like that (and that's a good thing)". (You see this latter effect with gays already. There was an initial phase where the joke was about gays being mincing poofs to humanize them, then the joke always had to be about people EXPECTING gays to be mincing poofs when they're actually (portrayed as) hypermasculine/normal/anything else, but now mainstream middle-class culture is perfectly comfortable with mincing poofs and has them running the most popular talk shows, so it's okay for that to be the joke again. Another example: Blacks acting like ******* has been so thoroughly normalized now that many people hardly believe there was actually a time when the highbrow joke was always about blacks being nerdy or cowardly or pompous or other non-negritudinous behaviors.)

This is of a piece with the way I use the word "wokeness". It's "gay race communism", as Rusty says. It's what Jewish comedians used to do when they made jokes about controlling the media. (Nowadays **** are feeling insecure again and don't do that sort of thing as much.) It's the reason feminist wannabe-comedians would make jokes about having a hundred abortions. It's all about establishing libtardism as the socially prestigious ideology. I gather that you have a more narrow definition of "wokeness", although you haven't actually explained it, so you don't see this as the same thing, but for me and for many people who saw a wider range of it, like Acrux said, it's all just a monolith.

So yes, they can have competing and different interests and still be woke libtards, because there are multiple complementary ways to push woke libtardism.

[Bertram_Tung]

So can they have competing and different interests or was every single dev working on video games for the last 35 years a woke libtard like rusty, oyster and you have been asserting?

These aren't mutually exclusive.

Essentially every media creator of any kind for the last 100 years has been a libtard, because they're virtually all drawn from the same educated middle-class stratum where pretty much everyone has been raised to be a libtard since libtardery conclusively became the default elite opinion centuries ago. (Striver classes always adopt perceived elite aesthetics.) Yes, "essentially", "virtually", if you can't handle the basic concept of exaggeration then you're just being a prick for no reason.

25+ years ago, it was considered okay for libtards to make jokes about ******** in order to promote the liberal ideology of being "edgy", which is to say, subversive. This was essentially due to a complex calculus where ******** were not yet considered the most important oppressed class, while making jokes about them was a way to increase their "visibility" and thereby raise their status in the victim hierarchy. Libtards making jokes don't process this consciously; instead they are policed by public reaction, where they learn not to "go too far" by what causes some advocacy group to demand an apology, which they always give because they're nice libtards who hasten to reassure everyone that they never meant any offense against any real-life ******** in particular.

We had this same conversation before about South Park and it's a perfect encapsulation of this phenomenon. You can see it in, eg, the gay and occasionally transsexual teacher. You'd be an idiot if you think the libtard creators hate gays. Rather, at any given social moment, they understand subconsciously that they are allowed to make certain jokes about gays because making jokes about them is itself a normalizing, "humanizing" process.

This is not because they "weren't woke". They were libtards with the same essential nature today as they had then. The difference is that today, the acceptable limits of behavior which have been programmed into them have become narrower as these groups have already been brought into mainstream visibility, so instead of "haha, isn't it funny how they're like that?", it becomes necessary to move to a deprogramming phase of "isn't it funny that some people think they're like that when they aren't really like that?", so that everyone can be taught to remember that stereotypes are bad; and once a group feel secure in being mainstreamed, suddenly the stereotype becomes fine again because it's perceived as harmless because "it's funny how they're like that (and that's a good thing)". (You see this latter effect with gays already. There was an initial phase where the joke was about gays being mincing poofs to humanize them, then the joke always had to be about people EXPECTING gays to be mincing poofs when they're actually (portrayed as) hypermasculine/normal/anything else, but now mainstream middle-class culture is perfectly comfortable with mincing poofs and has them running the most popular talk shows, so it's okay for that to be the joke again. Another example: Blacks acting like ******* has been so thoroughly normalized now that many people hardly believe there was actually a time when the highbrow joke was always about blacks being nerdy or cowardly or pompous or other non-negritudinous behaviors.)

This is of a piece with the way I use the word "wokeness". It's "gay race communism", as Rusty says. It's what Jewish comedians used to do when they made jokes about controlling the media. (Nowadays **** are feeling insecure again and don't do that sort of thing as much.) It's the reason feminist wannabe-comedians would make jokes about having a hundred abortions. It's all about establishing libtardism as the socially prestigious ideology. I gather that you have a more narrow definition of "wokeness", although you haven't actually explained it, so you don't see this as the same thing, but for me and for many people who saw a wider range of it, like Acrux said, it's all just a monolith.

So yes, they can have competing and different interests and still be woke libtards, because there are multiple complementary ways to push woke libtardism.

Our definition of woke may not fully match but that was not my main point of contention. My point of contention was your claim of near absolute uniformity that game devs have been a monolith of wokeness or cultural marxism from day one. And now you are actually doubling down by extending that to "virtually" all media creators of fhe last 100 years. That's an absurd over reach, obviously. It's not a serious stance.

[Stack of Turtles]

So can they have competing and different interests or was every single dev working on video games for the last 35 years a woke libtard like rusty, oyster and you have been asserting?

These aren't mutually exclusive.

Essentially every media creator of any kind for the last 100 years has been a libtard, because they're virtually all drawn from the same educated middle-class stratum where pretty much everyone has been raised to be a libtard since libtardery conclusively became the default elite opinion centuries ago. (Striver classes always adopt perceived elite aesthetics.) Yes, "essentially", "virtually", if you can't handle the basic concept of exaggeration then you're just being a prick for no reason.

25+ years ago, it was considered okay for libtards to make jokes about ******** in order to promote the liberal ideology of being "edgy", which is to say, subversive. This was essentially due to a complex calculus where ******** were not yet considered the most important oppressed class, while making jokes about them was a way to increase their "visibility" and thereby raise their status in the victim hierarchy. Libtards making jokes don't process this consciously; instead they are policed by public reaction, where they learn not to "go too far" by what causes some advocacy group to demand an apology, which they always give because they're nice libtards who hasten to reassure everyone that they never meant any offense against any real-life ******** in particular.

We had this same conversation before about South Park and it's a perfect encapsulation of this phenomenon. You can see it in, eg, the gay and occasionally transsexual teacher. You'd be an idiot if you think the libtard creators hate gays. Rather, at any given social moment, they understand subconsciously that they are allowed to make certain jokes about gays because making jokes about them is itself a normalizing, "humanizing" process.

This is not because they "weren't woke". They were libtards with the same essential nature today as they had then. The difference is that today, the acceptable limits of behavior which have been programmed into them have become narrower as these groups have already been brought into mainstream visibility, so instead of "haha, isn't it funny how they're like that?", it becomes necessary to move to a deprogramming phase of "isn't it funny that some people think they're like that when they aren't really like that?", so that everyone can be taught to remember that stereotypes are bad; and once a group feel secure in being mainstreamed, suddenly the stereotype becomes fine again because it's perceived as harmless because "it's funny how they're like that (and that's a good thing)". (You see this latter effect with gays already. There was an initial phase where the joke was about gays being mincing poofs to humanize them, then the joke always had to be about people EXPECTING gays to be mincing poofs when they're actually (portrayed as) hypermasculine/normal/anything else, but now mainstream middle-class culture is perfectly comfortable with mincing poofs and has them running the most popular talk shows, so it's okay for that to be the joke again. Another example: Blacks acting like ******* has been so thoroughly normalized now that many people hardly believe there was actually a time when the highbrow joke was always about blacks being nerdy or cowardly or pompous or other non-negritudinous behaviors.)

This is of a piece with the way I use the word "wokeness". It's "gay race communism", as Rusty says. It's what Jewish comedians used to do when they made jokes about controlling the media. (Nowadays **** are feeling insecure again and don't do that sort of thing as much.) It's the reason feminist wannabe-comedians would make jokes about having a hundred abortions. It's all about establishing libtardism as the socially prestigious ideology. I gather that you have a more narrow definition of "wokeness", although you haven't actually explained it, so you don't see this as the same thing, but for me and for many people who saw a wider range of it, like Acrux said, it's all just a monolith.

So yes, they can have competing and different interests and still be woke libtards, because there are multiple complementary ways to push woke libtardism.

Our definition of woke may not fully match but that was not my main point of contention. My point of contention was your claim of near absolute uniformity that game devs have been a monolith of wokeness or cultural marxism from day one. And now you are actually doubling down by extending that to "virtually" all media creators of fhe last 100 years. That's an absurd over reach, obviously. It's not a serious stance.

They're incredibly libtarded people. The designer of the old Atari strategy game M. U. L. E. trooned out publically in the 90s. This was not met with mass pushback. Go read the original Jargon File, as compiled by now-based Eric S. Raymond, read the section about "A Portrait of J. Random Hacker". Pay attention to these parts. That's not new. That's been the viewpoint baked into programmer culture from the start.

You think it doesn't apply to other media creators? Watch some old movies. Everyone in Hollywood knew Rock Hudson was gay. Probably Cary Grant too, or at least he makes some coy references to it from time to time. Black musicians, especially black women singers, get plenty of glazing. It's always been libtarded. Well, Hollywood is full of ****, after all.

It really is virtually all of them. Some people find the limit at which they are no longer willing to be NPCs as the Overton window rolls left, but they're still libtards about everything else. (You see this a lot in the TERF world, of course, for example.)

[Bertram_Tung]

These aren't mutually exclusive.

Essentially every media creator of any kind for the last 100 years has been a libtard, because they're virtually all drawn from the same educated middle-class stratum where pretty much everyone has been raised to be a libtard since libtardery conclusively became the default elite opinion centuries ago. (Striver classes always adopt perceived elite aesthetics.) Yes, "essentially", "virtually", if you can't handle the basic concept of exaggeration then you're just being a prick for no reason.

25+ years ago, it was considered okay for libtards to make jokes about ******** in order to promote the liberal ideology of being "edgy", which is to say, subversive. This was essentially due to a complex calculus where ******** were not yet considered the most important oppressed class, while making jokes about them was a way to increase their "visibility" and thereby raise their status in the victim hierarchy. Libtards making jokes don't process this consciously; instead they are policed by public reaction, where they learn not to "go too far" by what causes some advocacy group to demand an apology, which they always give because they're nice libtards who hasten to reassure everyone that they never meant any offense against any real-life ******** in particular.

We had this same conversation before about South Park and it's a perfect encapsulation of this phenomenon. You can see it in, eg, the gay and occasionally transsexual teacher. You'd be an idiot if you think the libtard creators hate gays. Rather, at any given social moment, they understand subconsciously that they are allowed to make certain jokes about gays because making jokes about them is itself a normalizing, "humanizing" process.

This is not because they "weren't woke". They were libtards with the same essential nature today as they had then. The difference is that today, the acceptable limits of behavior which have been programmed into them have become narrower as these groups have already been brought into mainstream visibility, so instead of "haha, isn't it funny how they're like that?", it becomes necessary to move to a deprogramming phase of "isn't it funny that some people think they're like that when they aren't really like that?", so that everyone can be taught to remember that stereotypes are bad; and once a group feel secure in being mainstreamed, suddenly the stereotype becomes fine again because it's perceived as harmless because "it's funny how they're like that (and that's a good thing)". (You see this latter effect with gays already. There was an initial phase where the joke was about gays being mincing poofs to humanize them, then the joke always had to be about people EXPECTING gays to be mincing poofs when they're actually (portrayed as) hypermasculine/normal/anything else, but now mainstream middle-class culture is perfectly comfortable with mincing poofs and has them running the most popular talk shows, so it's okay for that to be the joke again. Another example: Blacks acting like ******* has been so thoroughly normalized now that many people hardly believe there was actually a time when the highbrow joke was always about blacks being nerdy or cowardly or pompous or other non-negritudinous behaviors.)

This is of a piece with the way I use the word "wokeness". It's "gay race communism", as Rusty says. It's what Jewish comedians used to do when they made jokes about controlling the media. (Nowadays **** are feeling insecure again and don't do that sort of thing as much.) It's the reason feminist wannabe-comedians would make jokes about having a hundred abortions. It's all about establishing libtardism as the socially prestigious ideology. I gather that you have a more narrow definition of "wokeness", although you haven't actually explained it, so you don't see this as the same thing, but for me and for many people who saw a wider range of it, like Acrux said, it's all just a monolith.

So yes, they can have competing and different interests and still be woke libtards, because there are multiple complementary ways to push woke libtardism.

Our definition of woke may not fully match but that was not my main point of contention. My point of contention was your claim of near absolute uniformity that game devs have been a monolith of wokeness or cultural marxism from day one. And now you are actually doubling down by extending that to "virtually" all media creators of fhe last 100 years. That's an absurd over reach, obviously. It's not a serious stance.

They're incredibly libtarded people. The designer of the old Atari strategy game M. U. L. E. trooned out publically in the 90s. This was not met with mass pushback. Go read the original Jargon File, as compiled by now-based Eric S. Raymond, read the section about "A Portrait of J. Random Hacker". Pay attention to these parts. That's not new. That's been the viewpoint baked into programmer culture from the start.

You think it doesn't apply to other media creators? Watch some old movies. Everyone in Hollywood knew Rock Hudson was gay. Probably Cary Grant too, or at least he makes some coy references to it from time to time. Black musicians, especially black women singers, get plenty of glazing. It's always been libtarded. Well, Hollywood is full of ****, after all.

It really is virtually all of them. Some people find the limit at which they are no longer willing to be NPCs as the Overton window rolls left, but they're still libtards about everything else. (You see this a lot in the TERF world, of course, for example.)

I could name plenty of media creators from the last 100 years who weren’t Marxists. But why bother, you’d just fall back to the "I was just exaggerating, you’re being too literal" deflection again.

Re: Video Games, I already cited reports earlier in the thread from devs who claimed they were coerced or pressured to cooperate with woke mandates from high up. Rusty scoffed at them for being anonymous, and Oyster attempted to shift the goalposts into a matter of standing your ground (completely irrelevant), and you didn’t address them at all. Of course they’re anonymous. The industry is incredibly retaliatory, and speaking out in that joke of an industry *will* destroy your career.

[Stack of Turtles]

I could name plenty of media creators from the last 100 years who weren’t Marxists.

I don't think you need to literally subscribe to Marxism to be "woke".

Re: Video Games, I already cited reports earlier in the thread from devs who claimed they were coerced or pressured to cooperate with woke mandates from high up. Rusty scoffed at them for being anonymous, and Oyster attempted to shift the goalposts into a matter of standing your ground (completely irrelevant), and you didn’t address them at all. Of course they’re anonymous. The industry is incredibly retaliatory, and speaking out in that joke of an industry *will* destroy your career.

I simply don't see it as a counterargument to anything I said. Okay, some devs said that the execs told them they need to shoehorn in some diversity for CYA reasons so they don't all get #cancelled; so what? All this shows me is — and I said this, remember! — that they only want to add diversity that "improves the story". They're complaining about having their personal creative freedom compromised. Sure, a lot of programmers are of a vaguely libertarian bent where they think that blacks and ******** are great people, but feel like they shouldn't HAVE to be shoehorned everywhere. That doesn't make them not libtards. Take that obnoxious old gay guy from Fallout, he's exactly this type, and he's clearly a libtard.


Again, at the end of the day we're just having a disagreement about definitions. I don't think you actually disagree that most game devs are libtards and the ones who aren't are basically negligible and definitely not holding on to jobs at AAA studios anyway. You just see a fundamental difference between the two cases that I don't. As long as you continue to insist on interpreting my argument from that perspective, you're going to keep thinking I'm saying something I'm not, so your counterarguments won't actually apply from my perspective.

I just want for you to know that I'm not being disingenuous or deflecting or whatever else you think. I'm just speaking a slightly different language from you, and we were briefly confused by the difference. I'm not walking back anything I said, just trying to translate it.

[roldet]

It seems Witcher 4 deserves some credit compared to Larian's recent dogshit and this turd in regard to not shoving subsaharan africans in medieval european fantasy. Hope there will be mods fixing it i guess.

[Vaako]

fable?

Who cares about fable, that game sucks.

Its pretty good for kids even had girls in my family playing it. Also not to forget the Bowerstone mayor was an evil gold digger woman which even murdered her sister or family if I remember right. And you can decide to marry her or throw her out of the city. They allow you to kill pretty much everyone even the 3 black characters. You get force lightning which decapitates human enemies.

[A Chinese opium den]

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
That's actually one of the many reasons it's different now than it used to be, which (I think) is part of what Kolgrim was saying.

Fair, its hard not to be overly harsh when looking back in posterity. But the least you can do is to admit that the things in the past were less gay only because the heat in the pot hadn't been brought to a boil yet. If even many of the all time classics had annoying woke moments in them, that just means we haven't seen the true golden age of gaming yet. Better times are yet to come.

The inquiry I always make is whether the intent of the content was to normalize [woke thing]. There is a subset of young chuds these days who will automatically brand something as "woke" if it has anything on a certain checklist, not understanding that the intent in including them may have been very different decades ago. Is two dudes kissing automatically woke? No, there was a time when the developer expected the vast majority of the playerbase to naturally feel revulsion and disgust, and the player's disgust would be riffed off of for laughs. That's very different from trying to portray faggotry in a sensitive and positive way. Was the original FF7 cross-dressing scene "woke"? I've never thought that. It's supposed to be humorous, working from the premise that engaging in crossdressing is humiliation rather than a positive thing. But I have seen it claimed otherwise. You have the same thing in Persona 3. Did they have "***** representation" in the original game, or were they mocking (rather than normalizing) ******?

https://www.ign.com/articles/persona-3- ... f-dialogue

You cannot evaluate old media using current frameworks because the decision process was so different then. Today if you put a ***** in a game, 99.9% of the time it was a carefully considered decision designed to normalize and increase representation. But 20-30 years ago, it wouldn't have been thought about nearly as much, and in all likelihood, someone threw it in off the cuff for laughs, and the creator himself probably thought ******** and ******* were deviant freaks. So, I would argue that many things in the past seemed less gay because they actually were less gay, and that applying current "purity tests" is unfair.

I can see your point but I don't think most of these jokes are actually funny enough to justify their inclusion. I would gain more than I lose if I decide to stop playing a good game or watching a good movie because its got annoying gay **** in it. One of the best jrpgs ever but you have to dress up as a girl and get hit on in a cutscene isn't worth playing, you can just do something else. Its worse in rpgs because the player character is you, so its a sort of personal attack when developers add these kinds of events whether optional or forced.

[Bertram_Tung]

One of the best jrpgs ever but you have to dress up as a girl and get hit on in a cutscene isn't worth playing

snowflake

[A Chinese opium den]

One of the best jrpgs ever but you have to dress up as a girl and get hit on in a cutscene isn't worth playing

snowflake

He played dressup...

[Bertram_Tung]

One of the best jrpgs ever but you have to dress up as a girl and get hit on in a cutscene isn't worth playing

snowflake

He played dressup...

no i never got that far in ff7, never was keen on weeb **** growing up
i'll try to get around to it eventually

i did however play dressup in botw