What is a "Woke" Game

[bdbdbd]

the-pi-guy said:

JRPGfan said:

is the context still "woke" games?

Woke is a politically loaded term, and thus conversations start diverging into related political topics.

Especially when we are talking about "why" these games exist/why games are generally becoming more inclusive. 

And I would add that people hate when they shove politics in your entertainment, especially when you use the entertainment to get away from politics and such matters.

the-pi-guy said:

bdbdbd said:

More rules doesn't make you more moral, following more rules does. But that's besides the point; people have less rules these days and they're really don't follow even the ones they have, making them less moral.

Again, "following more rules" does not make someone more moral.

Philosophers don't even agree on a single definition of what makes someone more moral in the first place.

There are some frameworks that suggest that there is some set of rules that are objectively good, there are some frameworks that suggest that most sets of moral rules are just as moral as each other.

I'm not aware of any system that suggests that "following more rules" makes someone more moral. As I explained before, it's an absurd suggestion in the first place, because the number of rules someone follows is arbitrary. 

bdbdbd said:

The progressive values are forbidden in islam and muslims for progressive values are a small minority of muslims and do not represent the values of even the muslims moved to west. 

Christianity technically forbids homosexuality, female pastors; yet lots of Christian sects are very progressive.

Besides that, either you think all religions are equally valid, or you think most/all of them are made up.

If it's the latter, then you would have to accept that people are going to follow their religion however they want. Even if other versions of that religion forbid them from following it.

If it's the former, then you should still have to accept that different followings of any religion are going to happen. 

Even by your own admission, people have rules they aren't following. So why is it different for religion? Doesn't even matter if you don't want to call them Muslim, if they're some new religion, that must be just as valid. 

Of course all religions are made up. I'm not saying any of them was more valid than any other, it's just that their values, dogmas and punishment for not following a religion differs from each other. If there was a religion where homosexuality was punisheable by death, it would clearly be much worse than a religion where it's not punisheable by death. If there was a religion where women would need to cover themselves or get stoned or whipped or raped, it would be much worse than religion that doesn't require women to cover themselves. If there was a religion where leaving a religion was punisheable by death, it would clearly be worse than religion that doesn't do that. 

I've used the European natural pagan religions as an example of non-dogmatic religion that based on practicioner's own philosophy and on the other extreme I've used islam as an example of dogmatic religion that has very strict rules and severe punishment for not following them.

The reason why people have hard time following their own rules, but find it easy to follow religion's rules, is that nobody's keeping an eye if you live by your own personal rules or not, but the religious community is watching whether you live by the religion's rules or not, and in case you don't do that, the community is going to punish you the way the religion says you must be punished. 

Surely, when someone says he or she has high moral, you have some sort of idea what he or she means?