By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bdbdbd said:

But the horrible things justified by religion are just morals of the religion. They are doing good according to their moral. Moral is just the set of rules to follow. The less rules you have, the less moral you have. High moral is following the rules closely and low moral not following them. 

Having more rules doesn't make someone more moral. 

The number of rules someone has is arbitrary. One person could have 1 rule that just says be kind to people, someone else might have 500 rules to describe what that actually means. They're both doing the same thing, they're just describing their rules differently. 

Additionally, I don't think anyone would argue that having 500 rules about how to eat pancakes makes that person more moral. 

Religion can inform people of rules, but it's not why people have rules. 

People have rules because they're intelligent. Empathy has a neurological component. People aren't empathetic because religion tells them to be, they are because their brain is wired that way (and some people have issues when their brain isn't wired that way).

bdbdbd said:

People don''t want the same things, but people follow a religion that has it's own dogmas. They follow the dogmas, the teachings that are not allowed to be questioned. You can't be a christian without believing in Jesus (well, technically anyone who's ever been christened is a christian, no matter if you leave the religion or adopt a new one, but I think you know what I meant). 

Sure, and there's lots of variability in what parts have to be followed.

Some Christians believe their religion to be a private affair. Some Christians believe their religion pushes them to get other people to be Christians.

A lot of Christians just think people should be left alone. 

That's my point. You can't be a Christian without having some belief in Jesus, but there's huge variability in whether Christians want to live in a religious state or not. There are some that would give their lives to make that happen, and there are some who would give their lives to prevent it from happening. 



Around the Network

Discussing 'wokeness' in video games (or any media, for that matter) is pretty much a waste of time at this point.

We know what it ACTUALLY means, and we know what people using it as a criticism are actually trying to say.

Long story short...it's just insecure people with at least a hint of bigotry in them loudly whining about ANY sort of inclusion of anyone that's not the traditional majority. Woman in the game? especially if she's not supermodel attractive and fappable? Woke. Black people in the game? Woke. Queer people in the game? Woke. Literally anything that's not a grizzled white man? Woke.

And of course it's always white males who get to decide what is an appropriate amount of representation. Because it's always gotta be about straight white boys. THEY get to decide how attractive a woman needs to be or what is a 'culturally appropriate' amount of black people or minorities. Because the idea that the world doesn't explicitly cater to them and only them is terrifying. They fear the potential future where THEY are as ostracized as much as the minorities (of all categories) have been by them all this time.

People who use the term 'woke' to negatively describe modern media are just insecure children who don't know their place in the world and can't fathom not being the center of attention. They just don't like the idea that progress is happening and they're not 95% of the medium anymore (only like 60% now) and will do ANYTHING to twist the facts or use diversity and inclusion to be a bad thing. IT's never 'because it's fantasy and it's fun' or 'maybe queer people deserve some love', it's always 'forced inclusion' and it's ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS negatively impacting the game.

The fact that people are bitching because Ciri is mature now and no longer as fuckable to them....and the fact that people ALREADY hate Intergalactic, and the fact that it's so goddamn predictable that these 'anti-woke' chuds are gonna go after anything that doesn't explicitly cater to them before we even know anything about the game or movie or how they handle the diversity proves that it's never actually been about compromised quality (like they claim). IT's literally just 'gaming is a white boy's club and anything else is an insult to the medium'.

Which is why I Can never take these arguments seriously. IT's just bigotry with extra steps and false justifications. So much of it is literally just insecure brats throwing tantrums about the fact that other people deserve to be represented, too. And they HATE that right now we might be overcompensating for a history of lack of representation because it means THEY get to feel a fraction of what these minorities felt for decades or centuries.

They got a tiny little taste of being repressed by mainstream media and they hate it so they have to throw infinite tantrums. IT's sad. IT's pathetic. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so exhausting.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Are you kidding me, Ron Paul is about as Libertarian as they come. He should be much "lower" on this map.

That's why I call BS on these maps. Whoever came up with them is chock full of BS.

Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American author, activist, physician, and retired politician who served as the U.S. representative for Texas's 22nd congressional district from 1976 to 1977, and again from 1979 to 1985, as well as for Texas's 14th congressional district from 1997 to 2013. On three occasions, he sought the presidency of the United States: as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988; and as a candidate for the Republican Party in 2008 and 2012.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul



BFR said:

Are you kidding me, Ron Paul is about as Libertarian as they come

Again, the Libertarian party is not what that the Political compass is trying to convey. 

> financing government operations would be primarily by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs. He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies

>Paul endorses increased border security

There's still a lot more room for him to be more "libertarian"

BFR said:

He should be much "lower" on this map.

BFR said:

That's why I call BS on these maps. Whoever came up with them is chock full of BS.

Again, what I wrote a few pages ago:

the-pi-guy said:

The political compass has absolutely nothing to do with US political parties. 

The concept of the compass is potentially problematic. I think it's difficult to assign a singular score to anything as complex as political viewpoints. Two people could score similarly while having opposite viewpoints; they could just both swap left and right wing takes. 

The test is also problematic, because you get questions like if you have a government should it be doing things that help people? You might answer that question completely differently from "do you want a government that helps people?" - because you don't want any government. 

Last edited by the-pi-guy - 2 days ago

bdbdbd said:
Machiavellian said:

The thing is you seem to single DEI as being just about race but clearly its not about just race. What you are doing is only thinking that race is the only criteria or the only sol reason why the person is being picked but there is no company that just goes and pick based on that one item.  That is the narrative used so the status quo can continue to discriminate at will. 

How do you know that the diversity of the actor isn't important to the role.  Meaning what skill are you talking about when choosing the actor.  If you have two actors and the role doesn't care what race they are, what skill determines one actor over the other.  If its the main actor and you have Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise, who do you pick.  Each actor skill set is different and they both bring something different to the role.  Could Tom Cruise play "The Equalizer" just like Denzel Washington.  Yes, but clearly each actor brings something totally different to how the role would be acted.

As far as your whole, you should watch movies made by the race or gender that wants to see representation, that doesn't really fly when you are out to make money.  See, if you want to make money and do not do things that target a group that may feel not represented by your product then guess what, you will not get their money.  Your whole premise on that point ignores why in entertainment, they look for more diversity and its not because they are looking to meet a quota, they are looking to make money.  So yes, if a group feel that an industry isn't properly representing them, they lose that group and thus lose that money because the biggest movers of anything within the US is money.

As to your Star Wars Rey comparisons to Rogue one

Lets take another comparisons where a role that was played by a man was swapped by a woman which is Day of the Jackal.  So the original film as well as the book had a white male as the agent looking for the assassin while the new series has a black woman.  The show is getting pretty good reviews and the actress is getting a lot of praise for her depiction of the role.  Could it be that its not about the gender but the actor and the script/direction.

At the end of it all, it really seems that people who care if character was swapped with another gender or race is more fearful about not being the default for a role more than anything else.  If all roles that were not sterotypical to either gender or race were played by straight white males, we probably would never hear anything from that crowd.  Your whole point seems to scream, "Stay in your lane". 

I believe I pointed out the gender swap as a DEI policy. It's pretty hard to have "gay representation wit gay actors" in movies and such, because your sexual orientation isn't anyone's business.

Yes, you seem to understand the problems with DEI, which is not providing the audience what they want. In the 90's nobody was interested who played who, as long as they did a good job. Today it's really hard to say who's a DEI hire and who's not, the only way to judge is whether The role qas good or not. If you had some African playing a role in the 80's, you knew that guy was good, today If you don''t have any Africans or women playing a lead role, the actors in all likeliness are chosen because they were the best available.

Cruise and Washington are bad examples, because they made their merits before the modern policies took place. They could draw in audience 20.years ago and they can do it today. Who'd be playing Maverick if Top Gun were made today? Would Maverick be the OP pilot? 

The thing is you really do not know if a gender swap is a DEI policy since most people just throw the word DEI anytime the Gender or race is different.  Just like the term woke, its a word used first with no evidence but instead as a label to use when insecurity over the swap effects the person using it.  Just like with the show I mentioned, people did complain about the black actress and they did use DEI as their term.  For people who did not care they never thought to use or even consider DEI.  Most who watch the show have no clue about the movie or the book so they never cared.

As to a person being gay.  If that person is gay playing a straight white male and that person sexual orientation is known, would there be people using woke, or DEI or any other term of displeasure.

Actually I consider DEI like I consider woke.  Just another tool in an arsenal of tools to use when anything goes outside of the status quo.  Whether it race, gender, sexuality, age.  People who are fearful of these things look for a reason to resist them being out in the public.  They rather have it like the old days when gay people kept their mouths shut, when black people played pimps and hoes and woman looked for nothing more than having children and getting married.

I use Cruise and Washington because I assure you if one played a role and the other was swapped for it later, you would get the same people crying about DEI, woke or whatever not because they are good actors but because they are from different races.  As stated, you only have to go to a number of forums to see this very example no matter the skill set of the person.



Around the Network

The Political compass conveys nothing but BS to me. There is nothing objective about it. It is purely subjective.



BFR said:

The Political compass conveys nothing but BS to me. There is nothing objective about it. It is purely subjective.

Every political spectrum is subjective. 



the-pi-guy said:
bdbdbd said:

But the horrible things justified by religion are just morals of the religion. They are doing good according to their moral. Moral is just the set of rules to follow. The less rules you have, the less moral you have. High moral is following the rules closely and low moral not following them. 

Having more rules doesn't make someone more moral. 

The number of rules someone has is arbitrary. One person could have 1 rule that just says be kind to people, someone else might have 500 rules to describe what that actually means. They're both doing the same thing, they're just describing their rules differently. 

Additionally, I don't think anyone would argue that having 500 rules about how to eat pancakes makes that person more moral. 

Religion can inform people of rules, but it's not why people have rules. 

People have rules because they're intelligent. Empathy has a neurological component. People aren't empathetic because religion tells them to be, they are because their brain is wired that way (and some people have issues when their brain isn't wired that way).

bdbdbd said:

People don''t want the same things, but people follow a religion that has it's own dogmas. They follow the dogmas, the teachings that are not allowed to be questioned. You can't be a christian without believing in Jesus (well, technically anyone who's ever been christened is a christian, no matter if you leave the religion or adopt a new one, but I think you know what I meant). 

Sure, and there's lots of variability in what parts have to be followed.

Some Christians believe their religion to be a private affair. Some Christians believe their religion pushes them to get other people to be Christians.

A lot of Christians just think people should be left alone. 

That's my point. You can't be a Christian without having some belief in Jesus, but there's huge variability in whether Christians want to live in a religious state or not. There are some that would give their lives to make that happen, and there are some who would give their lives to prevent it from happening. 

I think you should look up what moral actually is and what it means. There's a lot more to it than you seem to know.

Yes, different religions have different dogmas and therefore different rules. The rules in christianity allow you to have a lot of personal freedom, whereas islam has actually very strict rules you need to follow. Muslims need to follow the law of god, the muslim lifestyle and the muslim heritage. Denying any of the three pillars the religion is based on, is roughly equal to saying there's no Jesus for a christian. 



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

the-pi-guy said:
BFR said:

The Political compass conveys nothing but BS to me. There is nothing objective about it. It is purely subjective.

Every political spectrum is subjective. 

I'm all for political comparisons, but only ones that make sense...

Republicans vs. Democrats - I like

Blue states vs. Red states - I like

Liberals vs. Conservatives - I like

Left vs. Right - I like

Authoritarian vs. Libertarian - I don't like, because it doesn't make any sense.

Last edited by BFR - 2 days ago

bdbdbd said:

I think you should look up what moral actually is and what it means. There's a lot more to it than you seem to know.

Oh I have.

Nothing in there says "more rules makes you more moral".

bdbdbd said:

Yes, different religions have different dogmas and therefore different rules. The rules in christianity allow you to have a lot of personal freedom, whereas islam has actually very strict rules you need to follow. Muslims need to follow the law of god, the muslim lifestyle and the muslim heritage. Denying any of the three pillars the religion is based on, is roughly equal to saying there's no Jesus for a christian. 

Plenty of Christian sects have plenty of strict rules that have to be followed.  

Islam also has different sects that believe in different things.

Muslims for Progressive Values