What is your criteria for words to count as an attack?
I address all of your points, even the few times I snip a sentence, you don’t always address mine. Your use of “shorthand”, aka parsing, in previous comments left out the majority of my points.
What about my “otherwise explanations” comes across as conflation? Speaking of which, your remark about Xe’ra filling Illidan with her goo came across as conflating Lightforging with sex.
Xe’ra was wrong to force it on him, I don’t think that needs any elaboration. Illidan’s position does, especially given how many people lionize him.
You repeatedly say things like this;
This is one of several examples. Saying things like this is why I think you try to portray me as opposing consent (other statements from you make me think the zealot part is implied).
I understand why you thought I was comparing my position to the entirety of all atheists. To clarify I was comparing the type of accusation you seemed to be making; it was about the subject matter, not the people cited, do you understand now?
I’ve made my arguments about Illidan, you haven’t refuted them, just gone into denial and made assumptions regardless.
What’s wrong with seeing both sides of the story when the targets of the holy war had previously attempted unprovoked imperialism and cultural genocide on their attackers?
You’ve tried to turn my words against me too, so would that infer the same about you?
You keep using “lies” as a snarl word against me, and your repeated statements about “how I come across” look ever more like increasingly thinly-veiled accusations. Do you consider that last sentence an attack? You’ve also make statements that can be read in a certain way.
You claim a sentence sums up your point, but you fail to address large swathes of what’s behind that sentence.
Read some comments from Renautus and Cursewords to name a few. How is name-calling, mockery, snarl words and buzzwords the same energy I’m using? Note who used it first, because it wasn’t me. Or even check out the exchanges on other threads.
And you are responsible for some of those experiences and encounters. You have attacked my faith in other threads, Renautus. And you’re not the only one. So can I really be blamed for being on guard?
I think this comment from you is a personal attack disguised as constructive criticism because of our past talks. If your assessment is genuine outreach, then all I have to say is your assessment of is inaccurate except for the part about me having bad experiences.
I don’t mind dissecting the Light, I oppose specific retcons, especially the ones which feel like author agenda.
Again, you seem like you are presenting the idea that the writers have a ‘secret agenda’ to attack your personal faith.
What if there is no hidden agenda? What if the writers are just writing the Light as a flawed cosmic force just like they have written every other cosmic force in this franchise?
As many people here pointed out, the Light is just a vehicle of expression. Some expression is objectively good, some objectively evil.
Take out the words “seem”, “think” and “feel like” and there’s no difference between this latest comment and our most common exchanges. Do you see why I suspect there’s veiled accusations?
No because these are actually words used to soften criticism and turn it into constructive criticism. It serves a purpose and that purpose is to be constructive and not accusatory…
That’s the point of constructive criticism.
Snarl words? Are used in media literacy it’s relating to politics, it’s to understand how biased media defames other political parties or opponents for thier own gain. This isn’t to be used against people giving you criticism. Like people calling you a “liar” because you have lied.
You are not a politician, nor are we the media. Your use of “defamation” and “snarl words” mean nothing here.
You are treating yourself like a corporation or a political party. You are not either of those things. You are just an Alliance Death Knight player of World of Warcraft here. The accusation that we are publicly defaming you in the Warcraft forums is absolutely absurd.
If you are being called a liar for lying, that is a valid criticism of your behaviour. It’s accurate and factual.
You use a lot of fancy buzzwords yourself to deflect accountability.
While I’ve been letting it slide, you actually haven’t. You’ve easily ignored two thirds of my points since we got on this ride. When I repeatedly ask you to clarify a situation where there’s seemingly only two positions for you to have (we’ll come back to this too), you respond by not responding, or calling the very act of asking for clarification a personal attack, passive-aggressive, snarky, etc.
I do. You’re just not seemingly content with an answer of “I don’t see the relevance of the question to the conversation at hand, so I decline to answer”.
Only in cases where you repeated the same points in the sentence I chose to quote, instances where you accused me of ambiguously attacking you, or where I’d already addressed those points and never got a response from you.
You could replace “goo” with “Light” and if you choose to read sexual content into the comment, you’ll still see it. I cannot control how you choose to read things. I chose the word “goo” because it’s a weird cinematic. I’m not sure if it’s just Light she’s shoving into Illidanny or if it’s her own essence. I choose “goo” to demean the entire situation, because I find the whole cinematic silly and unnecessary.
This is literally the only time in over a decade of popping in and out of these forums where I’ve had to justify use of the word “goo”, let alone how “goo” isn’t sexual. Thanks for that.
And this is why it comes across as though you’re shifting the burden of blame to Illidan. You need elaboration for why the victim of an attack, attacks their attacker.
I’m not going to insult you by asking if you need that explained every time, because I know you don’t. I know you do not need an explanation why a dryad who had been ensnared by a satyr goes and attacks the satyr as soon as they can. You don’t need an explanation for why the Agent Crusaders we rescue in the Broken Shore scenario attack those who captured them.
It’s cut and dry; attacker attacks a victim, victim will fight back if possible.
… Except this case. This one case, the victim must be held to a different standard. This one case, the victim should have talked to their attacker after the attack began.
Coincidentally, this one case also involves a holy being as the aggressor.
And now we’re coming back to those points from earlier, because I can’t help but notice how much context you had to avoid here.
That comment of mine case after (by my quick count) six posts asking for clarity on the subject; how you’ve painted your arguments as either not understanding or not caring about consent, and me asking repeatedly giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking if you’d highlight the actual roadblock in the conversation. You did not respond to those requests, even to say you didn’t want to respond. Instead you left it hanging there, then doubled down on the same arguments that brought me to that question in the first place.
So I’d ask again. And you’d repeat. And I’d ask again, and you’d repeat.
After at least six attempts to get clarification that your position was neither a lack of understanding of consent, nor an objection to the need for consent where religion is involved, what am I left to assume? You’re clearly intentionally refusing any attempt to deny it’s one of those posibilities, even when I give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it can’t be either. You won’t even acknowledge the question.
So I’m left to assume that it must be one of those two, because despite repeated requests, you won’t even make a simple confirmation that it isn’t either.
Then why continually refer to “every atheist”? Isn’t it more natural to say “this thing you say about me, would be like me saying an athiest…”?
Honest question here. I’m taking you at your word that it has been a continual and ongoing mistype, but is it more natural for you to use the plural than the singular?
For clarity, i’m asking so if I see further uses of plurals where singulars are more appropriate, I’ll have better context for intent.
I actually have. Repeatedly. Why lie about this? Why is lying such a common and constant deflection for you?
Do you think the rest of our posts ceased to exist just before you posted this comment?
Because we had seen their side, yet you refuse to acknowledge it. We’d seen it in Legion, we’d seen it in BC, we’d seen it in WoD, and we’d seen it in that very scenario.
Draenei do everything the Naaru say since they first met the Naaru, including endangering multiple populated worlds by landing on them whilew knowing the Leghion is chasing them and will find them. Draenei land on Draenor. Draenei got killed by orcs. Orcs say sorry, we dumb and listen to people who do good talk. Draenei accept apology. Draenei and orcs are dumb. Draenei and orcs become buddies. Maybe-Xe’ra finds the draenei. Maybe-Xe’ra says “Light is best, do what I say!” Draenei do everything Maybe-Xe’ra says because Naaru. Maybe-Xe’ra says “go make orcs Light! Shove light goo into them in non-sexytime way!” Draenei go make orcs Light by shoving Light goo into the orcs, and it was not in a sexytime way. Orcs say please stop! Draenei say “no, Maybe-Xe’ra says so!”
We already had all of this information. It tells the story as well as anything in WoW tells a story. Unlike most WoW stories, we have an actual beginning, middle and end, and they shockingly don’t contradict any established lore.
What other side is present that we don’t have?
You’ve never answered this, FYI. All you’ve done is say “no, you wrong” and quickly dropped the subject.
No, I keep calling your lies for what they are; lies. If you don’t want me calling your lies as lies, then stop lying.
Then let me be clear; I’m not accusing you of lying. i’m outright stating, with definitive proof in this thread, that you’ve lied about things I’ve said.
No.
If it was in your post, or if it was something you and I had discussed, then I have not failed to address it.
You literally accused me of attacking you when I noted that I was going to avoid a very obvious joke about Christianity, because I didn’t want to go dwn that road (but acknowledged the road existed) as a courtesy. You turned that courtesy against me by calling it a personal attack.
You willfully misrepresented my statements to play victim from early on in this conversation. I could go further by pointing out your response to my very first comment was absolutely passive-aggressive and filled with buzzwords (you know your constant misuse of “strawman” would be a buzzword, right? Just throwing that out there for you).
It was absolutely you who used it first.
This, I think, is the essence of the issues we’ve all had in this conversation.
You want to argue “if I take out the context, then it means something different”. That is literally what you’ve argued here; if you remove the context framing the conversation, then it means something else and you choose to go with that meaning.
Words like “seem”, “think” and “feel” give context to a statement. That context is best summed up as “please tell me I’m wrong” or “I could very well be mistaken and am open to an alternative” or, in my initial case, “others might be mistakenly seeing things this way, but I’m sure it’s a communication issue”.
But time and again, you have shown you either do not grasp context or that you’re unnecessarily so hyper-defensive, you can’t waste time on context because this might be a battle you have no choice but to fight for Queen and Country!!! I’m sure neither is the case, and if you could address what we actually say and ask instead of what you have decided we’re saying or asking, we’d have a lot fewer posts in this thread, and they’d be more productive.
Let’s address intent and context. How can text accurately convey intent when that doesn’t always convey a person’s thoughts? What about context?
Which two thirds of your points, and which context, have I supposedly ignored?
When you keep sprinkling targeted mockery among your claims, what’s wrong with me calling that added mockery a personal attack? How was I supposedly passive-aggressive? We’re both snarking, so no “rules for thee, but not for me”, please. We can either both snark at each other, or drop the snark, what say you?
If I said I don’t see the relevance of the question to the conversation at hand, so I decline to answer”. Would you accept that or accuse me of avoiding your points?
We’ve both repeated points on this thread, so what explanations have you given that I supposedly haven’t responded to?
I found your use of the word “goo” strange because the cinematic’s Lightforging was shown in energy form, not liquid form. Now do you see why I accused you of making another sex parallel?
Attacked vs attacker depends on the situation. If one person punches another in the face, do you think it acceptable for the punched person to decapitate their attacker?
The situations aren’t the same. Don’t you see the huge difference between Argent Crusaders getting killed and having their souls melted into spellfood by sadistic demons verses an elf-demon hybrid having their fel magic non-fatally replaced with the Light by one single-minded Naaru?
Since I have condemned Xe’ra’s forcefulness with Illidan, I think that answers the question of where I stand on consent with the in-game holy figures we’re discussing, what made you think my arguments were painted as not caring about consent? Which six posts are you talking about?
Thank you for clarifying your problem with my use of singulars over plurals. I’ll use the suggestion you presented in future where required.
I have made counterarguments to your counterarguments; ones you haven’t addressed, which I why I said you haven’t made counterarguments. A poor choice of words, not a lie.
The Draenei’s so-called side of the story from that scenario is one cherry-picked sermon. This reminds me of what you said about time skips on that thread (see below). I agreed with everything you said there as of this comment, so I’ll just add what you stated as bad examples of time skips.
The Mag’har and AU Draenei situation is one of those badly written time skips. Following the ending of WoD with the Iron Horde dismantled and their leader stupidly let of scot-free, we skip to 30 years later and are told that the Draenei just got over all the Iron Horde’s war crimes, the Mag’har who fiercely resisted the Iron Horde fell in lockstep under the Iron Horde’s former leader, the Draenei are waging a holy war and Durotan’s conveniently dead with us not knowing the full context of that event. Your summary leaves out a few things, including Draenei reparations for the Iron Horde and AU Grom being alive and unpunished.
Saying the Draenei endanger multiple worlds by landing there when the Legion is pursuing them sound like victim-blaming, were you blaming the Draenei for the Legion’s actions? Why shouldn’t the Draenei be able to flee violent persecution and immigrate to a new world and settle there? Are you saying it’s their fault that their attempts to hide from the Legion failed?
The Burning Legion seeks to obliterate the entire universe; they’d seek and destroy those worlds even if the Draenei never set sight or hoof there.
You didn’t need to bring up the road of that joke about Christianity in this discussion, and even mentioning the option can be used as veiled attack. I see why you misunderstood my use of the word “strawman”, which was based on your assumptions and misunderstandings. Some were so blatant that I had to think “if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck…”
The words “seem”, “think” and “feel like” can, at times, be slippery words easily used to put a veil over mockery or accusations, thus making them passive aggressive.
While I’ll ask more about what you mean, if you could address everything I say instead of going on tangents about cherry-picked sentences and drop the passive aggressiveness - if you want to accuse, just accuse - we would have more comprehensive and productive discussions.
Snarl words (and their positive counterpart purr words) are a way of speaking; highly connotative language often used as a substitute for serious thought and well-reasoned argument. They’re not limited to media or politics.
Defamation is lying about someone to damage their reputation, it’s not just the type that someone can be sued for. And you, and others, have done that to me on these forums. How is any of that word use “deflecting accountability”?
Constructive criticism is well reasoned feedback usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one. Trying to “soften” accusations or mockery by framing them as opinions like you just did is not constructive criticism. At best it’s misguided, at worst it’s gaslighting. If you really want to give me constructive criticism, use the method I described above instead of what you used, Renautus.
Literally nothing either of us has said “needed to be brought up”.
Clearly I’ve said things that have inflicted some amount of emotional damage or pain or something to you that you’ve stewed on this for four days until coming back to it, even though you’ve posted since. Whatever I said must have been bothersome enough that you, wisely and correctly, waited until cooler heads prevailed before responding.
I didn’t reply to you for four days for two reasons. First, because I only had limited and brief periods of time for the forums due to my job and social life, which wasn’t enough time to properly assess your lengthy comment. The second is because we’ve both been argumentative, so I decided to step back before re-engaging in the discussion.
While I found you bringing up that type of joke about Christianity when and how you did insulting, it wasn’t so bad that I stewed on it for days. But I accept your apology, and myself am sorry for wrongly assuming you were dismissing all of my arguments based on my religious belief.
Now, what about everything else I said in that comment? My explanation why the Draenei are not to blame for the Legion following them to those worlds? My analogy about a punch in the face vs decapitation? The question of whether we should keep or drop the use of snark? And the rest?
I think we can have productive discussion if we are comprehensive and accommodate each other.
Both of us have found grievances with the way the other has communicated. I’d rather not continue banging my head on a wall, nor would I want to see you do the same.
We do have grievances, so I’m trying to address them. What about the disagreements and facts regarding lore, which I don’t consider grievances? I’m willing to amend my conduct, what about you?
You keep making new threads that recycle your bad arguments. Just as you do in this in this thread and have in the past 10+ threads you’ve made in just about as many months.
If you don’t want to be accused of the things you do, stop proving me right by continuously doing them.
…
I understand what “essentialist” means when I use it, and you’re engaging in/promoting essentialist depictions of naruu. You want Xe’ra to be portrayed as good, but not infallible simply because she is a narruu. In contradiction of what we’ve seen from her. In contradiction of what the Devs have said about her. You want her forcible conversion and genocide to be portrayed as good, in contradiction of it’s previous depictions. All because you want being “good” and not villainous to be an essential trait of the naruu.
You even go on to equate the dichotomy between the Light and the Void to be one of good vs evil, when that is explicitly not the way it’s been shown to work in universe. Again, because you want the Light to be essentially good and you want to the Void to be essentially bad.
There’s no need to blame AU Xe’ra for MU Xe’ra’s actions. Both have done bad things.
You tried to explain why a Blizzard run Light Crusade expansion would be worse than your idea then used the exact same writing elements you criticized Blizzard for. Retcons, bad writing, and villain batting with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Your idea is not only “not good”, it’s not any better either.
I understand the difference between skepticism, faith, and not having blind faith. You don’t. That’s why you took a dev statement about the fact that Velen doesn’t have blind faith, and is skeptical of Xe’ra after having noticed her lies and incorrectly claimed it as evidence he’s being set up to lose his faith in the Light entirely. I understand that skepticism about Xe’ra and those she manipulates is not a total blanket condemnation of the Light, the naruu, the draenei, or religion/faith in general. You don’t.
Indeed, the Onslaught and Crusade are largely functionally the same because outside of that statement, they are. The quoted statement is directly contradicted by all the things we actually see happening in the game. We’ve seen members of the Scarlet Crusade operating outside of the Lordaeron before, so being solely restricted to that theater is not a hard and fast rule for them either. I keep pointing out you’re ignoring the actual in game stuff that explicitly contradicts his words because you’re ignoring the in game stuff that explicitly contradicts his words.
…
I have actually protested against and testified before my state congressmen about unfair punishments for non-violent drug offenders. While advising my cousin not to illegally sell cannabinoids (not based on moral opposition, but because I know how unfair the state can be to black men) and I haven’t reported them to the authorities. And I don’t even partake myself. So yes. I would and I have.
As far as a murder charge- that also depends on the circumstances of the case. Nobody in my family has been convicted of murder, but my uncle lives down the road from someone who was sent to death row for murder by the state, only for it to later be revealed he was innocent the whole time. This was possible because his friends and loved ones disagreed with the state’s decision and fought it for decades. If it were my family, I’d have done so too.
And no, I wouldn’t defend the state imprisoning someone, let alone for life, for the simple act of trespassing.
You, however haven’t answered whether or not you would stand up for your loved ones against the state. Not even theoretically. You even shoot down any imagined possibility the state could be unjust. You even try to use the fact that because Xe’ra owns the ship, that she’s thereby justified in setting any rule she chooses and meting out any punishment she deems fit, and everyone’s just supposed to go along with that because of her inherent authority.
I mean, you and Turalyon can go on and allow “authorities” to do whatever they want to you and your loved ones, including indefinite imprisonment for non-violent “crimes” based on their own hypocritical whims. You can even support said authority’s unjust decisions and try to defend their right to judge/punish you by whatever unjust standards they want.
But that’s not defiance. And it’s not changing authorities’ minds, as you falsely claim it to be. Turalyon has never defied Xe’ra and you do argue in support of blind obedience to authority.
…
Xe’ra can be a jerkass/strawman with a point and still be a villain. Xe’ra has already been shown as an example of someone who wants to forcibly transmogrify people, lock up people for an eternity for non-violent crimes, and her AU incarnation engages in genocide. She’s gone beyond “jerk” or simple “strawman”.
And if you think Blizzard should turn her from being a villain by trying to justify her actions as being “for the greater good”, that puts you and Xe’ra in the same boat as BfA Sylvanas. Along with BC era Illidan, many of the “edgy nihilists” people you seem to despise and the many other people who really need to constantly be bombarded with an “Extremism is not good” until it actually sinks in.
There’s some religious individuals I’d like to see properly portrayed as villains. Plenty I think should be portrayed as non-villainous or even heroic as well. I think religiosity in and of itself has little to do with the matter. It’s their actions.
If one were going to criticize Blizzard’s handling of religion, they shouldn’t start with the Light, of which its villainous examples are few. Even in a Light Crusade expansion, the Light is unlikely to come off wholly as villainous. As mentioned before, characters like Anduin, Velen, Calia, and others are very safe.
If one wants to actually address Blizzard’s portrayal of religions in a poor light, they’d instead be pointing to how much more often members of faiths like the Cult of the Forgotten Shadow, Shamanism as practiced by Quillboar, Gnolls and some Orcs, Troll Voodoo, the faith of the Drust. Even the Tauren get shafted when it’s shown that figures they revere like the Earthmother and An’she either just plain don’t even exist and are actually something else entirely that don’t really give them much consideration.
But you haven’t shown any concern about those instances, even though Blizzard utilizes reglisions like Shamanism and Voodoo without even bothering to change the names of the religions and in the case of Voodoo, the names of some divinities. You seem unable or unwilling to speak on these connections.
Even in the case of more obvious references like the obvious similarities between the Scarlets and various real world historical Christian groups, you chose to compare them to Islam.
You don’t actually care about religions being demonized in WoW or fiction. You’ll even passively/tacitly accept it and encourage it. You just conflate the Light with Christianity- seemingly representing your ideals regarding proper religion/authority- and insist it be uniquely presented as the one morally good cosmological force in WoW.
And apparently in all media and the world in general.
I don’t get particularly angry or sad over WoW’s writing not being great either.
But I don’t act like I have no interest in commenting on whether or not characters should face proper consequences, right after giving my opinion about how a character should’ve faced proper consequences.
Thats not what I said.
I said they should face proper consequences but I am not going to debate whether it should be an execution, a court, a sacrifice, an imprisonment and whatever other option available.
Not really, I just won’t debate the details or push what I think is the “best” consequence possible. As long as there is one I am happy enough.
I was speculating whether time skips can be done well, not saying they can never work. Yrel and the Mag’har situation are an example of a badly written time skip. Note what I said (bold added for emphasis);
You keep making new comments that recycle the same refuted accusations, just as you have done in your latest comment here since, for one, you failed to explain how threads about different things happening to Velen and then Turalyon are making the same arguments.
Explaining how my statements about naaru are essentialism doesn’t make them wrong. And again, why give the Naaru a Void state? Are we going to see Old Gods with a Light state? I don’t want the holy war against the Mag’har to be portrayed as good. I say it’s badly writing and shouldn’t have happened.
My “idea for a better expansion” came from a few minutes of improvisation. I never presented it as good or comprehensive, just better than “Light Crusade”; at this point we’re just both making clashing values judgements.
You claim you understand the difference between skepticism, faith, and not having blind faith… then you keep trying to strawman me as endorsing blind faith; which would be as unfair as - hypothetically speaking - I dismissed all your arguments as being based on your fears for your drug-dealing cousin.
That quoted statement from the Scarlet Onslaught’s founder is backed up by actions including abandoning the Scarlet Crusade’s primary goal; it’s not about them heading to Northrend, but abandoning reclaiming Lorderaen and abandoning the Scarlet Crusade to die. I keep pointing out you’re ignoring actual in-game stuff including the words of the founder words because you’re ignoring the in game stuff that explicitly contradicts your view including her words.
I would stand up for my loved ones against the state depending on the situation and the punishment being presented. And I was talking about confirmed murder, not an ambiguous or unproven “they might be innocent” situation (what happened to the guy who lived near your uncle sounds horrible, but I can’t say more without more information).
You shoot down any imagined possibility that the state could be justified and your loved ones unjustified; I think your close-mindedness here might be due to personal issues given what you said about your drug-dealing cousin.
By the way, have you tried to advise your cousin by pointing out all the harm drugs cause to the users or by pointing out how cutthroat criminal gangs or organized crime can be? A bullet from a criminal is just as deadly as one from a corrupt cop.
Just saying I do something doesn’t make it so. And you do realize that larceny, fraud, aiding and abetting and bribery are serious crimes despite being non-violent? Evoking “non-violent crimes” doesn’t help your case.
Also, why did you bring up trespassing? If you meant Alleria, her actions were closer to sedition.
Can you explain what’s wrong with imprisoning people for using the Void when they’re guests on a warship made and owned by Light worshippers, especially when said person promised the ship’s CO that they’d stop using the Void?
What evidence is there that Xe’ra planned to lock up Alleria for eternity? The Necrolords of Maldraxxus are not exactly good and experiment using necromancy to transmogrify both the willing and unwilling, but they are explicitly noted by Blizzard to not be strictly evil and also serve as the military protectors of the Shadowlands; “rules for thee, but not for me”, eh? Use evidence, not buzzwords. If what you said was true, I say they shouldn’t have made her do those actions in the first place.
Constantly bombarding people with a message doesn’t always work; sometimes, it can have the opposite effect and help drive them to extremism. Plus “edgy nihilist” is a fitting description of Illidan and Sylvanas (especially the latter who literally helped to try tear down the cosmos because she’s afraid of dying). Your views about religious characters sound balanced… but could you name some names?
I strongly suspect at least one of the heroic (for now) Light-wielding characters you named who doesn’t get villain-batted will either apostatize or be killed off.
The cult of Forgotten Shadows has been portrayed as increasingly heroic, and the jury’s still out on An’she’s and the Earthmother’s existence and nature. Since Blizzard pulled back from villain-batting Voodoo homages (Bwonsamdi is even portrayed as between a trickster and heroic) and Shamanism wasn’t always portrayed as villainous even going back to Warcraft 3 - the belief being opposed was the demon worship Gul’dan and the Burning Legion introduced to their society, why expect complaints? How have those religions been treated poorly? Also, none of them got an entire expansion dedicated to them being villains.
The Scarlet Crusade call to mind the stereotypical image of the Knights Templar and also various Islamic militant groups like the Taliban and ISIS (Scarlet Crusade want Lorderaen, ISIS wants a Caliphate). And I didn’t oppose their existence and portrayal, including when they were used for potshots at megachurches and Prosperity theology in Wrath.
By the way, what real-life religion do the Void worshipping cultists supposedly parallel for me to be supposedly passively/tacitly accepting or encouraging their demonization?
With Magic-Light-Boy Anduin in the story, there really is no way for them to write The Light as evil. (He’s all back to himself in that datamined scene.)
So this discussion is kind of moot.
They might write a Naaru who isn’t nice, but Magic-Light-Boy Anduin will tut-tut, and it will return to The Light; 'cause he’s just so gosh darn right. /eyeroll
The title of your thread was “Are Time Skips Lazy Writing?” (a negative bent right off the bat) and only speculated on it’s negative aspects, never once actually considering the good ones. You’ve done nothing but criticize the use of time skips here.
Just like in this thread you claim you claimed was about expansions that would better than a Light Crusade is actually just a thread for you to complain about a hypothetical Light Crusade expansion to the point where you’re now admitting you didn’t even actually put much thought into a better alternative or even a good one by your own standards.
Your biases are blatant, your methods passive aggressive, and your attempt to pass it off as neutral/benign are disingenuous. Especially considering how upset you got before when people used qualifiers like "“seem”, “think” and “feel like”… then responding with your own “suspicions”.
You defend blind faith when you try to argue that characters who do not have blind faith have lost their faith and then try to portray this as a bad thing. You argue about how all naruu, particularly Xe’ra, should be good and should be trusted despite her clearly betraying said trust on several occasions.
The forces of the Scarlet Crusade have fought abroad and away from Lordaeron before. That was the whole impetus for the Onslaught campaign in Northrend. In the wake of the devastating attacks on New Avalon and Havenshire by the forces of the Scourge, they decided the best way to save Lordaeron was to take the fight to the source. And in every other way, they’re functionally the same as the Crusade. The actual content of the game contradicts your claim that they’ve denounced the ways of the Crusade.
Again, if you don’t want to be accused of doing the things you do, then stop doing them over and over. Until then, they’ll continue to be pointed out, which will include some repetition.
…
Regarding your inquiries into my personal relationships/experiences, your uncritical support of authority and your desire to see non-violent offenders serving life sentences…
I can imagine the state being right.
However, that does not mean the state and I always agree on who counts as a “confirmed murderer” or not. The state can be wrong too. In fact, it often fails to hold people accountable for murder. That’s why have no problem holding my loved ones accountable and do not leave it to sole discretion of the state. It’s also why I will and have defied the state when I consider it to be in the wrong and will not try and defend its decisions when it’s wrong.
You claim to support your family and be willing to defy the state, yet you still explain how you’d agree with the state’s decisions.
It’s the kind of thinking you’ve presented: the idea that the state’s authority and decrees are not to be challenged- that’s cost many an innocent person decades of their life, their reputation, subjected them to abuses and trauma, and worse. You support the state’s decisions and you’d support them again if they brought him back in and once more declared him a “confirmed murderer” whether he actually was or not. I do not believe you’re actually sorry, especially since you’d have supported him and others being locked up for life for even less.
You also know far too little about my cousin’s situation to lecture them by proxy on what risk they are/aren’t exposed to and what they should/shouldn’t be doing. That you think cannabinoids are harmful or that getting shot by gang members and police is anywhere near the most likely of risks shows an incredible amount of naivety in general.
I mentioned trespassing because the matter your presented about kicking out people who don’t follow the rules is a matter of trespassing. I don’t think they should be indefinitely imprisoned for that. And I stand by statement that non-violent offenses should not result in indefinite/life imprisonment. Including larceny, fraud, aiding and abetting and bribery. That you would have the state lock these people up indefinitely- up to and including for life- is downright cruel.
Similarly, Xe’ra was wrong to indefinitely imprison Alleria for using the void. Alleria did not hurt anyone, or harm anyone, and was actually saving lives while making inroads with a potential ally in the Locus Walker. Working with the void to do good and not harm anyone in the process is not a crime. It’s just an example of Xe’ra being so terribly extremist and self righteous in her fear/dislike of the void that she indefinitely imprisons otherwise innocent people merely for being associated with it. All while withholding knowledge of the naruu void cycle from Turalyon.
And yet you support her- even when she’s wrong- based entirely on the this image you’ve cooked up of her as an authority figure that’s therefore deserving of deference and a positive portrayal.
…
If you think constantly bombarding people with the same message over and over doesn’t work, then why do you keep bombarding people with the same messages over and over in your threads? If you think making the same arguments can sometimes make people extremist, why do you keep making them?
I, of course, disagree with that assertion. I think people who end up being extremists all too often either haven’t heard about, come to understand, or come to accept the existence of nuance. Often because it frees them of the obligation to consider the shared dignity/humanity of other certain people. However it’s only through repeated exposure to that nuance and by challenging extremist views that they can be prevented from spreading. The solution to extremism is never to simply stop talking about it and certainly never to simply let it continue unopposed out of fear they’ll double down if challenged.
The idea that speaking out against something makes people more likely to embrace it out of spite is a mostly a hollow threat made by people who've already made up their minds on the topic. Don't buy it.
It’s right up there with, “The reason so many people are racist/mysgonist/anti-LGBT+ is because people these days won’t stop talking about civil rights.” in terms of bad takes.
You support Xe’ra’s violation of bodily autonomy and genocide if it’s for what she considers the greater good- even if it’s bad for us- because that’s pretty much what Illidan and Sylvanas are about when we opposed them. You and Xe’ra are pretty much in the same boat as the “edgy nihilists” you condemn in that regard. Xe’ra did choose Illidan to be her champion, afterall.
…
Regarding depictions of religion in WoW…
We have indeed had positive portrayals of elements of other faiths. We’ve also had several instances of the world being threatened by forces wielding shadow/void magic, and voodoo, and shamanic powers. We’ve also seen both good and PLENTY of examples of bad shadow/void entities, bad loa and bad elemental/spirits. If you think all these portrayals mixing good/bad representations of faiths are fine and not attacks on religion like you claim, then you should be okay with the Light, naruu, and the like getting a similar mix of good/bad portrayals as well.
But you aren’t fine with it.
It’s because you don’t actually care about religions being demonized in WoW or fiction. You’ll even passively/tacitly accept it and encourage it. You just conflate the Light with Christianity- seemingly representing your ideals regarding proper religion/authority- and insist it be uniquely presented as the one morally good cosmological force in WoW.
Your bias further exposes itself in how you once again overlook the blatant historical Christian references in the Scarlet Crusade just so you can erroneously claim it’s based on Islamic groups. The crusading Knights Templar were fighting in part to establish a Christian Kingdom in Jerusalem, while the the Scarlet Inquisition were fighting to expel what they considered subversive elements after the Christian Reconquista finished retaking Hispanola from the Moors. THOSE are the religiously motivated/connected land grabs the Scarlet Crusade are historically based on. Not some organization that didn’t even exist when the WoW was released was created. Not that Christianity and Islam are particularly unique when it comes to the idea of religious groups fighting for territory in the hopes of establishing some sort of theocratic state either.
As for the shadow/void worshipping cultists. They’re WoW’s take on the well worn trope of the evil fantasy cultists, which is broadly derived from real world Christians portrayals of various non-Christian religions as dangerous cults obsessed with darkness, death, spoopy magic, and trafficking with evil powers. There’s been more Lovecraftian stuff (madness, tentacles, transmogrification, fish, etc) as the years have gone on, and that author made no attempts to hide the the fact that he was using such cultists as indicative of his fear of various non-white peoples and his false understanding of their religious traditions. Call of Cthulu, for instance, takes place in Lousiana and the largely black/mixed cultists shenanigans were originally believed to be them practicing Voodoo.
In just a couple of posts, you’ve simultaneously expressed a lack of belief in right/wrong and no interest in discussing her consequences while also labeling her as guilty of wrong doing and listing off several possible punishments- so no, I don’t think you’ll be happy enough whatever the consequences she faces end up being.
If this was just a thread to complain about “Light Crusade” expansion, I wouldn’t have bothered to give you my hypothetical scenario.
Your accusations and assessments of me are as inaccurate as ever, and your projectionism and cherry-picking undermines your commitment to research.
When did Xe’ra betray trust? Plus, you repeat your strawman arguments against me so much, I wonder if you’re part parrot.
The Onslaught went from “Scarlet Crusade foreign mission” to “splinter group who abandoned the Scarlet Crusade”; do you know what a splinter group is?
Even if you were right, every criticism you threw at me would also apply to you.
I said nothing about uncritical support of a life-sentence, and you know it.
Can you not imagine the state being right about anything, or just concerning your cousin, or can I give you a taste of your own medicine and use Ad Hominem arguments to frame you as blindly contrarian like you try to frame me as a blind follower?
You do realize the even the fallible legal system has knowledge, skills and resources that you don’t, right?
Telling how you try to strawman me saying family vs state is case-by-case as blind support for the state.
Why do you ignore my repeated statements about earthly authority figures being flawed but necessary?
What are you afraid will happen to your cousin, given you made a point of mention you fear for what could happen to him being a black man committing crimes in the state you cited?
There’s a difference between trespassing and sedition.
As good as Alleria’s actions are, the fact that she constantly has to fight the Void’s whispers show it’s not as harmless as you claim; it’s like the supernatural equivalent of weaponizing radioactive waste.
How is considering her imprisonment of Alleria understandable but harsh supporting her?
You keep wrongly claiming I’m making the same arguments and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
I think you missed the point of what I said about extremists not necessarily responding to repeated pressure.
I said people doubling down in response to pressure was merely a possibility, and you know it.
When did voodoo threaten the world, and were they ever retconned into villainy?
I don’t conflate the Light with Christianity any more than you conflate Xe’ra with government authority figures you fear will harm your cousin.
Your bias made you overlook how I directly compared the Scarlet Crusade to the Knights Templar too;
Your hit-and-miss analogies aside, the fact that you brought race into a part of the discussion about religions explains a great deal.