You are objectively wrong.
1 Like
Saurfangās disillusioned stance on war and the horde was always going to be a theme, and was probably concieved of as a result of mining Wrath for Shadowlands ideas. What does he say when Drannosh dies? Something about his warriorās death. BFA was as much about Saurfang wanting to die as anything else. It was also about the death of Saurfangās samurai cultish worship of war. IMO, they rushed his ronin state too much.
TLDR: I dont think they made old Soldier to make up for WoT. I think they made Old Soldier because they liked the idea of revsisting Saurfangās deathwish in Wotlk.
2 Likes
Sorry, it doesnāt slant any differently to me.
But I still hope they double down on it.
Because I see people accepting it anyway.
The reason that it is slanted language is because it is a word choice meant to persuade the reader to percieve the object in a certain way. It makes assumptions on behalf of the reader.
And Christie as a writer is free to use slanted language in her fictional setting all day. There is nothing morally wrong with that, but Danuser has an obligation, for the good of the narrative, to police that better.
The alternative approach might not have had such a visceral effect, which could be bad for someone who, for example, only identifies with the alliance. In that case, the effect of being told that you should feel a certain way about the event helps to establish character motivation. But what about players who identify with the horde? Or what about players who enjoy both?
You can get the best of both worlds by having Genn call it genocide. Allowing the reader to choose to agree with Genn, or accept that Gennās view is just that. A view. Objectively, genocide as a categorization should be reserved for historians describing periods and campaigns that nearly had the effect of wiping out entire ethnicities or cultures. Not singular events. American westward expansion comes to mind. The Native American people, or Pacific Islanders. Native Hawaiians. Academically attempting to persuade people of the Armenian āgenocideā in historical context is acceptable.
But objectively, Teldrassil was an act of terror, not genocide. It was a mass murder of non-combatants, not genocide. It was an attempt to break up the alliance that forms an enemy superpower, not an attempt to irradicate an ethnicity. You can feel free to argue that Sylvanas and the Forsaken wanted to bring death to the living, and that the Orcs wanted to āslay them allā and that argument has merit (and counters), but the burning of Teldrassil was not objectively an act of genocide, except that Golden said so, in the narrative voice.
1 Like
Doesnāt seem like it.
Iāll try to talk nonsense about deals again.
Does the Horde have the same claims for loud monstrous words in relation to the Alliance? Blood elves, orcs or trolls?
Exactly! Cleansing Dalaran!
One of the main āgenocidesā of the Alliance, which is actually persecution based on professional activities! It just so happens that the pursued profession tends to disguise.
Would you not agree that the term cultural genocide uses the term genocide metaphorically to compare an act of ending a culture to an act of wiping out a people? Assuming you would, would you not then have to admit that the term is used (at least in this case) to add emotional weight to the act being described as such?
1 Like
Since I am a person that enjoys both factions, my claims about charged speech being forced into the narrative apply equally.
1 Like
So you agree that the Purge of Dalaran and Camp Taurajo ā¦
Demon. These events were āmonstrousā invented by the players. Disgruntled clatter of tongue.
Cultural genocide does not use the term genocide āmetaphorically.ā It uses it accurately, because it acknowledges that there are ways of wiping out a people without physically killing them all.
3 Likes
Yeah, demonizing them should be the territory of the players or the characters. They should not be cannonically categorized subjectively.
1 Like
Soā¦ figuratively wiping them outā¦ by erasing their culture. So, likeā¦ a metaphor.
Figurative speech can be accurate.
1 Like
That ship has sailed, and until things are settled properly, it will remain like so.
A murderer and a thief are not equally guilty. The Alliance may not be free of scruples, but itās a lot better at not being awful compared to the Horde. Again, until Teldrassil is sorted out, it will remain this way.
3 Likes
These are both valid points, that I am not arguing. You make them in response to statements I made, that it shouldnāt be this way.
Is there a point you are failing to make, or do you just want everyone to know how much you dislike the Horde?
3 Likes
The point iām making is, your way of solving this problem is wrong. You donāt solve the problem through retcons and clever wordplay. You solve the problem by adressing the problem directly going forward.
3 Likes
Dudeā¦ Ill say it again. Its not a retcon. Its not clever wordplay. If you think its clever, or wordplay, then debating you isnt very sporting.
1 Like
If in several instances, both in game and out, including from word of god, calls it a genocide, then it is a genocide. Thatās it. Nothing more to it. We donāt need a retcon about that three years after the fact. We need to adress it instead.
4 Likes
When characters in game say somethingā¦ anything, thats not a problem. The only problem is Christie Golden, in the voice of 3rd person Omniscient narrator saying it. Its the same problem as the cata 3rd person omniscient narrator stating that the wrathgate was definitively a coup that the forsaken were wrongly accused of in the opening cinematic of the starting zone.
āI barely escaped with my life!ā gasp/swoon
Yeah, sure Sylvanas.
1 Like
Have you forgotten that Ion also said that it was genocide? Iād say that is word of god if anything.
But iām curious, what do you think redacting the word āgenocideā and replacing it with āmass murderā will do? The Horde will still have a debt to pay, one way or another. The Alliance still still have a moral highground, until they do something to change that, or the Horde does something to make up for their actions.
3 Likes
Noā¦ I havent forgotten. I have disregarded it. When devs say things, their word choices, however inflammatory are really meaningless when it comes to the narrative.
I feel like Iām talking to a wall. I didnt say that it should be redacted. I said it should be acknowledged, and refuted by characters in game. That is to say, bring the debate into the universe, in a subtle and possibly even self aware way. Make it fun. Get it off the forums and into the halls of Azeroth. Downplay the time Golden said āgenocideā and double down on the time Golden said āgenocideā through Anduin, while also showing us horde character(s) denying the genocide. Then guys like you can feel free to make comparisons to holocaust deniers, but the integrity of the narrative would be in a better place.
1 Like