Sure they can, but it rarely happens.
Same pattern as in other games, more of them in writing - more stories about emotions, more crybabies in the story. Less badass male characters.
All it takes is to watch their interview with the bbc, Holly and the other lady (Forgot her name) are going on talking about game being a safe space, and if they could go back in the past, they would change certain races to make them less offensive. (Whatever that means.) So here we are, they removed word greenskin, stories are full of “emotions”, no epic male characters. Story is dull and generic AF. But sure, female writers can write gritty stories.
Personally I’d argue that it is alot more manly and “badass” for a man to be able to express his emotions healthily instead of just being a walking fridge of muscles with no emotional response at all beyond 1-liners and grunts.
The whole notion that men cant or shouldn’t be emotional because it makes them “weak” is such a horrible thing and extremely harmful to men as a whole.
It’s okay to cry guys, or to hug your homies. Be more emotional.
3 Likes
It’s true though.
I was a massive crybaby when I was 3 and people still made fun of me for it when I was 11. By “people” I mean only girls.
Then once I became a massive, hulking berserker no one ever brought it up again. At least not to my face.
I’m capable of all 3 emotions: rage, sadness and hatred.
Please tell me you’re just being sarcastic and has copy-pasted some reddit story. (It can be hard to tell through text).
The last part is semi joking but not quite sarcastic.
I was easily one of the biggest crybabies ever and people did make fun of me for it. You don’t think that’s believable?
Oh, it is absolutely believable because kids can be really mean and horrible.
But the moral of the story there isn’t to just be an emotionless “big man”. Because those people also likely grew up(I hope) and learned that they were wrong for being like that(I hope as well).
Being emotional is perfectly fine. But I’d say that you got treated like that as a child is further proof how toxic the mindset if that men can’t or shouldn’t be emotional is. The solution is again, not to agree with it and further carry on that idea but to disregard it.
Emotions are healthy.
2 Likes
All power comes from physical force and the willingness to use it. Whether it’s in the literal sense you do something, or you send police/armed forces to do it. This is why elites know there’s a limit to how far you can push the common man before they snap and revolt. Which is also why we’re kept pretty content in the west. The game that’s being played is quite clear, the wealthy and government are aware there’s a limit to how much they can make people miserable, so they aim to keep the general population above that line.
The political compass is not terrible as a tool, it’s just over used by meme culture, it does accurately represent the polarity on human political leaning such as Traditionalism vs Progressivism, Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism.
In it’s statement sure, but show me anywhere that’s actually put that into practice without falling to tyranny, I’ll wait awhile… The notion the rich shouldn’t exploit the poor is also a core part of the notion of a free market. But horrible people are going to game any system they can. Which is why both Raw free market capitalism and Raw Communism is awful.
1 Like
Guess I’ll post this for the 3rd time because people don’t seem to understand the difference between showing emotion and being a weak overly emotional character.
The issue is not with Anduin suffering or even being emotional and disappearing for a few years to deal with his trauma, it’s that there is nothing heroic or praise worthy about a someone who when faced with a situation that demands action they wallow in their own grief and do not take action. This is weakness not someone being strong and showing their emotions.
Take the cannon suicide attempt, I flat out, refuse to call that an attempt at heroic sacrifice.
- He defeats a nerubian,
- Goes to use the light
- Gets scared because of his trauma
- Doesn’t actually try to use the light, decides others can use the light I’m not needed
- Jumps at the cannon.
- Surrounded by enemies and he makes no attempt to fight back, just backs into a corner and gets captured.
This is cowardice not bravery, he took the easy way out, didn’t try and fight, just caved to his feelings.
Bravery would be the following:
- He defeats a nerubian,
- Goes to use the light
- Gets scared because of his trauma
- See his allies are in trouble and bolsters his determination
- Attempts to use the light, whether is works or not is irrelevant to the next bit but for argument sake say it doesn’t work
- Jumps at the cannon to make it miss
- Surrounded by enemies and he fights back standing his ground until he is eventually swarmed.
He went down fighting, showing defiance and the ability to take control of your emotions, not that you can’t feel them or experience them, but the making of a man is in dealing with his emotions instead of letting them rule him.
See the difference, they could keep the plot exactly the same, but the characters behaviour goes from whiney coward to a brave hero.
Being a hero is not about not showing trauma or emotions, it’s about rising above your issues, know that others are more important than your feelings.
3 Likes
You say that but this thread is full of emotional men who are dismissed as insecure or not “real” men because they are showing they are upset.
If they were like me and they didn’t care, no one would make fun of them.
Yes because that is very much a different situation.
If you’re simply a man who is very emotional that is fine. Showcasing that emotion by being furious at women existing, hating women in general or just express rage and hate towards transgender people, people of color, gay people etc, that is not acceptable.
It’s just being a nasty person.
I feel like I really shouldn’t need to explain this.
1 Like
We’re not talking about monke village in 7000 B.C. or something, political power can’t be reduced to the willing use of force. You could define a state as a geographically delimited political entity with written laws and whose right to enforce them is recognised by its inhabitants. But this tells us very little about the nature of power itself, who holds it, why and against whom they wield it. You can’t answer this question without reasoning in terms of class warfare. The “elite” you speak of, in capitalist societies, is nothing but an emanation of the capitals they represent. In this context, government uses its legitimacy to rule, under the pretense of democracy, to advance the interests of the ruling capitalist class, at the expense of the “common man”.
But you’re right in saying that governments tend to try very hard to contain the potential for revolt of exploited peoples, and the farce of liberal democracies is exactly that, where everything is debated while the status quo is materially never challenged.
Fascism itself was born in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism as the “bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation”. These organisations do not negate, but complement each other.
The issue is that communism, at its very core, is not part of that scheme, but rather the current of thought that tried to challenge it. I know it gets confusing when people call “left” or “leftist” politicians that are by all means capitalists, but messing with the words doesn’t change the material, economic reality of class warfare.
I’d say that the core reality of free market is that those who own the means of production, do in fact exploit the workforce of the people to increase their profits, and they use the state and its cohercive legitimacy to their advantage. This is not an accident, a system that could be good but is corrupted by some external factor. Exploitation and centralisation of wealth are an unavoidable consequence of individual property of the means of production, and so is private interests infiltrating and directing what should be public. This isn’t a “both sides” situation: there is a problem, while collective property of the means of production and a workers’ state are the solution to that problem.
2 Likes
No we really haven’t political power is based on the power given to the officials by the masses. If people have enough of it they overthrow their government. That’s happened multiple times all over the world. All human societies are underpinned by the threat of physical force. Break the law and men turn up and take you away and lock you in a cell.
Then you misunderstand the fundamental principles of a free market. I’m guessing you’re at college/uni and have just read a book on Marxism. Both Free markets and Communism can be corrupted, however the difference between them is that at it’s core a free market involves voluntary participation where as a economic communism is mandatory. What I believe you’re referring to is corporate capitalism, in which corporation use their power to buy politicians and give themselves an functioning monopoly. Which is not the same as a free market, a pure free market is one without government interference but again can be corrupted because without government interference there’s nothing to stop monopoly’s forming. Lobbying in America is insane, genuinely don’t know how they tolerate it, almost every other country in the world finds it wild.
Mishandled character and wasted potential.
The Maw is the WoW version of Hell. The Light answered Anduin in Hell itself. But now he is a ptsd ridden emo that rejected the Light.
Yet it does not change the fact that the WW2 German ruling party were Leftists and Socialists.
Competent female content creators are cast out if they do not comform to the sanctioned ideology. It happened with Amy Hennig that was the writer and dircetor of Naughty Dog that gave Uncharted 1 and 3 and Last of Us 1.
When male Feminist Neil Druckmann tried to make it more Anita Sarkeesian brand of feminism then Amy refused and got the boot. Get rid of real women in gaming to champion women in gaming.
1 Like
Every historian is laughing at you.
1 Like
Absolutely. As I said if they’d kept those emotions inside no one would suggest they aren’t real men or are insecure.
When asked how I feel I just say:
“I’ve never really thought about that.” or
“I’m not sure.”
Unfortunately for you. History can not be rewritten to fit what you want.
If you look at death toll alone. Socialism - Communism is undefeated.
2 Likes
No?
And that’s assuming that your speculation is correct in that they over-hired female writers.
Wokecraft* fixed it for you.
They do overthrow their government, which can be fine by me. And then what? Make their own? With what laws? Who do they give the power to enforce them? All societies need institutions and power structures, the point is, who holds that power? Is it the people, or the few?
I’m 33, and quoting Machiavelli, who sadly couldn’t have written books on Marxism, “you can ascend to the principate with either the favour of the people, or with that of the nobles” and “one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed.”
I think you kind of answered yourself here. “Corporate capitalism” isn’t a thing per se, just a degenerate state of capitalism that by its own rules brought itself where it currently is, in spite of all the bourgeois governments that do in fact legiferate on economic matters, and it is quite happy with where it’s at. It’s a system that works as intended, that only in ideological fairy-tales, abstract from any material evidence, can be made to look functional. If we’re still to chase the fabled invisible hand, we might as well start preaching about flat Earth and magic potions: we wouldn’t be any less scientific. But since we’re talking about books, there’s a good 150 years worth of literature on the subject, you don’t have to take it from me.
But this is the part that bugs me the most:
There is nothing voluntary nor free in sacrificing your time and toll for people who reap more benefits than you will see in ten lifetimes, because they were born into ownership, while you were born outside of it. And it sure as hell there is nothing voluntary in “you either work for me at my conditions, or you starve”.
And make no mistake, all economic systems are “mandatory”, otherwise they wouldn’t be systems. You couldn’t live as a capitalist in the USSR any more than you can live as a communist in the UK, but somehow we only ever attribute “freedom” to one system, the objectively more archaic one. Because freedom to “westerners” only means “freedom to own other people’s labour”, never “freedom from the theft of your labour”. I’d take state mandated public housing over whatever is happening to rent prices on both sides of the pond, be it due to corps or to small landlords.
I must admit it’s also pretty weird to me, seeing such a general insistence against communism, in countries where communism has been effectively defeated more than thirty years ago, and whose every affliction is directly and unapologetically caused by capitals, their cultural hegemony, their tendency to imperialism.
History =/= whatever the hell Stéphane Courtois was smoking.
But I’m afraid history, or rather the public perception of history and its perceived moral value, can and has been rewritten many times. Cultural hegemony is a thing, and we’ve been discussing it for roughly a hundred years. There’s no reason not to be critical, in 2024, of the dominant narration and values, especially since they were far from dominant just a few years ago. You think what you think not because it’s necessarily true (it could, by accident), but because in 1993 Yeltsin’s tanks were shooting at the House of Soviets.
E.g. the very idea of fascism and communism being two opposing totalitarianisms is relatively recent. Arendt kind of started it, but almost at the same time Kojève stated the exact opposite. The new ideological motif of the equal fight against different dictatorships had a hard time consolidating in the West, and it completely managed to do so only after the fall of the USSR, through the massive use of media, rathen than undisputed and well documented historical studies.
When numbers are disputed and vary in the order of millions, don’t talk about the fixity of history.
But no historians could ever argue, no matter how deranged or math-deprived they may be, that more people lost their lives under communism than under capitalism. Nobody ever counts those for some weird, unexplainable reason.
2 Likes
It’s the people, which is why Governments and corps are very careful going up to the limit of angering the populace without tipping them over the edge.
You’re not quoting Machiavelli, as he did not speak about the means of productions, that’s straight marx.
And what pray tell is stopping you from making your own business, developing and growing said business. You have all the tools you need to create a business yet you would rather complain about others.
I would say it’s probably because in less than 50 years communism caused the deaths of over 180million people. I would say that’s probably why people are a little adverse to the ideology.