Installer Steam
log på
|
sprog
简体中文 (forenklet kinesisk)
繁體中文 (traditionelt kinesisk)
日本語 (japansk)
한국어 (koreansk)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bulgarsk)
Čeština (tjekkisk)
Deutsch (tysk)
English (engelsk)
Español – España (spansk – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (spansk – Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (græsk)
Français (fransk)
Italiano (italiensk)
Bahasa indonesia (indonesisk)
Magyar (ungarsk)
Nederlands (hollandsk)
Norsk
Polski (polsk)
Português (portugisisk – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (portugisisk – Brasilien)
Română (rumænsk)
Русский (russisk)
Suomi (finsk)
Svenska (svensk)
Türkçe (tyrkisk)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisk)
Українська (ukrainsk)
Rapporter et oversættelsesproblem
Denne tråd er blevet låst 
Diskussionsregler og retningslinjer
4 
Rapporter dette indlæg
Without that evidence, it seems to me that the only one deflecting here is you.
hint: straw man
When it comes to gaming "woke" crowd generally refers to the rabid non-fans who will virtuesignal the hell out of whatever is the popular topic at hand to give eachother pat on the back and pretend to fight against injustice, including sorry excuse for journalists who are activists whose voice got way more influence on the stuff they don't really care about than they deserve(mc scores); but when it comes to actually buying/playing the game...nope. A piece of media being "woke" would be one that panders(willingly or not) to aforementioned mob. Hence the saying "get woke; go broke."
This is not an euphemism. If I wanted to call you a gamer word I would just do it.
But I'm fairly sure calling out virtuesignaling/relying on buzzword as "human rights" to try for moral highground(which you don't have, anakin) would hurt you people far more.
I agree; people who virtue signal and pretend to fight for justice are incredibly pathetic. These armchair activists help no one, they simply make online environments needlessly toxic.
So far, you as an individual seem to fall into this definition quite neatly.
I doubt you will actually consider my words though, so long as I am "you people" from your perspective.
It must make life easier to be able to passively dismiss the opinions of others.
I have clearly expressed my distaste for the crowd referred to in:
"When it comes to gaming "woke" crowd generally refers to the rabid non-fans who will virtuesignal the hell out of whatever is the popular topic at hand to give eachother pat on the back and pretend to fight against injustice, including sorry excuse for journalists who are activists whose voice got way more influence on the stuff they don't really care about than they deserve(mc scores); but when it comes to actually buying/playing the game...nope. A piece of media being "woke" would be one that panders(willingly or not) to aforementioned mob. Hence the saying "get woke; go broke.""
Woke is just a much easier way to refer to them.
projection didn't help you get anywhere and it won't begin to help you here either, you're the one trying to bring up "human rights" remember?
I just play the game and want to keep playing a good game rather than game that is downgraded to pander to a crowd that won't even buy the game... since, you know, I have and reviewed the game.
Most probably westoids from country that's defending you-know-who's genocide on palestinians while accusing China of committing genocide on a separate group of muslims(whose regional language is on the paper money and that region is receiving heavy investment in all aspects as the land bridge to west asia) that totally matters to your country? Yeah, you people. It's pretty easy; I don't even have to dismiss the opinions of you people, you did that on your own.
You people know no shame, otherwise you would never have even attempted to steer anything toward human rights.
You have no words that can counter any of this, so save yourself some public embarrassment and don't even try.
I appreciate your concern, but this discussion really has me nostalgic for the old days of the internet. I'd rather humor you for a bit longer.
You seem to have misunderstood. I didn't say you had refused to define it, just that a definition would ruin your position.
Your definition already has, even if you chose to ignore it.
For example, let's identify some key points of being "woke" as you have defined:
- Virtue Signalling, noun: The act or practice of conspicuously displaying one's awareness of and attentiveness to political issues, matters of social and racial justice, etc., especially instead of taking effective action. (As defined by Merriam-Webster)
- Writers who don't actually play a game, but instead pander to an audience.
- A saying I have never heard in my life.
It lies outside of the above quotation, but based on accusations you are attempting to make based on the mention of "human rights" being a "buzzword" then it appears there is also a 4th aspect to woke, which is the usage of "buzzwords" defined by Merriam-Webster asWhile I am guilty of some of these counts, if that invalidates my position, it invalidates yours just as well.
For example, spontaneously baiting with issues of Israel and Taiwan, using it to claim moral superiority and even using the adorable term "westoid"—what else could that be besides virtue signaling? How amusingly hypocritical, I actually smiled at that. Thank you.
As we have both reviewed the game, the journalist criticism could be applied to both of us, a bit abstractly. Are we pandering to audience in this board? At least in this discussion I can tell you I'm attempting to directly engage with you, even just for the fun of it. It's up to you whether you can say the same. As for who has actually played Tactical Breach Wizards, I can't say for certain whether you have actually finished the game we are supposedly discussing, as your profile hides that information.
As far as buzzwords, even if "woke" doesn't count, bringing up terms you seem not to even understand for effect like "projection" counts as much as "human rights" does.
the following is a list of various things I have personally seen the anti woke crowd speak out against, implying these practices are "woke" (considering no one has used that term to describe themselves in like 10 years we kinda have to go off what the opposition is saying to figure out what is and isn't woke unfortunately) and how they retain to social issues and human rights within a progressive angle (specifically talking about the political definition of progressive because I doubt we can agree on what actual progress would be).
The anti woke crowd is incredibly against pride flags in games and gay/trans people existing in games. By your definition is the acknowledgement and implied support of a group fighting for the right to not be persecuted for the sexual or gender preferences they were born with by showing their symbols or having representation of them in your media NOT a progressive stance on a social issue and is the movement NOT fighting for a human right? Specifically the right to not be persecuted for the way you were born whether that be race, gender, or sexual orientation.
How about patriarchal gender roles? The anti woke crowd hates strong competent women in games who are fully clothed (I should mention that media will occasionally mess this up by making it a central ideal of their character that they are breaking the norm by being strong and that should be criticised however not for the idea itself but for the failure of understanding feminist philosophy enough to realise that pointing out the fact a woman is strong implies she is an exception instead of such a fact being the status quo implying that the average woman is not strong) they also hate when men are shown to be physically or emotionally weak. Is the ideal that men are allowed to be weak and women are allowed to be strong not a progressive ideal towards a social issue and should it not be a human right to self actualize and be whatever kind of person you want to be without having to submit to the social pressure of those around you judging you harshly provided you are not hurting anyone by being who you want to be.
How about minority representation? Is a push for better representation of various minorities in games not a progressive social issue? What about mental health representation? Is a push to be more open and honest about mental health and to explore such ideas through the medium of games not a progressive social issue.
You can disagree with the ideas that "woke" people campaign for, but to say that those issues are not progressive in a political standpoint would require you to totally abandon all objectivity.
Also to second what CrazyMLC was saying. If a developer has a certain political view that you dislike to the point you feel the need to make it known to people who do enjoy the game that you don't and why you don't congratulations you are a "rabid non fan" the idea "woke games bad" is pretty damn popular so your also on whatever is the popular topic at hand. But I'm sure you'll just say I'm projecting instead of refuting any of the ideas I've laid out here. Also fun fact Tom Francis writes for PC gamer so I'm sure he's one of those sorry excuses for a journalist.
Also just to cover all my bases, I am a Canadian and while my country does support Israel I am staunchly pro Palestine and also heavily against the genocide of the Uyghur people defined by them being put into concentration camps to be worked to death, and their culture slowly erased. The idea that the maintaining of a language and money being invested into a region would somehow negate these very real and important events seems very foolish in my opinion. I can believe in things my government does not and an attempt to define me or the entire west as "you people" and including in the definition of "you people" the opinions of western governments would be a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
Agree with all of this aside from one thing that i dont really know why im bothering to mention since it always starts a massive fight.
I think being "Anti-likud" the right wing nationalist group in charge of Israel at the moment is where people should be at.
Any time a left wing government has gotten into power peace talks have rapildy progressed to the point that we have had 3 very close to peace moments in the 2000 - 2008 period during the conflict.
But HAMAS is also despicable and got there election "win" through threats and propoganda.
HAMAS and Likud love each other because the other's existence solidifies their supporter base. HAMAS even made a massive increase in terrorist attacks in the 6 months lead up to their 2008 election, predictably getting return rocket barrages for that entire time, empowering their "Fight the evil infidels" ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.
The civilians of Palestine that aren't buying into the radical religious violence and the civilians of Israel that aren't buying into the right-wing genocidal propaganda are the ones who are suffering here. Neither side is led by a "good guy".
If you are at all interested, let me know, and I can send you a 10-page summary of the conflict between 1000 and 2008. I've mostly been sending it to people who felt that being anti-Likud is antisemitic but I have received good feedback from most people who have read it.
The history is pretty wild. One peace attempt failure involved an Israeli leader going against the will of his party, having a bunch of conservative rabbis put a "death curse on him", him getting ousted as the leader, starting his own party, having a large lead in the polls 6 months before the election on a platfrom of withdrawal form Gaza and WestBank at all costs, and had a stroke and died before he could become elected.
Had to double check my sources when i read that, as it seems like a made up story lol.