Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
What this game does NOT need is fantasy political modernism inserted ignoring the historical context. it also does NOT need them inserting their political opinion or trying to modify history to suit their narrative.
Now this is probably a bait/troll post, but knowing Paradox they could very well decide to do this for the sake of being inclusive and getting that BlackRock and Baby Inc money, and turning the franchise into a joke instead of focusing on being a series-ish representation of history while still being a fun game- with the intent being to put you into the shoes and mindscape of rulers from back in the day instead of being like "they did X thing we consider bad now adays!!!! They evil!!!"
Also monarchs and the people ruling aren't really the main focus, the focus is on the state. the ruler just effects the state. Crusader Kings you could maybe justify it for, because it's 'entirely' about the monarchs and dynasties themselves and there isn't really any concept of a state or nation.
And nobody is "erasing" trans people, they weren't there to begin with for the most part, unless you get extremely in-depth with cultures and such, which doesn't make sense since EU4 has such a massive scope. Even then you're applying a modern narrative to historical people, like they wouldn't consider themselves "trans" because such terms and identity politics was different back then.
I'm not supporting any genocide, and 'trans erasure' i am convinced is not a thing that exists, but rather something akin to "They aren't pandering to my political opinion." I don't see how that's "transphobic" or "spreading hatred" but you are also the people that think J.K. Rowling is transphobic so i didn't expect a logical rebuttal.
It seems more or less a "agree with me or you are Hitler" situation. And i simply don't care what you say about it unless it's a valid point. i made my points and logic clear, if anyone cares to provide an interesting point i may modify my opinion, but just saying "do what i say or else" isn't convincing me personally- and i have a feeling it's not convincing anyone else.
Are you seriously denying the blatant removal of trans figures throughout history? You have to be a troll, even rightists don't lie that much.
You've made it very clear that you are on the side of hate. I don't need to argue with you and bless your ramblings with more consideration than they're worth, which is nothing. Trans erasure will end, whether you like it or not.
Yeah, I am saying there isn't blatant removal of trans figures throughout history. Here is why:
1. for one thing, there is no "trans" people in 1444 because "trans" identity wasn't a thing. It's like asking "why are there no fascists in 1444?" Because that ideology and identity literally wasn't a thing. Trying to say X was fascist, by using our modern perspective- is flawed because the entire perspective on politics was far different back then. The same is true for any "gay" or "trans" people- there were people that did homosexual things in Rome, but they didn't consider themselves "gay" or "bisexual" because those identities are a modern creation to identify people, or for people to identify themselves as a community.
2. The exact opposite has happened, historians say that X person was trans because "they were called a girl" If anything anyone that is LGBT or a minority in the USA is over-represented in history to push a political narrative.
3. Anyone you would consider "trans" would likely not be in positions of power or any significant position in regards to the game. Remember, EU4 is a game with a massive scope, it's absurd to expect Paradox to represent tiny details about cultures like their views on "trans" or "gay" people when they don't even have anything relating to familiial units- which is far more impactful in terms of history.
4. This is a game that goes Alt history once you click play. If they had specific characters in a point of time that were 100% "trans" no questions about it (which is not the case for several reasons) and they said they weren't trans, you could *maybe* say it's trans erasure, except there is nobody that you can say is 100% anything, the only person that knows who they are- is that person. And sometimes not even then.
5. You have no proof of any "definitively trans" people that were made not-trans. Not highlighting "trans" people in a period of time in which "trans" wasn't even a thing isn't "erasing" anything.
Unlike Ashkenazi Jewish, btw, which also isn't in the game besides some advisors i think? and likely not because of anti-semitism but because they aren't the majority in the provinces, but they were actually a self-identified community and had significant impact in Europe.
What you are saying Paradox should do, is basically pander to a modern political movement in a historical game where said identities didn't even exist yet, and you can only do so by injecting modernism and modern perspective into a historical setting, which is a bad thing to do because anyone can input their perspective on historical settings- a historian or a historical game ISNT supposed to input the modern perspective on history, it's to show you the historical thinking and perspective of the time so you can UNDERSTAND people in the past better- which has valuable insights into the modern day.
I don't see how anything i said is "hateful" or on the side of "hate" it kind of sounds like "everyone i disagree with is a Nazi" sort of argument.
The fact you say it's automatically hatred to say something you disagree with (something people on the left do alot) and that there is no point in talking or arguing or debating me, says more about you than it does me.
I suggest watching Metatron, he goes over the problems well with inserting modern perspective and politics into historical settings instead of viewing history objectively or trying to understand how people back then thought/lived to gain insight on the past.
It would die out pretty quick.
No IVF back then