What's with the anti-ghoul sentiment?

[Shadow]

why does the sole survivor treat ghouls in a very rude manner? All I hear is the option to call them freaks.

[Big Moustache]

When people get killed by feral ghouls, they not trust anything that looks like a walking dead. Like pitbulls, the sweetest animals but the race has the reputation of a super agressive killer.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by Shaman Mnyambo:

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

Apparently, if normies are tolerant of differences, they will eventually become dolphins.

?

I don't make the reasoning, I just hear Dan saying it.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by danconnors:

I've already said this SEVERAL times. Also @Douglas Grave: Arguing that when Earth is incinerated we can simply move to another star ignores the fact that the planet building phase of the cosmos will probably only last for 15 to 20 billion years. The first several generations of stars built no planets, because enough super novas hadn't gone off to create the volume of heavier elements to create planets.

Then planet building started with a vengeance. We are now at the height of planet building, but for every Earth like planet created hundreds of times its mass--more likely hundreds of thousands of times its mass of useless planets like Jupiter are used. This mass is permanently wasted, because when the Sun goes nova Jupiter won't be harmed Anyway it's very likely that habitats will be constructed with a longer life expectancy than normal planets.

Circumstances being different earlier or later doesn't prevent civilizations using planets right now while they're available (including simply remaining on them because it's where they evolved). To restate, you've yet to present a valid reason for an advanced civilization to not occupy both planets and habitats (in any given location) when it's possible to do so.

But frankly, by the time you're looking at even "just" millions of years, you're talking about civilizations that have either developed some transcendent technology, or are just running the clock against the heat death of the universe.

Real advancement isn't just inflated populations spread everywhere. Try that and you'll just as likely end up with insane butter battles over arbitrary differences, because no-one has anything better to do.

[danconnors]

You are fond of words like transcendent, because the word is virtually meaningless. How large is this transcendent civilization? It cannot be expressed in terms of mere size. How many inhabitants can populate a square mile of area of a typical transcendent civilization? To try to answer that is to negate the meaning of transcendentalism. And so on.

The reason I don't try to argue with you, Doug, is that on any given day, you can spew a larger cloud of blarney than I can hope to generate. By the way your statement that old people are freaks didn't offend me at all, because I already know I am living on borrowed time. I am no longer contributing to society. My organs are performing poorly; I wouldn't know what to do with a good looking girl if I managed to catch her All this is true, but it still beats being dead. Give yourself another 20--30--40 years, and watch your opinions change.

In any event I don't allow ghouls in my settlement, and, to tell the truth, I also don't allow males in my primary settlement. It is entirely settled by good looking females, whom I outfit in scanty, but powerful, armor, and give the very best weapons. There is nothing fair, kind, just, or any other nice word you can use. I fill it with good looking women because, in spite of the delapidated condition of my body, I still enjoy looking at good looking women.

[DouglasGrave]

Originally posted by danconnors:

You are fond of words like transcendent, because the word is virtually meaningless. How large is this transcendent civilization? It cannot be expressed in terms of mere size. How many inhabitants can populate a square mile of area of a typical transcendent civilization? To try to answer that is to negate the meaning of transcendentalism. And so on.

You're close, you're addressing it in reverse. A transcendent technology has, as the name implies, transcended previous limitations, and rather than being meaningless itself, is something that can render previous considerations meaningless.

Take mental digitization for a comprehensible example of a technology that transcends previous limitations. Once you've got human minds that live with access to an essentially unlimited existence, what does it matter if they don't occupy a lot of physical real estate?

Of course, in regard to the heat death of the universe, you'd presumably need some discovery that transcends basic entropic principles. It's a long-term consideration, to be sure, but if you don't answer it there's ultimately not much difference between a million years and a billion or a trillion; its's just people living a long time until they inevitably die out.

Originally posted by danconnors:

The reason I don't try to argue with you, Doug, is that on any given day, you can spew a larger cloud of blarney than I can hope to generate. By the way your statement that old people are freaks didn't offend me at all, because I already know I am living on borrowed time. I am no longer contributing to society. My organs are performing poorly; I wouldn't know what to do with a good looking girl if I managed to catch her All this is true, but it still beats being dead. Give yourself another 20--30--40 years, and watch your opinions change.

The very fact you think of it as "blarney" is part of a somewhat limited perspective, and one that I aim to broaden (I generally try to present different viewpoints on any given topic).

I mention the elderly as a comparison not with the goal of offense (though I recognize its potential to spur an emotive reaction) but because the properties aging entails are comparable to those you described for ghoulification. A loss of physical appeal (unless you're into that), reproductive abilities, mental degeneration, and so on.

So, to apply the imagination here: Given the changes of aging, could you not easily imagine what it would be like to be a ghoul?

If it is not so different, why accept one and discriminate against the other?

Originally posted by danconnors:

In any event I don't allow ghouls in my settlement, and, to tell the truth, I also don't allow males in my primary settlement. It is entirely settled by good looking females, whom I outfit in scanty, but powerful, armor, and give the very best weapons. There is nothing fair, kind, just, or any other nice word you can use. I fill it with good looking women because, in spite of the delapidated condition of my body, I still enjoy looking at good looking women.

I consider it entirely reasonable for people to exhibit their preference in such ways, I just recognize that it is an arbitrary personal preference, not due to some inherent worth in one situation or the other.

Of course, as a roleplayer, I try to change things around and adopt difference preferences for different characters that I play, but these are distinct from ideals for which I can personally vouch.

[danconnors]

Also as a role player, I cannot begin to imagine a settlement I would build that would be populated solely by ghouls. If I built such a travesty, after I began to get physically ill, I would gun down the entire settlement, then tear down every trace of it, and finally--no longer able to continue with such a lapse of sanity, I would start a new game.

Now I would ask what you thought of someone who built such a settlement, and pretended to enjoy it. Would you possibly question the sanity of such a person. If the person said he really saw no difference between a settlement full of ghouls and one of good looking women--or men--would you take him at his word? Or would you mutter--under your breath--about politically correct fools and their bloated sense of morals.

[Stelar Seven]

Originally posted by danconnors:

Also as a role player, I cannot begin to imagine a settlement I would build that would be populated solely by ghouls. If I built such a travesty, after I began to get physically ill, I would gun down the entire settlement, then tear down every trace of it, and finally--no longer able to continue with such a lapse of sanity, I would start a new game.

Now I would ask what you thought of someone who built such a settlement, and pretended to enjoy it. Would you possibly question the sanity of such a person. If the person said he really saw no difference between a settlement full of ghouls and one of good looking women--or men--would you take him at his word? Or would you mutter--under your breath--about politically correct fools and their bloated sense of morals.

I regularly build settlements of whomever, all ghouls, people, any settler is welcome in my settlements if they behave.

I like to look at visually appealing people and images but also visually interesting ones and my value of people is not based only on their looks. That was more a fantasy of my twenties.

It's not PC run amock to value people or ingame objects, for more than their appearance.

Take my rad rifle from Far Harbor, ugly as any gun I own, but it had rad and kinetic damage and the ammo was easy to locate so it was my distance work go to weapon. Carried that thing all over the commonwealth and nuka world.

Similarly some games I'm the great savior and that char saves everyone. My current playthrough I'm ignoring Preston and only maintaining a base and armor collection facility at Red Rocket.

I don't judge you for wanting only hot girls in their armor and skivies in your settlement but that would get old fast for me. Just because an all ghoul settlement isn't your thing is no reason to say that those of us who enjoy them are only pretending.

[Capn_Tucker]

I let anyone in, but the sexy outfits are reserved only for the girls who become storekeepers. Anyone on farming or guard duty is dressed appropriately. Except for Marcy. Her smart mouth gets her dressed as either Nuka Girl or female Grognak. Or sometimes in a cowgirl outfit from Nuka World..

[fauxpas]

Originally posted by DouglasGrave:

So, to apply the imagination here: Given the changes of aging, could you not easily imagine what it would be like to be a ghoul?

If it is not so different, why accept one and discriminate against the other?

Because there is a major difference you are attempting to gloss over, old people generally don't decend into cannibalistic madness, and those who do are generally frail enough that they aren't a legitimate threat to everyone else. The same can not be said of ghouls.

[IvantheFormidable]

Originally posted by Shaman Mnyambo:

The SS is a pos to mutants as well. In general the SS is racist towards nonhumans. Not to mention, they still hate on 200 year old commie ghouls from china... I'm not surprised though, that's what you get for clinging to 200 year old hatred, which is why I loved the Fallout 3 protagonist better because they weren't living in the pre war era where the U.S. Government brainwashed Americans into hating the Chinese.

Again, as stated by others before, there are options. You choose to do that, it's not the default state of the SS. More choice being a good thing is generally one of the few things folks agree on.

Originally posted by Shaman Mnyambo:

True but the protagonist is usually depicted a savior and hero of the commonwealth, thus it's very morally grey to call all ghouls freaks. What's the difference between that gunner named bullet, that raider named redeye who also call ghouls freaks and the SS? Hate against ghouls even the SS takes part in and makes comments against them that you don't have control of, i.e freak. Personally. This is offensive and derogatory. When bullet calls billy a freak, it made me think that there is no difference between bullet and the SS since they both call ghouls freaks of nature.

What's the difference you ask? Well, not trying to sell a ghoul into slavery is a big difference if you ask me.

Bottom line, if you don't want to call ghouls "freaks", then don't.

[Shadow]

Originally posted by IvantheFormidable:

Originally posted by Shaman Mnyambo:

The SS is a pos to mutants as well. In general the SS is racist towards nonhumans. Not to mention, they still hate on 200 year old commie ghouls from china... I'm not surprised though, that's what you get for clinging to 200 year old hatred, which is why I loved the Fallout 3 protagonist better because they weren't living in the pre war era where the U.S. Government brainwashed Americans into hating the Chinese.

Again, as stated by others before, there are options. You choose to do that, it's not the default state of the SS. More choice being a good thing is generally one of the few things folks agree on.

Originally posted by Shaman Mnyambo:

True but the protagonist is usually depicted a savior and hero of the commonwealth, thus it's very morally grey to call all ghouls freaks. What's the difference between that gunner named bullet, that raider named redeye who also call ghouls freaks and the SS? Hate against ghouls even the SS takes part in and makes comments against them that you don't have control of, i.e freak. Personally. This is offensive and derogatory. When bullet calls billy a freak, it made me think that there is no difference between bullet and the SS since they both call ghouls freaks of nature.

What's the difference you ask? Well, not trying to sell a ghoul into slavery is a big difference if you ask me.

Bottom line, if you don't want to call ghouls "freaks", then don't.

You don't have a choice in that. The SS automatically calls ghouls freaks. Especially with the wasteland whisperer perk. Sometimes you have choices but sometimes you don't.

[IvantheFormidable]

Originally posted by Shaman Mnyambo:

You don't have a choice in that. The SS automatically calls ghouls freaks. Especially with the wasteland whisperer perk. Sometimes you have choices but sometimes you don't.

Happen to have a source that shows where, in dialogue, all four options the player has contain the word "freak" or another derogatory word in reference to non-feral ghouls? Otherwise, yes, you do have a choice.

As for the wasteland whisperer perk, you're talking about feral ghouls, not sentient ones. Which are, for all intents and purposes, zombies. I don't think calling them "freaks" is a sign of discrimination or racism at all. I wouldn't put much stock in any of the lines that come from that bunch of perks in terms of "seriousness". But if you want to, I suppose go for it.

[Shadow]

Originally posted by IvantheFormidable:

Originally posted by Shaman Mnyambo:

You don't have a choice in that. The SS automatically calls ghouls freaks. Especially with the wasteland whisperer perk. Sometimes you have choices but sometimes you don't.

Happen to have a source that shows where, in dialogue, all four options the player has contain the word "freak" or another derogatory word in reference to non-feral ghouls? Otherwise, yes, you do have a choice.

As for the wasteland whisperer perk, you're talking about feral ghouls, not sentient ones. Which are, for all intents and purposes, zombies. I don't think calling them "freaks" is a sign of discrimination or racism at all. I wouldn't put much stock in any of the lines that come from that bunch of perks in terms of "seriousness". But if you want to, I suppose go for it.

With the regular intelligent speaking ghouls you have options to call or not call but for ferals you don't have options, your character will outright call them freaks. And yes this imo is still wrong. They might be feral but they were people once. It's very disrespectful to call them that. As if they are to blame for them turning into ferals. It's a morally wrong insult to call them freaks. Ferals are still people/once were. They didn't volunteer to become into zombies. They should not be insulted.

[Stelar Seven]

Going to have to disagree with that. The ferral ghouls have to be killed, like any rabid dangerous animal. If the SS empathizes with them it will make that necessity soul crushingly hard to do. In the post apocolypse horrorshow that is the world they can't afford that sodt spot.

Besides the person who the ghoul was is gone. Dead though the body lives. No agent or moral object is involved.

[IvantheFormidable]

Originally posted by Shaman Mnyambo:

With the regular intelligent speaking ghouls you have options to call or not call but for ferals you don't have options, your character will outright call them freaks. And yes this imo is still wrong. They might be feral but they were people once. It's very disrespectful to call them that. As if they are to blame for them turning into ferals. It's a morally wrong insult to call them freaks. Ferals are still people/once were. They didn't volunteer to become into zombies. They should not be insulted.

I don't see how it's immoral to insult feral ghouls any more than it is to sling insults at a raider that you're fighting, or a super mutant, or a pack of rabid dogs. To me, and I'd wager to most people, this is a moral non-issue, and a really odd thing to hang your hat on for moral 'outrage.' Also, calling a feral ghoul a "freak" is pretty mild imo, and one of the lesser insults I can think of for them off the top of my head.