#online discussion

[lmaverick123]

Gaming Community Being Insufferable: GTA VI Trailer Edition

Talking about gaming online is becoming a real pain to do.  There are just so many awful people in the discourse, and it becomes tedious to engage with.  I discovered this the other day, when I saw the trailer for GTA VI.  I thought about doing a First Take post on it, but honestly, I don’t have anything to say.  I’m not a fan of the GTA franchise.  Big open world game with a narrative that isn’t…

[skunkes]

new annoying little back and forth: third time this week

[thunderboltfire]

*muffled I Wish I Had An Angel coming from the next room*

(pose references from Adorka stock)

[indigosfindings]

🔥 video games

im completely sick of people blaming problems in games on, like, The Laziness Of The Devs. it's untrue 99% of the time if you're talking about anything other than, like, the most cynically-produced shovelware imaginable, & it reflects a total unwillingness to engage with the actual realities under which games are made. like, gamefreak or sonic team or ubisoft or whoever can truly work under horrific, soul-crushing crunch conditions for months because the publisher needs the game out for christmas... and when the result inevitably has cut corners, we're going to call them lazy for it?? all i can conclude is that some people are just unwilling to disentangle bad art from Personal Moral Deficiency in their minds lol

[arthursfuckinghat]

So, I've been wondering something.

In red dead online, there isn't too much use for Dead Eye because it doesn't/can't slow time down since you're playing on a server. It's still a powerful skill if you work on the upgrades for it, but one thing I noticed a lot (because I rarely use Dead Eye in online mode) is that your character really doesn't like having a low Dead Eye meter.

As in, your character will cover their eyes and scrunch up their face and wince as if they've got a bad headache (this goes for playing in story mode too). Now I know they're just visual cues for the player to see and be able to tell that the Dead Eye is low (because your aim is much worse with low Dead Eye), but the implications are pretty interesting to me.

So the question is, does having low Dead Eye hurt and why?

We know that both Dead Eye and Eagle Eye are learned skills, and things like cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco, alcohol, snake oil and cheese all benefit your Dead Eye when it's low. It's a crucial meter, just like your heath or stamina - which raises more questions in itself.

Dead Eye and Eagle Eye are fascinating to me because they're very valuable abilities that can be used at will, and have specific set limits for how long they can be used at a time.

But only Dead Eye needs regular sustenance, or "feeding" I suppose.

This gives me the impression that Dead Eye is constantly dormant, instead of something that's "turned on" when needed. Like a constant state of being on high alert that's running on the sidelines of your character's day to day life.

When your character hasn’t used Dead Eye for a while and it still drains, it could mean their brain is struggling to maintain that high level of alertness in the background. This constant readiness, or the potential to drop into Dead Eye at any moment, would be like someone constantly being on high alert in real life. Even if they don’t act on it, the strain of staying ready for danger builds up.

Dead Eye uses an almost superhuman level of focus and precision. To enter that state of hyper awareness where time seems to slow down (even if it's just the perception of it), your character's brain might be working much harder than usual, forcing the mind into overdrive. Just like overusing muscles leads to physical fatigue, overworking the brain through intense focus could lead to mental exhaustion and physical symptoms, like headaches or vision problems.

And since Dead Eye depletes like a stamina bar and requires nourishment (cigarettes, alcohol, cheese), the skill could be linked to the body’s energy resources. Using Dead Eye probably increases your character's heart rate, sharpens reflexes, and probably even increases adrenaline production, which are all very taxing on the body.

Which makes sense as to why things like tobacco and alcohol help replenish it.

Stimulants like nicotine or the rush from alcohol might help keep that mental sharpness in check or at least alleviate the strain. It's as if the brain needs to be sharpened or soothed with substances because it's working overdrive in the background, even when you’re not actively engaging with Dead Eye.

So if we treat Dead Eye as something that affects the brain’s chemistry, like sharpening focus and precision, it could also deplete certain neurochemicals or hormones over time (adrenaline, dopamine, etc). Tobacco or alcohol might simulate the release of chemicals that help regulate those abilities. The discomfort your character feels when Dead Eye is low could well be on the same level as withdrawal symptoms, where the brain is craving more of those chemicals to return to its state of super focus.

I mean, what a fucking fascinating concept right?

Dead Eye is solely tied to heightened awareness for life or death situations, focusing entirely on people who can fight back and threaten your life. So while you're using it, you're engaging with targets that could potentially harm you, and that’s why it probably has such a taxing effect. Your mind and body are fully ramped up for combat, for precision, and for survival. It’s essentially a battle skill, designed for quick, decisive violence.

You also gain Dead Eye points for killing people, so you're not just using this dangerous skill, you're learning every time you use it and kill with it.

From a world building pov, this really deepens characters like Arthur or any other Dead Eye users. They're not just "good with guns" - they're managing the toll that comes with honing such a deadly skill. And unlike Eagle Eye, which is more of a passive, less draining ability, Dead Eye seems to tap into something more intense and unsustainable. Which is really fitting for their lifestyle.

Eagle Eye is taught through patience and understanding of the natural world, Dead Eye is forged in fire and the result of a life steeped in bloodshed and conflict.

[somewhereincairparavel]

i have ALWAYS promptly looked forward to jason grace's povs in the hoo books to the point where'd I'd flip the pages till I find the words "JASON" and would count the amount of povs he has in the whole book before I even finished reading, so I feel excited knowing that I'll get to his povs soon. there, I said it.

[secrescaryat]

// pentiment spoilers (implied ig but still there)

more of these because i was inspired

[proxentauri]

if i had a nickel for every time i played a remedy game that featured courtney hope’s character trying to get to a world-altering polyhedron in a universe where humans wear special harnesses to survive a world-ending threat, i’d have two nickels, which isn't a lot, but it's sure weird that it's happened twice

flipped version & process beneath the cut!

beth deserved so much better...please quantum break sequel where she's happy :) please remedy...the IP is worth it i promise I'LL fucking come back for her

[davidtennantgenderenvy]

My Two Cents On The “ Is David Tennant Queer” Drama

As some of you know, I spent a solid third of the past year working on a movie-length video essay about David Tennant. This video essay features an eight minute section titled “Gender, Vulnerability, and Why David Tennant Is A Queer Icon”, which does not speculate on David’s own sexuality, but discusses the queer coding and subversion of gender norms in plenty of his roles and his importance as an ally to the LGBT community. At the same time, I was also coming to terms with my own identity as nonbinary and bisexual, and it ended up playing a crucial role in me finally working up the courage to come out to my parents. Characters like Crowley and the Doctor, both in terms of how they present themselves and how and who they love, have been absolutely instrumental in me developing my queer identity, and my comments section was full of people who had had similar experiences, who’d realized they were trans, nonbinary, gay, etc thanks to David and his characters. And as a result, I won’t deny that if David himself were to be queer, it would mean a lot to me.

Do I think David is queer? It’s certainly possible. I see a lot of how I express my queerness in how david chooses to express himself, most prominently through his frequent queer coding of characters who don’t necessarily have to be played as such. This can especially be seen through his Shakespeare characters, such as Richard, Hamlet, and some would argue Benedick as well. When I was 15 I played Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, who I chose to play as a closeted young gay man harboring an unrequited crush on Romeo. I think I saw this role subconsciously as an outlet for my own repressed queerness, both of gender and sexuality, as I had experienced an unrequited crush on my female best friend the previous year which I was still in denial about. I’ve described my gender identity as “a girl with a chaotic tortured gay man inside of her that needs to be let out every once in a while”, which has never been more true than with Mercutio- a character who I might add, I took a great deal of inspiration from David when playing! In terms of using roles as an outlet for one’s queerness, I could absolutelt see this being true with David, especially when it comes to Crowley, who seems to have had an impact on David’s style, behavior, etc in a rather similar way to how he’s impacted me. I don’t want to act like David wearing pink docs means he must be gay, I think people should be allowed to wear whatever they want regardless of sexuality, but taken in conjunction with so many other things about him, it does make one wonder, and the fact that a seemingly straight man has been so many people’s queer awakening is a bit puzzling to say the least. I won’t pretend that these “signs” (if you interpret them that way), haven’t been increasing somewhat in the past year, and if I got to share my own coming out journey with the man who inspired it, I would be absolutely thrilled. I also can’t specifically think of an instance where David has SAID he is straight, as opposed to Taylor swift, who has.

With all of that said, where I personally draw the line is when mere speculation crosses into interfering with the subject’s personal relationships and the sense that one is OWED something. I believe that what matters to David more than anything is being a husband and a father. I believe he adores Georgia and his children and would not do anything in the world that he believes would jeopardize his family. As happy as I would be for David if he were to come out (probably as bi) I realize that that would put so much unwanted attention on his marriage and family and I think that’s the last thing he wants. I don’t think it’s IMPOSSIBLE that he and Michael Sheen are having a passionate love affair behind everyone’s backs, but I absolutely don’t consider it my place to insist that they are, because as much as I may feel like I do, I don’t know these people! And besides, if David were cheating on Georgia, he really would not be the person I thought he was.

So many queer people see themselves in David and his characters, and that is beautiful. And I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with having theories that David might be queer himself. However, it must be acknowledged that these theories are THEORIES, and they should not be used to invalidate people’s real life relationships- after all, it’s totally possible to be bi/pan and also be in a loving and healthy heterosexual relationship like David and Georgia at least seem to be in! If David were in fact “one of us”, I would welcome him with the openest of open arms, but unless and until he himself decides to proclaim himself that way, I will not expect anything of him other than to be the incredible artist and person we know and love.

[sparrowlucero]

does anyone else remember this or am I alone in the world

[tiredela]

itheliaaa

[bonefall]

i found a god awful doc about this one person (who, too, is a god awful being) trying to reason why mudClaw would be a bad leader. I'ma try to find the doc but meanwhile I'll submit this because someone could have the link, I'll need your honest thought about it bcs why are we defending oneWhiker now

Anon, buddy, I'm gonna have to sit you down and gently discourage you from casually calling random human people "god awful beings" in my inbox like this. Not when you're just talking about relatively basic media analysis. That isn't ok or normal.

I hope that when I speak harshly, it's coming from a place of condemning hurtful actions and the tangible harm that they cause. I don't appreciate people trying to get me to directly beef with other people directly by requesting I break down their individual posts or analysis documents (when I ask for people to share links, it's so I can see and prepare to counter the ideas because they usually "float downstream" if they get popular); but in a second ask, you linked this document and there's nothing harmful in it. In fact, it's got a far more neutral tone than I'd take if I was writing an analysis about Mudclaw.

If you couldn't tell the difference between a document like this and one that contains active abuse apologia rhetoric, I would be filled with concern. But I don't think you read it. I think you maybe skimmed it and stopped reading, or just heard the title.

Because this document literally says this;

and your takeaway, something you felt so strongly about that you came to me hoping I'd validate it, was "Why Are We Defending Onewhisker Now."

Art is a tool we can use to explore our own biases, and teach us something about ourselves. That overwhelming sense of anger and disgust that you probably felt when you saw "Mudclaw Would Be A Bad Leader" made you jump to an emotional conclusion and you assumed something that was not said. I know the feeling. You might have had a reactionary impulse.

You are not a bad person for doing that-- you're human. You can grow.

Why did it upset you this much, though? Is there something very personal about this that set you off? ...are you spending a lot of time in spaces online that keep you angry? These are questions for you to reflect with.

I do not know the owner of this document or "what they've done," if anything, so I will not link it, because their Discord is at the bottom of the doc. If they are truly a "god awful being", please do not engage, just block and move on. Nothing is accomplished by following around 'A Bad Guy' and boosting their cat takes.

But something VERY bad WOULD be accomplished if I indulged an anon for a situation I know nothing about and unwittingly became part of a harassment campaign. How do I know that you've got good intentions?

I usually just delete unsolicited links to docs and videos that are 'fightbaiting' like this-- trying to get me to beef publicly with a 3rd person. But I've seen more of these than usual lately so I would like to try and cool it down.

[randomnameless]

Why do we still have in 2024 stupid takes like Rhea created and enforces the crest system?

Bcs Rhea BaD anon.

More seriously,

FE Fodlan is one of one of the most divorced FE verses from its fantasy elements (see : Nabateans being as important as Ignatz's leather shoes) : Tellius has the Laguz existing, Archanea/Ylisse has manaketes hanging around and being a core point in FE Archanea, Elibe has its entire history involving dragons and the best ending finally be about acceptance between the two races, Magvel has zombies, Valentia has terrors and in SoV we have dragons and magic dragon blood, Fates has dragons (and laguz-like!) and even Jugdral have people with magic dragon blood.

(i ranted and ranted and ranted under the cut, so it's a bit long)

Unlike Fodlan, Jugdral's "people with magic dragon blood" are a key element to the story told at large, and it bleeds through the mechanics used to tell that story. FE4 wise, toddler!Seliph has a S rank in swords when Beowulf, even if he trains his entire life, will never achieve A rank in swords. Base!Julia with her holy weapon can smack Loptyr, when max!invested (at least lore wise) Forseti!Ced will never be able to kill him.

It's unfair for Beo and Ced, but that is how the verse works because, in that verse, some people are mc guffins or "the only ones" who are able to do something, or even, straight out, stronger/have more talent than others.

In traditional fantasy settings we have the "same" sort of rules, you have elves who do X and Y, humans won't can't, dwarves who can't either but they can do W, orc who can do J, etc etc.

Even for all of the "deconstruction of the genre!" gimmick ASOIAF has, according to some people, Dany is fire-proof and Jon most likely survives after being assassinated because he is a Stark and can use his doggo as a back up save, both things Edmure Tully will never be able to achieve.

Tolkien has Numenoreans being straight up blessed by the Valar/stronger/longer lived/etc etc than middle-earth humans, on top of also having elves, dwarves and ents.

Ergo : power inbalance is baked in the fantasy genre.

And yet, the writers often manage to tell some version of "the ones who have less power are no less important", like with Tolkien, it's a bunch of hobbits who manage to take down the greatest "evil" of their era, or some message like "having more power/being more important means you are bound to help the ones who have none" thingie.

In Fodlan, the "beings who have more power" than humans are the Nabateans (+ Sothis herself!). Sothis can create life, her daughter - through unknown means - can create artifical beings, one her children can control weather (the one who was turned in a milkshake for Charon!), one of them has monstruous strength (the one turned in a milkshake for Blaiddyd), one of them could communicate with animals (Timotheos iirc - if we assume he was a Nabatean or got his powers from his crest), her granddaughter can set up an AOE to heal what would otherwise be fatal wounds (it's heavily implied this is what Flayn did when she overused her power and went comatose) etc etc.

This is the original power inbalance in Fodlan.

Then some humans "stole" this power from Nabateans, and got a share of it themselves, which is what is later called "crest" : aka, some humans got a part of the super/magic powers that Nabateans originally had and thus, because, for all intents and purposes, "super-humans".

Now, Fodlan discourse started with FE16 being released in 2019, not that long after GoT's ending - which was trash - and in an era where fandom turned from "harmless fun" to "something that looks like activism and earns you point if you manage to use it to express your real life opinions".

In 2019, after Dumb and Dumber tanked GoT and removed most of ASOIAF fantasy parts to deliver "sex that sells" with a moldy plot, some part of the fandom started to conflate and harass people over what they like, and how it, apparently, reflected on their real life opinions ("if you hate this female character it means you hate women!"/"if you think X becoming king is a good ending, you don't value democracy!").

So, we have this fantasy setting with its inherent power inbalance... that quickly became something that is/was unacceptable, because IRL, power inbalance is based on bullshit and something everyone decries - so if your beloved media reflects on what you like IRL, you can't like a setting with an objective power inbalance, even if is justified by magic which doesn't exist irl like shooting eyebeams or some people being more "special than others" who can live up to 1500 years old.

Fodlan's power inbalance, for some parts of the fandom 2019, cannot be justified by traditional fantasy settings so, those settings/fantasy elements are straight out ignored.

Thus the "crests"' magic effects/powers are ignored, and dumbed down to, roughly, what a middle school student would think "nobility" is/was in the Middle Ages/Renaissance.

Jean-François Marie Pierre de Bourbon isn't inherently better at smashing things with a sword than Bob, or at healing than Roger, any "advantage" Jean-François Marie Pierre de Bourbon has over them is, maybe, that he started training earlier.

In Fodlan?

If Jean-François Marie Pierre de Charon has a major Charon crest, he can dance and clap in his hands to summon rain. Bob and Roger, no matter how hard they train, will never be able to do that. Jean-François Marie Pierre de Charon will thus be seen as having higher "value" or being straight up "better" than Bob or Roger, because as long as he is here, your crops will never suffer from drought.

But... we can't have that, because if you confuse fandom and real life opinions and aspirations, you cannot admit that some people in Fodlan are inherently "better" at something, only because of their blood, otherwise, what would it translate to IRL?

This is why, imo, part of the fandom (and the game sure doesn't help! Fodlan is no Jugdral and its gameplay lacks coherence regarding the in-game lore! Remember how Raphael can use a relic and only loses 10HP, when Miklan, plot wise, was turned in a demonic beast?) that loves this take, arguably, reduces crests to a title and family name.

Why should the Bourbon family rule over us, when they're no better than Roger or Bob? Isn't it unfair the Bourbons are still valued nowadays when the only thing to their fame is their name, and not what they are actually doing?

The game plays coy about crests - we know each of them has a specific power - but it never reveals what are those powers (lore wise!) save for 2 of them. So are crests superpowers, or just a family name with a particle, or both? Is the "system" (a friend made a post debunking any idea of "systemic" application of this notion in the three countries) based on bullshit, or on, objective superpowers?

Dimitri tries to tackle the issue, but only around relic usage : the Gautiers are valued if they have a crest because they can use their superweapon to protect the border. But what about valuing House Charon's ability to bring rain and guarantee good harvests? What is the other superpower tied to the crest of Gautier that isn't "use a femur and wreck havoc with it"?

If Marianne's ability to talk to animals is tied to her crest, why isn't it more developed? Instead of having useless shit like talking and befriending horses like a Disney princess, we could have Maurice-blooded people be masters of counter-intelligence, imagine if they can talk to birds/rodents and ask them to scout various areas or spy/ask them what they saw ! Hell, we could have had a situation where in a fog of war map, where Marianne, if, idk, through Billy fed enough animals in the monastery, would have a better field of vision than anyone else, with some blurb/one-line about her relying on the animals around to know and see what is going on! Alas, it wasn't meant to be.

FE16 eludes the question, because the character who "questions" a world centered around "crests" is the marketable asset of the game, and cannot be challenged in any meaningful capacity v- she feels it's unfair that her crest seemingly dictate her life, and only in the gacha game with ery serious writing like the Heavy Plate Corps or Sniddies, does she get a modicum of self-reflection - or at least someone challenging her - where she is told that she could use the superpowers she has to help people instead of blaming the world for getting one.

In a traditional FE setting, where some Lords question why they were born with power/or are in powerful positions, the answer is always that no matter what they were born with (or without in Leif's case!) what is more important is what they decide to do with that power. Elincia never wanted to become Queen? She will still fight and protect Crimea and its people. Marth is the last hope of Altea, even if it means leaving Elice behind. Seliph doesn't want to fight in Thracia anymore or feels like he's a fraud? He can turn tail and return home, while the world around him falls apart. Leif also feels like a fraud because he doesn't have superpowers like his cousin? Does that mean he should turn his thumbs and watch as his people are being caught/enslaved/sacrificed?

In Fodlan you have no reflection like this : Linhardt is, imo, the best example.

Dude hates blood and has a crest (aka magic powers) geared towards healing, you could make a case that for someone who has hematophobia, being a healer is difficult and this would be the reason why he refuses to heal/use his powers to help people around him... but no. Lin's laziness is played for laughs, and his refusal to do anything not related to his topic of interest is never questioned/analysed under the angle of, say, a head nurse who has no crest and laments that she couldn't save everyone who was hurt during an assault, who snaps at him for having the "gift" he has and not using it for the sake of people around him.

"What Lin decides to do with his power?" : Well, nothing.

Instead we have a reflection on his bright mind going to waste if he lazes all day long, culminating in his Supreme support where an Imperial facility is created specifically to cater to his tastes, that will enable him to research crests as much as he wants...

But still, nothing about his innate "healing" power!

In the end, it's no surprise that part of the fandom latched on that "crest = nobility title" because the Fodlan verse refuses to develop anything about its fantasy elements (hell, iirc Nopes swaps "crests" for "blood" and "titles" in its Supreme route ?).

"Sure, but where does Rhea fit in this nonsense?"

Rhea is, in this vision, the ultimate target !

For all of the "I ignore fantasy elements", Rhea is always (in FE16 at least!) turning into a dragon : no matter how hard you want to ignore fantasy, she's here to remind you tht, in this verse, dragons exist.

But most importantly, as Fodlan must be analysed through an IRL lens otherwise modern fandom cannot engage with it, Rhea, by virtue of being the lady in charge of a religious organisation called "Church", is also seen through a lens : Rhea BaD bcs Religion BaD and Catholic Church BaD.

FWIW, thanks to the five years of discourse we had, I learnt more about cultural values and differences existings between, here and the rest of the world - especially a place that is overepresented on fandom spaces - on organised religions especially the catholic church. Of course this bled on fandom takes and analysis, which projected some users' irl bias against the Catholic Church on the fandom organisation and entity that is the Church of Seiros. Combine this with secularism being now weaponised and used to ridicule people in spaces like r/atheism and you have a perfect recipe for "Religion BaD = Catholic Church BaD = fictional organised religion with a catholic flair BaD".

Granted, given how a certain loLcalisation team also originates from this place, it's no surprise that some "creative liberties" they took tried to hammer even more, let it be in the script or the fucking "what is this game about?" page on their website, how this fictional organisation is basically a squenix trope of "evil cult manipulating everything in the shadows and sekritly controlling the world".

Besides, the main heroine of the game (even if that comes with a twist!) opposes this faction (CoS and especially its leader!) and, by the way those games are built, as seen earlier, they cannot disavow her too much, else the entire gut-punch the devs were gunning for (you are betrayed by your beloved character! But unlike what happens in Baten Kaitos, you only are attached to her because she is your avatar's simp) will fall apart. So she must be, somehow, right and not motivated by more personal and heinous reasons, like not accepting "non-humans" to have powers over humans, or thinking the world is not a place for them (this was carefully scrubbed out in Nopes, btw!).

If Supreme Leader, who we are supposed to root for and whom the game ultimately rewards because "reforms" happen in the endings, says that the CoS is the reason why humans value superpowers, she must be right, or at least, not completely wrong???

Which raises the final point on this topic : FE16 came in 2019, which was election year in the US, and we all know that election time in the US means the rest of the world is also affected, even if the rest of the world, well, isn't the US. As I mentionned, the US is over-represented in fandom spaces, and fandom is far from being a safehaven from all the mayhem and passion that always boil during election time and its immediate following.

Coupled with the "my fandom faves define my real life opinions" thingie I already wrote about, and we had an explosive cocktail for bad takes, needless aggressivity, ridiculing people with dissident opinions because they are seen as "wrong", etc etc. And let it be something trendy or not, especially when (young?) people are arguing about "politics" in online spaces, but it always boils down to gross simplification of various complex issues and/or using catchphrases or "shock-value" words to win over whoever is reading/listening.

(et je ne dis pas ça parce que certains de nos politiques font des "immigrés clandestins ou pas" la source de tous les maux, ou le fait que nos députés font la même chose en ce moment, Jonluk et Marine main dans la main, pour paralyser l'Etat afin de pousser Manu à la démission et éviter la case prison pour Marine)

I always thought the "CEO of racism" was a meme, but through Fodlan discourse, I started to wonder if it was something started seriously by someone who really thought that "racism" is caused by one person.

And we finally get to the point : somehow, somewhat, Rhea is supposed to be responsible for people/humans valuing superpowers.

Forget that the same "quest to obtain those superpowers" led to the extermination of her kin, or how the devs themselves explained that people - at least in their setting - always want more power :

As a result, what would happen to humans who gained power... they would want even more power, and find a dragon much stronger to beat in order to collect materials forcefully, in order to make even more powerful weapons... and so that was the cycle that was born. And that was the birth of Fodlan's Ten Elites

Wait, kill that, those superpowers don't exist since the game and the characters (bar Catherine, but I agree with @9thwither here, Cat is one of the most overlooked characters in this fandom!) never talk about them, so they don't exist...

Rhea is thus the reason why people value bloodlines - especially since those bloodlines don't come out with superpowers.

It sounds better and closer to what you could "hear" irl, from someone who's discoursing on the internet to explain "why" some people are more valued than other, it's because of religion and the Pope! It cannot be because of, well, human greed or just the need to have more power (for good or wrong reasons), no.

"But random, the Church most likely promotes a "divine right to rule" doctrine and let the 10 Elites' families rule over their clans in Faerghus thus gain nobility!"

Sure, but everything is moot if you consider this : to make this take viable, we ignore the game and consider that crests are just bloodlines, and not, objective sources of superpowers.

So why are we, discussing about this hypothesis/theory, even arguing about what the game says and/or does?

Bob Blaiddyd can kill a giant lion/wolf with his fists at base level, is it because of a supposed doctrine that people rally and want to be in Bob's graces, or because Bob has the power to protect them all? Karen Charon can summon rain, are people siding with her because Rhea told them to, or because Karen can make crops grow?

In conclusion : why people are still, in 2024, sprouting those takes?

1- Because they refuse to engage with the game and realise that it is a fantasy game belonging to a very specific genre

2- Because fandom opinions reflect on your real life opinions and likes : so they must find a reason to oppose what their perceive as an unacceptable power inbalance otherwise it means that they support the various inequalities that exist IRL

3- Because Religion BaD and bar the "projected takes from transposing feelings about an IRL church on a fantasy one" more and more people tend to prefer an "easy to proceed" solution than think about multi-causal issues and find solutions that might not.

Of course, I can already guess that some people might argue that they don't "refuse to engage with the game" since this take is more a less a condensed version of the Supreme spiel, and as developed above, the game does - willingly - a shit job at demonstrating that her spiel is nonsense (they had to add the "greed" part in an interview released after the game and its only and final DLC!), just like her sockpuppet who supposedly learns how misguided he was in certain routes... only to end with the same ice cream, albeit with a different topping.

However, Dimitri and Sylvain mention how crestless children are disowned in Faerghus... when Dimitri's own uncle is ruling over a domain himself, Ingrid's brothers exist in the background and Gustave is still Baron Dominic's brother, on top of having been the royal master at arms for at least, depending on the route, 3 generations of Faerghan kings.

In a game where Dorothea can blame the Goddess for fighting in a war her bestie started - without anyone pointing this out - it's obvious this verse has unreliable narrators, but after 5 years and having played all routes in both games + a DLC + a dev interview explaining how and why some humans acquired crests...

Tl;Dr :

Reason 1- is most likely the most prevalent why this take exists anon, "because some people refuse to engage with the game" with the added topping of "save for what Supreme Leader and her sockpuppet say that I can use to demonise the characters I don't like".

[beggars-opera]

Hey, can we move our advice about kids on the internet into the 21st century please?

I 100% agree that we should all be as private as humanly possible online, but I also know that I do not follow my own advice, nor does anyone else, including you, probably. Yes, many of us were raised in a time in which the internet could be completely anonymous, but that was in the era before social media. Facebook, Instagram, etc. started as tools to interact with people already in your social circle, which is why personal information is used on them, but they've evolved since then for better or worse, and we need to acknowledge that. Simply telling teenagers that they have to operate under an avatar at all times like we're on a 2002 message board and that they are brainwashed idiots if they don't isn't helping anyone.

If I was giving someone real life advice, it would be this:

If you are a minor, know that there are predators out there who are more than willing to interact with you, so honestly, sincerely, do consider being as anonymous as possible. That means not using your full, or even your real name (this is the perfect time to use the name you always wished you had, mine was Morgan after Morgan le Fay), and putting things on private as much as possible so only people you know, or those you can vet, can interact with you.

If you do choose to show your face, know that this comes with risk and buffering that with other things (like using a pseudonym or never tagging your exact location). This can go a long way to protecting yourself. If you're just posting aesthetic images, sure, make your IG public, but if you're documenting your every move maybe stick with friends only for now.

Even if you are not a minor, creeps will still find you. Again, assumption of risk. Either way, though, the block feature is your friend.

If you're being open online because you're really dead set on being an influencer, know that is going to come with a whole world of pain all its own assuming it actually pans out, so it's probably not worth it. Also you probably won't make it as an influencer, hon, I'm so sorry but statistically it's true.

If you're posting certain things traceable to you this could also bite you later at work, or for prospective employers.

When interacting with strangers online, always assume that people are hiding SOMETHING. That isn't always a malicious thing - they could also be protecting themselves! But don't take everything they say at face value. Online personas are always acting of a sort.

If you find yourself becoming friendly enough with someone that you want to meet them in person, take stock of how much you know about them. Do they post photos of themselves frequently enough that you can tell they are who they say they are? Are they willing to video chat with you before meeting irl? Are they willing to meet with you in a neutral, public location or with a group of friends, or do they act sketchy about that?

To the above point, meet people for the first time in a neutral, public location, preferably with a group of friends, just in case. Look, I've broken this rule myself and even though nothing happened, I still kick myself for it.

Trust your gut. You are the creator and the curator of your own online existence, so do what makes you feel safe.

[khaire-traveler]

This is a difficult thing to accept sometimes, but it's really important that we do not immediately demonize those who disagree with us. If we ever want to find common ground in the future (because people can and do change), we need to ensure that we don't completely polarize our standings with people who don't hold the same perspective or opinion.

Especially online, this is difficult to do. People are prone to react immediately to information rather than take time to digest it. Reading tone is considered to be essentially impossible online by many researchers, which contributes to the intense debates you'll often see floating around some platforms.

It can be extremely difficult to keep our wits about us when topics hit especially close to home, but the best way to win over an opponent is to deliver a well-thought, neutral-leaning argument. Always acknowledge their points, whether or not you agree with them, and their perspective respectfully. Do not outright attack or insult someone; this immediately loses your opponent's engagement and greatly diminishes your argument. If the conversation gets too inflammatory, step away. You are not required to "win" the argument, and some people simply cannot be reasoned with online (or at all). Make sure you're informed on logical fallacies and that your arguments do not contain them.

Be aware that sometimes we just have to agree to disagree, even if it stabs us straight in our pride. It sucks, but that's simply the nature of being human: we will not agree on every single thing, and that's ok. Also, sometimes it's simply not worth engaging with someone. I've met people who choose to live in an echo chamber, regardless of how you present your information to them, and in those cases, for your own well-being, it can be better to simply not interact. Whatever you choose to do, always try to be nuanced and think critically. Take care, everyone.

-

***Disclaimer: This post is NOT referring to human rights issues and the like. It's referring to general Internet discourse.***