This is just a game. I have been seeing so many serious, life and death related news articles with their source being a tweet. This industry is cooked.
It was actually quite fun! I rented it off Gamefly and enjoyed it for about 30-40 hours. It’s basically an action-adventure shooter like Metroid. It’s a decent game, not groundbreaking, but definitely doesn’t deserve the hate people give it.
We should expect more of that with the upcoming UE5 titles. The devs that have devoted to releasing those seem to have very hard time optimising - they’ll likely expect us all to just own 4090s and still run their game with DLSS ultra performance or other fake frames.
STALKER 2 will have the janky soul we expect from the series, but this mostly, mostly due to engine choice and apparent attempts to visually impress the player. Or the investors.
Nah, I’ve seen hate. But mostly from people who hate Wesdon-Like quip writting and, well, women-haters who can’t handle the characters being ugly (and they are ugly, admittedly), so I just dismissed the hate.
“Charges 30% fee” “That’s too high! You’re ripping us off”
“Charges 10% fee” “That’s too low! No other platforms could hope to compete against you with that!”
This is nothing but people bitching about nothing for the price gouging. I will give merit to the anti competitive nature if game makers aren’t allowed to have their games listed for less at other stores. As far as add on game packages locking you in goes…that might be a technical minefield to ensure compatibility.
Maybe this is an initiative by competing platforms? Epic? Ubisoft?
Stir some shit, hope to get valve in legal issues so that they’re legally forced to become less competitive and therefore creating a chance for these other platforms?
All those large online action/claim sites are commercial in underlying nature. When you saw all the small farmers protest in Germany it was primarily driven as an action by about 5 large farming conglomerates because they are the ones getting ~85% of the grant money that was being cut. The whole point of the cut was to not funnel money that was supposed to go to small farmers to large megacorps after all. Who in turn instrumentalized the small farmers to protest it.
Probably what’s going on here, too. You can bet somewhere deep deep down, this is something Tim Sweeney cooked up.
Yes, if Valve limited the price games could have in other stores that would be anti-competitive, but that’s not the case. Their price parity clause is just for selling steam keys.
This lawsuit being funded by a Epic Games shell company would not be surprising in the least. They have done so much and stooped so low to try to not have to actually do work and create a good platform.
IMO, “it’s this game, but with X” is innovation. It’s certainly more innovative than “it’s this game, again, with absolutely nothing new” like Ubisoft basically does with every sequel to every IP they handle.
Absolutely. I think most of us are excited for incremental evolution.
And conversely a lack of that is the chief source of my frustration with games. Bethesda is another dev that comes to mind with the loading screen debacle that was Starfield.
Starfield was just weird. Like, I expected the load screens and all the other GameBryo/Creation jank. But that’s not what made it disappointing. It was just… Boring. I couldn’t get immersed in the world because nothing about it was interesting once you scratched deeper than the surface. Even the twist ending/NG+ system which is actually kind of a neat idea wasn’t done well (like you might have to go through the entire, boring-ass game up to 7 times before you even see a difference).
I don’t know anything about the NG+ system because I steered way clear of Starfield, but it sounds like somebody at Bethesda saw people playing Skyrim over and over and thought “How can we monetize that”, hence the grind you’re alluding to. They expected you to encounter it organically because of course the game was such hot shit everyone was gonna play it forever. Oops.
Call me a cynic if you want but these are the guys who invented paid cosmetics.
I honestly did not expect Starfield to have actual flyable spaceships and vehicles. That was a pleasant surprise, so Bethesda evidently has not stagnated completely. The problem is Starfield has issues with many other game elements (like loading screens, mediocre worldbuilding, etc). Also the fact that it was simply a game in a different genre than previous Bethesda games didn’t help. People expected a handcrafted open world a la Fallout 4 but got a kind-of-procedurally generated sandbox.
I actually was thinking about this the other day with soulslikes as I make my way through Bloodborne. This is an entire genre that isn’t even new. They’re Metroidvanias (or whatever you would classify the OG Castlevania as other than just “side scrolling platformer”)! The only real difference is that you don’t get tools as like weapons/accessories to reach new areas, you just get a boring ass key that opens a door, you open a door from only one side, or a trigger automatically opens a new path when you defeat a boss. 🤣
Is it your first playthrough of Bloodborne? If so I’m so jelly. I’d do anything to play that game for the first time again!! Don’t forget to do the dlc :)
while metroidvania is an apt comparison souls-like games and specifically dark souls games feel a lot like classic dungeon crawlers ( but with real time combat instead of grids. Which in the case of fromsoftwares earlier games kingsfield, makes a lot of sense.
I honestly don’t know why they don’t simply make those a subscription service at this point. They change nothing but the stats to try and reflect real life in most iterations. Sports games are the one type of game that because of how they already do them would be perfect for the love service bullshit, and yet, inexplicably, they are the one genre that has next to no live service games. I can literally only think of one of the FIFA games which is free 2 play and live service.
I’ve thought about this before, I think it’s because the devs/publishers want to have their cake and eat it. They release a new game every year at full price for that up front cash then they nickle and dime you all year and then reset with a new full price game.
I’m pretty sure the amount of money EA makes from FIFA or Activision makes from COD would go down dramatically if they just had a single live service game.
These kind of games run on a shit ton of licensing deals, from player likeness, club branding and music. Bet it is much more advantageous for the studios in these licensing deals to just create single releases. With a subscription service the IP holders will demand a deal based on playtime.
For sure. And I’d say most of us who like roguelikes and DRG both would just enjoy a good, faithful treatment of it that understands the genre. I don’t expect innovation within a genre, I just want a solid implementation.
And too much innovation will alienate people anyway. People want something new but at the same time want something familiar. If it’s too out there people can’t relate with it, especially before the purchase, and feel it’s too risky to spend time and money on. And for the people who do try it you still need to convince them to push through the beginning stages of the game. Since very innovative gameplay comes with a steep learning curve and not just skill wise since it breaks conventions there is also a cultural (in the gaming sense) learning curve.
Yeah, I can imagine the frustration of seeing people who don’t know anything about what happened during development blame you as a dev for something that may have been design decisions or budgetary or time constraints that you had no say in or control over.
“So sure, you can dislike parts of a game,” he concludes. “You can hate on a game entirely. But don’t fool yourself into thinking you know why it is the way it is (unless it’s somehow documented and verified), or how it got to be that way (good or bad).”
“Chances are, unless you’ve made a game yourself, you don’t know who made certain decisions; who did specific work; how many people were actually available to do that work; any time challenges faced; or how often you had to overcome technology itself (this one is HUGE).”
This is a totally fair take. He explicitly says it’s fine to not like the game, but just don’t try to pretend you know what happened on the back end to make it the way it was, because you’re probably gonna misplace blame.
You know, it's funny. My assumptions, which I think I've made clear are assumptions when I talk about them, are that Starfield is what it is largely because of technical limitations. I think, if I'm wrong, the remaining possible answers are far more disappointing. Are the side quests bad because that's what the engine allows them to feasibly build? That sucks; they should ditch their engine. Are the side quests bad because the designers don't know how to design good quests? That's worse. You can extend these kinds of assumptions to the way space travel works, the way their conversation system works, etc.
I feel like the core complaint that every person has regardless of liking the game or not is that the travel system is just absurd and inconsistent. It is so weird how I go to my ship, pull up to orbit a planet, can see the planet from my ship but I cannot select it. Sometimes, you can! But most of the time, you cannot. This means the player then has to pull up the map and land on the planet from there, even though a simple interact to land would be much more seamless and immersive.
The map issue goes deeper, literally. Opening the map on a planet brings you to the ground-view of it, so you have to pull up one or two sub-menu levels to go from ground-view to planet view to solar system to galaxy. Literally, consistently navigating through menus - heaven forbid you pull up one menu too far because you’ll have to start over.
It shouldn’t feel quite so bad, but each interaction of these takes like 5-7 seconds. Doing that over, and over, and over again? That’s a symptom of the game as well, have you ever been in a space fight and held down E? Then you have experienced the pain of leaving the cockpit for that insanely long animation, only to have immediately sit through the insanely long sit back down animation while your ship is being shot up.
The game is full of little hold ups like this that compound into something that just feels awful to navigate.
Don’t get me wrong; I liked my first playthrough of Starfield. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, despite these issues. But I was working through these issues. And then NG+ came around and stole everything from me (understandably with the lore). I just couldn’t bring myself to do it again. Philosophy wise, the game has some great decisions that are impactful and raise. Gameplay wise these are pretty terrible decisions.
I did everything my first playthrough, I checked out every planet every quest every follower (not the dialogue for those quests, obviously). For the most part I liked my time but the base building and the homestead quests since those seem mostly broken (gas vents were never discoverable for me). A number of hours in on NG+ for the main quests having to recollect everything… What was the point?
No, I didn’t get lucky with a crazy NG+. I shouldn’t have to replay a game 12 times to “get to the fun stuff”
I haven't finished my first run through the game yet, but I do keep hearing about NG+. There are all of these factions to check out, some of which should be opposed to happening in the same playthrough as certain other factions, and they built a game around NG+, so why not have you commit to one faction in the course of a shorter game, and then build the opportunity to play through the other factions into NG+?
I'm not hating my time with Starfield so far, but hardly a few minutes go by while I'm playing before its obvious shortcomings annoy me. Most of them I think (and hope) I can easily attribute to their ancient tech that they probably ought to throw straight in the garbage.
The thing is that Fallout: New Vegas used the same engine, and it proved that you can do a much more interesting and engaging story and quests with Creation Engine compared to what Bethesda is capable of. Sure, Creation is still a bit of a piece of shit when it comes to engines, but it can be used for creating complex storylines etc. and not just “go there and push a button” or “go there and kill a person”
True, but in particular, I'm referring to the non-faction quests. It's been a while since I've played New Vegas, but I can't remember if that game even had the equivalent of Starfield's "activities". Those quests are often so bad that I wonder why they're in the game at all.
I get the frustration here, but it’s also kind of… idk? A “No, you just don’t understand!” response. Everyone who works in a white-collar job knows what it’s like. Everyone has different theories about why that project failed, but nobody knows the objective truth. Nobody can present a “documented and verified” list of reasons for why the project failed, not even the lead designer here. They can guess, but never reach the truth. He could repeat what he always did without changing anything in the next project, and succeed due to different circumstances, plain good luck.
This particular dev didn't. But the Starfield team at large has been blowing up the internet recently telling people that don't like the game that their opinions are wrong.
Emil Pagliarulo (guy quoted in the article), lead on Starfield, is known to have this attitude towards players. He’s also known to not like design documents, which explains the massively disconnected design of recent Bethesda games, especially Starfield.
Emil is one of the giant reasons their games have been the way they have been lately and it’s why he’s being a baby about it
Simple explanations like “we felt we were under X constraints” or “our engine didn’t handle the loading times as well as we had hoped” would be just fine.
Instead, they just seem to be telling the players they’re wrong for disagreeing with many of the design decisions made
I was assuming this was a quote from an interview with a leading question like “what do you think about players who claim to know what went wrong in the development of Starfield?” And the quote was out of context to make him look bad.
But this was a Twitter thread. It’s a completely unforced error, no one was making him do this.
I don’t want you to feel like you’re getting it from all sides but…
I apologize if I insinuated that all gamers are guilty of this kind of behavior, that was not my intention at all
You really gotta ignore those “not all gamers” type of posters. They are literally adding nothing to the conversation. If you are a normal person who doesn’t harass women only, then you should also be a normal person who doesn’t take offense when the community as a whole is criticized.
I always hate these kinds of responses. Let me just go to the extreme, would you say the same if someone made broad negative generalizations about a race?
no? how do you even think there’s a parallel there? gamer isn’t a race. there’s nothing essential about gaming. the parallel would be making generalizations about football fans. not a race.
yeah that’s not extreme; it just doesn’t follow. you still have to have an analog. you can’t just say whatever to make an argument in the extreme. that’s just strawmanning.
If you’re a woman keep your drinks covered around men. Responding not all men is pointless even tho I’m a man and I don’t think women should be afraid of me but I get it that they could be and the person that could help change this the most is me and men not women.
And again this is a pointless tangent to the original statement.
As a man who grew up listening their ever perpetually single mom constantly complain about how all men are shit, this comment is the the influence I need to see more of coming from more people who are also men.
I’m constantly trying to be better all the time. I just feel like I don’t know how not to get offended by generalizations that I know don’t apply to me but the more I see other guys say stuff like what you just said, it kinda helps because just seeing them say it makes me want to adopt that mentality and get out if the one that if I fall under a group that receives criticism my feelings are hurt.
You gotta have some more self awareness, man. Stop trying to please those who are always complaining, and just be a good person for the sake of being a good person. Don’t do things to gain favor in the eyes of others.
And if you’re not part of the problem (i.e. you’re not a total piece of shit), then those complaints don’t apply to you anyway. If someone comes up to you and starts blaming you for societal problems simply because you’re a man… that’s someone you don’t wanna be involved with anyway.
I’ve lived by that first paragraph my whole life, I just meant how hard it is to not feel like someone is blaming me personally, or including me when they say a thing about men, just because I’m a man too. And btw, I’ve been not involved with that toxic parent since I was 26 (I’m 32 now)
Like idk how to not to let my feelings be hurt that women would rather encounter a bear than me when I’m trying to be the change I want to see in the world.
I talked to my girlfriejd about it and she said “yeah well you’re not one of those men in the scenario, you have no reason to be offended, you’re one of the good ones” and logically I know shes right, and I appreciated hearing that.
I just gotta see how other men keep from getting offended so easily so I can learn from them
I’m 36 and I’m not hurt by it at all. I completely understand why so many women would choose the bear. I also have three daughters (including a teenager), so I guess that helped to put things into perspective for me, but still… There are, unfortunately, a lot of men who have sexually assaulted women, and because men are the “default” in a lot of authority positions, it’s easy for men like that to assume that everyone wants what they want, including sexual advances; no matter how minimal.
Like I said - if you’re not the kind of man that does this kind of thing, great, but you gotta let it roll off your back. The complaints are legitimate, and I’ll bet your gf has experienced it herself. My wife has, and even my ex-wife has as well.
I’ll give you a tip: Instead of asking “how do I not feel offended”, ask yourself (and you could ask your gf as well) “how can I help to make the situation better?” It’s absolutely an uncomfortable situation, and acknowledging it goes a long way.
Those generalizations are harmful indeed and should not be tolerated as it breeds Us vs. Them mentality. Just asking the person not to be offended when they have every right to be with “if you are not part of the problem” is the modernized “I am not racist, but” and “No, I meant the other type of foreigners, not you”. Misandry is a thing. Just because one comes from a misogynistic surrounding, doesn’t mean other experiences are suddenly not real.
People bound by unhinged radical feminists, and I do mean the Crazy-Karen-On-Video crowd, mutter every other second a misandric sentence. Of course this crap erodes your self-worth. You are literally being demeaned for absolutely nothing. Speak up to shut them up. If women find the energy to speak against harmful notions like, so should everyone else, if they see inacceptably demeaning behaviour which differs fundamentally from appropriate criticism.
Sad you’re being down voted for this. Generalizing a whole group like this is not OK and your point about race is completely valid. People saying things like “ah yes, gamer race” either can’t read or comprehend.
To be fair, I assumed people would understand I don’t mean gamers as a whole are like this. I think we all have a responsibility, but I also think the majority of gamers (at least in my age group) are reasonable and show respect.
I see where you’re going with negative generalizations on race, but it’s a completely different ball field. I could probably think of many reasons why, but my main argument is that the general group of “gamers” have never had to face any real existential adversity. No one ever put us in chains, stole our children, etc. on the basis that we play games.
I actually had no problem with your initial post. My issue comes with the “if you have to say no all [thing] you’re part of the problem” or similar comments, like the one I responded to.
I have similar feelings about generalizations towards men, women, seniors, children, etc. though you normally only hear it about certain demographics.
It’s usually boils down to either “you know you’re not the problem so why do you dislike being bombarded with posts about you being bad” or “this persons feelings/groups feelings shouldn’t be invalidated, so we are going to invalidate yours instead.”
And again, to be clear, your post wasn’t the problem. You were very clear in what you meant, and followed up with clarification. My issue is that someone came in after the fact and decided to say “fuck those people.”
“Gamers” are also a group one elects to be a member of, while one is categorized into a race, sex or gender from birth. One is elective, the other is descriptive. No one chooses to be black, or white, or born with male or female genitalia, etc, etc. And a lot of negative views are often along the lines of a rare bad thing being more likely performed by a certain demographic being extrapolated to accuse that demographic of being dangerous or harmful in general (usually an out-group, though under some ideologies it’s only acceptable to have this view with a target perceived to be the in-group - as regards blame they essentially reverse the perceived in- and out-group roles).
To turn it around on you though, imagine we picked some other elective group (a hobby, a political or ideological leaning, that sort of thing) that you are likely to look positively upon (and maybe even be a member of) and did the same kind of thing. Let’s say…feminists? Would it be acceptable to accuse feminism or feminists of anything negative I can point to any group thereof doing, and if you aren’t one of the ones who actually does that then you should not take offense, right? Not feel defensive at all, not question or challenge the assertion at all, right?
The rest of the article is mildly interesting, but if you just took the bait from the headline:
On a technical level, Xbox One is essentially a PC using a heavily modified version of Windows, and this software simply translates native Xbox applications into a form that can run on standard Windows PCs
I first heard they were doing propaganda( to make them self look good in a positive light) by basically promoting in a show mythic quest, I’m guessing the creator of isaip is no saint either
The issue is not the genre “single player (shooter)” itself, but that these big companies just churn out the same generic bullshit and then act surprised when no-one plays it.
AAA studios just don’t have the balls anymore to take a risk and develop something unique. And this is their downfall.
Titanfall 2, Metro Exodus, Ghostwire Tokyo, Doom (to name a few) are all excellent first person shooters. All of them have something unique about them that makes them worthwhile.
Titanfall 2 had one of the most acclaimed single-player campaigns, with it being only a few hours long and mostly a showcase to get people on multiplayer, and it was still enough.
Quite seriously I am actually looking to attempt to solo indie dev a sort of fps/tactics/management hybrid FPS that would at least start out as single player, and titanfall 2’s gameplay is something I am drawing inspiration from.
My basic idea is: What if you had the squad management and mission planning depth of basically Xenonauts, but you actually played out the missions in first person, with combat systems and load outs and player (and enemy) capabilities that resembled titanfall2’s mix of athletecism and gunplay?
Im in very early stages, but yeah basically titanfall2/xenonauts hybrid with (this is likely the hard part) procedurally generated, 3d levels, strung together with a kind of narrative generation engine, something sort of like rimworld’s system that simulates world conditions and then generates certain events based off of them, but also responds to certain specific things you do or do not do in mission, or what missions you choose to embark on over others.
Probably Im gonna focus on core gameplay systems and not really worry about graphics or assets at all until I can get any of this to an actual working concept level.
Probably similar in many ways, but ideally I would like to make it as or more in depth with other features from something like xenonauts.
Youve got resources such as vehicles of differing kinds you may choose to deploy or not, but you have to store them somewhere and also be able to repair them. All this comes from pools of funding from at first probably just completing a mission according to guidelines, but some things take maybe an R&D program or just outright raiding a rival faction or something.
Maybe you want to go a more special forces type route and have a few exceptionally well trained / equipped soldiers and leverage things like helicopters to do infil and exfil and leverage the element of surprise.
Maybe you want to act more like a conventional military and go with larger numbers with decent equipment and a wider array of possible vehicles and support systems.
Maybe you want to focus as much as possible on gathering intel before missions, maybe you want a more intelligent active battlefield info you can access in mission via various sensors.
So… what I am aiming for is something that eventually allows for a more broad array of mission profiles and sort of map archetypes, which, depending on many factors, will have surprises that may occur, like an enemy force having the ability to call for reinforcements that maybe you did not know about, and might force you to withdraw.
Or maybe some missions will take place with a relatively high number of civillian AI running around and your org you work for/run will suffer massively if you just go scorched earth.
I dunno, these are all ambitions at this point, and Im going to focus on at the very least getting a functional combat prototype done first, and then testing out how well that and what I can make combat AI actually do actually works.
Its possible I’ll find some kind of thing that really works well, or really doesn’t work, and change scope significantly.
So far all I have really figured out is that a near future setting would seem to work best with the scope of either my minimal working concept, or a more extended version of it.
Oh hey Im surprised that all even posted, my connection crapped out right as I hit send.
But uh haha yeah.
My one saving grace is I have a lot of time on my hands.
But I expect it to take probably at least 6 months before I even have what Id consider a working combat prototype with a variety of different weapons and Ai routines, and maybe a barebones model of a procedural map generator.
Im guessing that me soloing a whole project like this could take 3 years, but if I can get a prototype working, I might have enough money to pay for some 3D assets to speed up dev time a bit.
Almost certainly not enough money to hire anyone lol, and I really really do not want to do kickstarter or early access and deal with the community and possible total failure.
gamers will use what little voice they have to place the spotlight on a shit game and giving it an award, getting people to buy that game. Holy shit this is stupid
I’d rather see “gamers” vote for actual good and fitting games for these awards, starving shit games from any attention and money.
Red Dead is a work of art. It’s just shameful that Rockstar has neglected it.
Starfield is such a piece of shit, it actually gets me upset thinking about how bad of an experience it was. I finished it just so I would know how it turns over and I’m still angry about it. Thankfully I waited until it was less than $50
Yeah I hear that. At one point I was thinking why didn’t they turn the ai generator on the random shit instead of the world. Like there’s all these worlds and only one package type for everything? The immersion could have been amazing if there was 50 different packages of Chunks or whatever.
If I paid for starfield I would have felt annoyed about it. Played it on game pass so probably spent half price or less on the subscription time. It was fine, but not full price fine.
If Labor of Love had to go to a huge project, it should have gone to CyberPunk 2077. The devs had it at least as bad, if not worse, and oh they actually massively significantly improved the game.
It doesn’t need to go to a huge project, it needs to go to a project that was supported for a long time by dedicated devs who like working on the game and put in their all into it etc. Red dead was literally all crunch, devs hated working on it, and it stopped immediately after release.
Still laughing at anyone who watched Fallout 76 happen then willingly purchased a Bethesda game before two weeks after release to allow for some actual reviews to happen and the hype train to lessen.
I fully believe that particular occurrence was just people blindly voting for the games they recognized. Tbh, I’d be more disappointed if it was a coordinated effort. Highlighting a smaller game that is is great would be exponentially more effective and beneficial than using the awards to complain about a game you don’t enjoy playing. The studios aren’t going to notice, and neither will most people (like me), so it’s really just wasted effort.
Nah dude. Both cases are incredibly famous for what they were voted for. It was countless people shitposting. There were other, better recognizable games in there. Like Red Dead 2 is from 6 years ago.
I won’t. Nobody is able to define what “wokeness” really means to them because it’s mostly code for “subset of people I don’t want to exist around me”.
Surprisingly, that doesn’t sound very good when said out loud.
“Woke” has had a consistent meaning since its introduction into the English language almost a hundred years ago. It means “Aware of systemic racism.”
When blues legend Lead Belly ended a show in 1938 by saying, “Stay woke,” he meant: “Stay aware of systemic racism.”
When some chud on YouTube in 2025 says “‘Woke’ is ruining gaming,” he means that awareness of systemic racism is ruining gaming. For him.
And when an American politician calls himself “anti-woke”, he’s saying that he opposes the awareness of systemic racism. Not that he denies the existence of it, but that he’d prefer no one talk about it, so that it can continue.
When some chud on YouTube in 2025 says “‘Woke’ is ruining gaming,” he means that awareness of systemic racism is ruining gaming. For him.
I don’t think it even goes that far tbh. Especially for less political, more gamer-type “conservatives”, it just means “the other side”, forcing so many girls (1) into their game. Maybe it’s just to deflect having to admit to being a misogynist.
And when an American politician calls himself “anti-woke”, he’s saying that he opposes the awareness of systemic racism. Not that he denies the existence of it, but that he’d prefer no one talk about it, so that it can continue.
Yes, exactly. No sane person would call themselves “anti-woke”. Unless they’re successful in subverting its meaning to be “those we’ll put in concentration camps”. Oh wait, that still wouldn’t make you sane.
Yes I agree with your interpretation of what woke currently means. I’m saying that this is actually using woke ironically an insult. An unironic usage has no negative connotations.
The author James Lindsay has defined it in similar terms, as “a victimhood-based identity politics” whose “victim groups are whites, Christians, men, and straight people”. He argues that the movement is “roughly intersectional” insofar as it is obsessed with identity politics and a grievance relating to anti-white racism. “Like their counterparts on the Woke Left,” Lindsay writes, “the Woke Right have accepted as fact that there’s a conspiracy against people like them and that their only real hope is to lean into the identity grouping and advocate for collective power under that heading”. In these terms, the “woke right” is a kind of ideological doppelgänger, whose members exhibit the same precisionist and absolutist tendencies of their leftist counterparts.
Pierce Morgan uses it more and more often against right wingers to great effect.
Right. The right wingers are arguing (usually without knowing it because they don’t understand words) for people to stay asleep and not think or question
Woke means being aware that an interaction with a cop is a life or death situation. Cops aren’t your friends, they’re not here to protect you. They’re a threat, motivated by cruelty and love of power. When dealing with a cop, you have to speak gently, keep your hands visible at all times, and declare your intentions for every action. Or you could die. You could still die even if you do all that.
I think that ship has sailed. That word is at the moment a clear sign the person using it is an asshole. It can be reclaimed, but right now I don’t see that happening.
I would love to not let the nazis dictate how the swastika is used, but their perversion of the original meaning has permanently altered how it’s seen by the rest of the world. Claiming the moral high ground by trying to force something to mean what it no longer does is a pointless exercise.
It’s not about claiming the moral high ground, it’s just that you can’t have a word that can be used to mean its opposite, even if “sarcastically”. The word woke is just the past tense of wake, nothing else. It can be used to represent someone “waking up” from the hide-your-head-in-the-sand routine, or becomes able to see things from a new perspective. For the right, it doesn’t really mean anything, but they are pretty much using it as the new “sheeple”. Which doesn’t make any sense.
But the important thing is this: if someone is ridiculing people for wanting to be informed, involved in society, or generally just themselves, the only thing they’re actually insulting is their own intelligence and heart. If we let them have their use of woke as a generic mean insult, we lose sight of that.
More than swastikas, I think this case is closer to saying “you can use literally to mean figuratively because it’s common use” to which I also say no, fuck that.
But yes, swastikas forever symbolise Nazism. That doesn’t negate their original, positive meaning previously found in history, religion and culture. This is not an “achtually it’s ok to draw swastikas because they are actually good”. I’m just saying that context, and intent, matters. If you tattoo one on yourself as a westerner, you’re a Nazi - and it’s ok that everyone treats you like one. But should those original uses be stopped because it’s now “forever bad”?
gamesradar.com
Ważne