I am not misrepresenting because you stated just that. You don't like the changes Blizzard is making so you are calling them cowards, saying they are giving in to internet bullies, saying no one at all at Blizzard wants these changes, and whatever else you can think of to hate just for the sake of hating. You honestly can't see why Blizzard might now have a problem with things they put in the game 14 years ago in some cases? You don't understand how the world has changed and people have grown up?
If nobody was thinking about these things and nobody had a problem with these things then what backlash did Blizzard fear? You contradict yourself. Either they feared it or no one had a problem with it.
"Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."
People never change? Yeah you can lie to yourself but don't try to project that lie onto the world. Things always changes. This is nothing close to religious censorship or burning Pokemon cards. It is removing or changing crude humor. Things that many see as immature. The types of things many grow out of when becoming an adult. Is it bad to stay? Not really. Is it bad to go? Not really.
To equal it to religious censorship just shows how crazy you all are taking it.
"Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."
The people that even mentioned puritan anything in this thread until this post are just three people, so I doubt they prove your weird conspiracy theory. Especially since two of them didn't even talk about anything in the neighborhood of woke and the last one (the one you were probably referring to as it was less than a page earlier, unlike the other two at that were at pages 10 and 14 respectively, making it rather unlikely you randomly stumbled upon them) talked about people on the left that prove horseshoe theory right in regards to puritans. I.e. people that are explicitly not puritans themselves. Those are some high grade reading skills you're exhibiting right here.
Putting that aside, you have some weird understanding of woke. As in, just bad. So bad, that it's disproved by your own article in support of it.
Let's address the middle one first. Because as @troy garland already pointed out, TERFs have squat to do with sex negativity. TERFs are, as the term it is an acronym to quite clearly explains, feminists that are exclusionary towards trans people, especially trans women. I.e. it's a view that focuses on issues of gender identity, not sex negativity or positivity. Getting this this badly doesn't exactly paint you as the authority on the meaning of terms you're pretending to be here.
Moving on to your article. Had you actually read it, you'd have noticed it doesn't mention sex positivity once. Neither does the Wikipedia article on the issue. Or any kind of positivity, for that matter. One would think that if sex positivity was such an integral part of being woke, it'd had been mentioned in its dictionary definition or its Wiki article.
That's one thing. Another is that by somehow finding sex positivity in the definition you yourself provided you're not only ignoring the hell out of what that very definition actually says, but by doing so you're also effectively painting woke people as some kind of hive mind. Because that definition (that you clearly didn't read before posting it) defines wokeness as being aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).
Aware of and attentive to facts and issues. That's all. It says absolutely squat about the reaction to said issues, particularly of the solution kind. Which means that as long as some feminist is aware of and attentive to the issue of, let's say, objectification of women in media they are already woke. And they will remain woke even if their idea of how to fight is to pressure creators to make their female characters wear burkas to prevent the dreaded male gaze, because the latter is immaterial to the definition that (again) you yourself invoked.
Which is where your twisting of your own definition effectively makes all woke people a hive mind. Because the only way for what you said to be congruent with your definition is if all woke people had the same sex-positive opinions and proposed the same sex-positive solutions to the issues they are supposed to be aware of and attentive to. But even then that would be just incidental to that definition, not a part of it.
Then again I doubt you were actually genuine about it and were just invoking no true wokesman as @Yarathir mentioned.
It's also a term that didn't appear in this thread until you brought it up. And the person who brought sex positivity up was Elegiac, arguing for the same position as you (while engaging in no true wokesman fallacious nonsense). You're tilting at windmills. Especially since the response to Elegiac's point was explicitly that the people in question are not sex-positive and it was already made before you wrote this post. Which makes your later posts where you accused @Video Games and multiple other posters of posting in bad faith rather... interesting.
Especially this one:
"Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."
Wonder if they are going to remove the Consort title from Korialstrasz or if thats ok because hes a dude
This world don't give us nothing. It be our lot to suffer... and our duty to fight back.
Yeah, I don't know if praising these changes as something that may prevent another Afrasiabi in the video game business because it removes things like what he got his views on women from is just "mild indifference". And we've had that already on page 6.
Ah, yes. The librarian cabal. Very serious threat to... I'm not even sure what, actually. Are alt media sites going down because the librarians are fighting them or is it because those sites are ran by the librarians?
Even calling the mainstream democrats like Biden center-right is going too far to be honest.
Demons based on rape in folklore? That's hecking awesome! Totally not hypocrtical.
LMAO nice going Blizzard.An incubus is a male demon who preys on women, especially while they are sleeping. They rape and impregnate women. The victim may wake during the rape, or may not know anything has happened until her health suddenly deteriorates as she hosts the Incubus’ parasitic baby.
Last edited by Overlordd; 2021-10-03 at 06:22 PM.
The absolute state of Warcraft lore in 2021:
Kyrians: We need to keep chucking people into the Maw because it's our job.
Also Kyrians: Why is the Maw growing stronger despite all our efforts?
It's allowed if it is going the right direction. I'm not angry about the changes. I haven't used most of those emotes since vanilla. Haveing more options for demons is good. I'm angry at the horse shit blizzard is trying to feed us.
"Oh, we are an inclusive company and we care about being inclusive" Fuck off Blizzard. How inclusive were you when people were killing themselves? How inclusive were you when you allowed people in power to abuse that power to sexual harrass (and some people say) and rape. The entire executive needs to go. Fuck those guys. TBH, I hope California gets 10s of billions from them.