NeoGAF & ResetERA - The Hilarious N̶e̶v̶e̶r̶e̶n̶d̶i̶n̶g̶ Splintering "Gaming" Forum Circus

I have a question about the whole "character agency and free will" argument I see on Era and other places.

According to Era, fictional characters have agency and free will that is defiled when an artist "forces" them to wear skimpy clothes. But if created so the character likes wearing sexy clothes that's not agency or free will because the artist created them to have that opinion.

How does that make any sense? Even if we buy into the ridiculous premise that fictional characters are real and have rights, how does Era know what their decision would be? If wearing revealing clothes is going against that characters will, couldn't you say the same when Era tries to cover them up? Why does KetKat's version of what the character wants more valid than RedCrayon's? And why are both their opinions more valid than the person that made the character?

Because it doesn't make any sense unless the world works on the rules of Roger Rabbit, and if they really believe that, then REEEsetEra is no more intellectually able to decide what reality is than Chris-chan.
 
I have a question about the whole "character agency and free will" argument I see on Era and other places.

According to Era, fictional characters have agency and free will that is defiled when an artist "forces" them to wear skimpy clothes. But if created so the character likes wearing sexy clothes that's not agency or free will because the artist created them to have that opinion.

How does that make any sense? Even if we buy into the ridiculous premise that fictional characters are real and have rights, how does Era know what their decision would be? If wearing revealing clothes is going against that characters will, couldn't you say the same when Era tries to cover them up? Why does KetKat's version of what the character wants more valid than RedCrayon's? And why are both their opinions more valid than the person that made the character?
Its even worse if you use the fictional character having free will argument because the skimpy clothes are the least of the problems being forced on them. If you are violating that free will by putting them in clothes are you not violating their free will by putting them in these dramatic and constant life threatening situations? Are you not the monster for playing any game since you have direct control of the character? I don't know about you but if I'm being forced to run around dangerous situations and get shot at the last thing on my mind is how much skin my outfit shows.

Its very telling that people can believe these can believe fictional characters can have real feelings that should be validated but then only focus on clothing instead of the other atrocities being committed if this truly was the case.
 
islamic.png
 
"Maybe well focused authoritarianism is warranted."

I wonder how often that line of thought was used to justify committing atrocities throughout history.
No dictator has ever said "Hahaha we are doing this to kill as many X people as possible as well as keep ourselves in power to profit indefinitely!" It's always "It's necessary because reasons." That's the kind of critical thinking you get from watching cartoons.
 
I have a question about the whole "character agency and free will" argument I see on Era and other places.

According to Era, fictional characters have agency and free will that is defiled when an artist "forces" them to wear skimpy clothes. But if created so the character likes wearing sexy clothes that's not agency or free will because the artist created them to have that opinion.

How does that make any sense? Even if we buy into the ridiculous premise that fictional characters are real and have rights, how does Era know what their decision would be? If wearing revealing clothes is going against that characters will, couldn't you say the same when Era tries to cover them up? Why does KetKat's version of what the character wants more valid than RedCrayon's? And why are both their opinions more valid than the person that made the character?
It's not possible that women would ever enjoy flaunting their sexuality in ways like flirting, teasing, showing skin, dressing in revealing outfits etc, either in fiction or real life. It just doesn't happen.*

*This is your brain on white knighting
 
It's not possible that women would ever enjoy flaunting their sexuality in ways like flirting, teasing, showing skin, dressing in revealing outfits etc, either in fiction or real life. It just doesn't happen.

I think their thinking is something along the lines of, 'A woman can revel in her sexuality, be empowered by following her urges, be sexy and revealing if she wants to be ... unless she's doing it for male approval, in which case it's internalised misogyny, degrading, and a hate crime.'

So as soon as you even think about how other people might react to you, your intent is corrupted and you're a tool of the patriarchy - even though that is the very definition of a thought crime. And if you're trying to appeal to straight men, well. They won't call you a whore because that's slut-shaming, but damn will they be obviously motivated by that opinion.
 
After Blizzard's latest attempt at damage control (revealing Soldier 76 is gay in response to the fake e-sports girl) one of their former employees responded by way of a twitlonger (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqp7gi) wherein he claims his female co-worker's constant abuse led him to multiple mental breakdowns and suicide attempts while the company sat back and did nothing.

Cue ReetardERA:

RetardEra275.jpg


RetardEra276.png
 
I have a question about the whole "character agency and free will" argument I see on Era and other places.

According to Era, fictional characters have agency and free will that is defiled when an artist "forces" them to wear skimpy clothes. But if created so the character likes wearing sexy clothes that's not agency or free will because the artist created them to have that opinion.

How does that make any sense? Even if we buy into the ridiculous premise that fictional characters are real and have rights, how does Era know what their decision would be? If wearing revealing clothes is going against that characters will, couldn't you say the same when Era tries to cover them up? Why does KetKat's version of what the character wants more valid than RedCrayon's? And why are both their opinions more valid than the person that made the character?
You're an adult lawyer, trying to get six-year olds that obsessively lie to tell the truth, but they can't. If it were real life you could intimidate them, maybe. But in their safe space online, Calvinball rules change to suit whatever point they want to make.
 
No dictator has ever said "Hahaha we are doing this to kill as many X people as possible as well as keep ourselves in power to profit indefinitely!" It's always "It's necessary because reasons." That's the kind of critical thinking you get from watching cartoons.
You say that, but I genuinely think most current childrens' cartoons are more nuanced than these freakshows.
 
"The smash games have this problem in droves where dark skin=evil"

Being afraid of the dark has nothing to do with black people, darkness is associated with evil/fear because humans have been programed to fear it, you can't see in the dark so you're vulnerable. These retards are really annoying.
 
Tetra is tan A, because she's a pirate and being tan emphasis that she spends a lot of time outdoors working hard, and B, because she is Wind Waker's version of Sheik, it's supposed to be a surprise to Link and Tetra that she's a direct descendant of the rulers of a legendary land. It's not unlike the way Zelda can use magic (implied to be from the Triforce of Wisdom) to instantly change her clothes and eye color in Ocarina of Time, especially since it's the complete Triforce of Wisdom merging with Tetra to transform her into Zelda.
 
Back