Grand Strategy Crusader Kings III - coming September 1st

gender crusades against Patriarchy

 

I think this is the part that people are finding off putting:

Because it is stupid. I am sure (I hope) that doesn't mean that they will change the ratio of what sexuality characters have to something quite ahistorical, but it is still stupid that they want to change the interface for how things are tracked and shown to avoid having heterosexuality framed as the norm (which it is). All that is needed is a homosexual trait and if they don't have that trait the character is straight, just like in CK2. They even already have chaste and celibate which work for asexual.

But there is no significant gameplay value to putting a separate numerical value on how gay or straight a character is, along with taking up valuable real estate on the character screen to display it, just so you can say that you 'do not frame heterosexuality as the default'. It is straight up ideological pandering. And if they are going to pander here they will surely be inclined to do it elsewhere. What more significant design decisions will be affected by that pandering?

 

I mean it's not really a default, beyond social pressures.

And I don't know how you can say there's no gameplay value to it when interpersonal relations are a HUGE part of Crusader Kings.

 

It isn't just social pressure. The reason the percentage of the homosexual population is between 1.5%-4% is not because of society, and if it wasn't for those pesky social pressures it would be be 50-50. It has a little something to do with sexual reproduction being the reason that living organisms that don't reproduce asexually even have different genders in the first place.


Gameplay wise, how is it important to know whether a character is 80% attracted to women 20% attracted to men, with a general rating of 60% on the lusty/asexual meter? What useful and interesting gameplay does tracking such information enable that isn't already achieved with the simpler and already existing traits for sexuality and lustful/chaste?

 

No, there are not. Not until Vatican II. Now it is a fag infestation. Sodomy used to be punishable by death, as it is supposed to be.
Why do you damnable sodomites endeavor to destroy everything true, good and beautiful?

 

Let's just look at what Paradox actually said, shall we?

1. it seems quite evident it's categoric, not an insane breakdown like you're saying.

2. given the whole "sodomite" as secret that can be used to blackmail you etc., i don't think you can conviincingly tell me they're pretending that homosexuality was a norm in medieval europe.

this all just reeks of moral panic (culture warz baby edition) and extrapolating bullshit to try to justify how insecure you feel around homosexual men or w/e.

imagine trying to make a point and then outing yourself with that vatican 2 dogwhistle.

 

Good, true and beautiful like... THE PAPACY?!

 

"Dog whistle". Who talks like that? Some mickey mouse degree major with more student loan debt than a third world country, I guess. Or a tranny. Or both.

Sorry to be the one to shatter your dreams, but you won't get any for whiteknighting a tranny.

 

They literally said they want to denormalize heterosexuality.

 

By modern standards. Not by medieval ones.

 

Thanks for the following paragraphs, I hadn't seen those yet. But it still doesn't change anything about what I said.

If it is literally just still traits, but they are in their own prominent part of the character screen so they don't 'frame it so heterosexuality is the norm', I wouldn't categorize or call that it's own system like they are. It is still just part of the trait system, but you aren't calling it a trait.

I do think there is value in tracking known behavior separately though, so that is a good addition, but that isn't really directly related to how the sexuality of a character is presented on the character screen. It can easily be added quite separately from that.

I never said that. In fact I specifically said the opposite:

The gist of this change is to change the way it is shown on the screen to avoid 'framing heterosexuality as the default'', even if it still functions pretty much the same as it already does. Again, this is just ideological pandering. And again, this particular topic is just a little eyerolling, but the concern is how this willingness for ideological pandering will affect other design decisions they might make.

Nice one. Good use of Ad Hominem. Let's just throw out common lazy ad hominems that are frequently used.

People who don't agree with modern social justice/critical gender theory positions on gender and sexuality are just insecure. Sure lets go with that. No need to engage with the arguments don't have good counters for (such as the fact that heterosexuality is the norm because the reason gender and sex exists is to reproduce).

Although I would say that your understanding that this is a culture war issues is accurate. This is the result of a concerted effort by the SJW(critical race/gender/sexuality/anything else theory) side to push their viewpoint on and into artists and producers of entertainment. The particular viewpoint in this case being the one that 'heterosexuality is not the norm'. If this were a single isolated instance I wouldn't care and by itself it is certainly not a big deal or even worth thinking about.

But it has been a systematic effort, and you can even find many cases of critical 'X' theory advocates stating they would like to target artists and producers of entertainment to spread their ideological views. And the strategy counts on winning small battles due to people who disagree not pushing back because it by itself is not a big deal. Eventually the large mass of 'not a big deals' add up to systematic change.

And of course this is why you want to downplay any resistance to this as 'being a baby' and worrying over something that isn't a big deal.

 

Except this is usually the same people who'll turn around and complain about "overpopulation". It's all tired, and the reason I don't see much interest in engaging with it is that there's a wealth of pop stuff and actual detailed philosophy to explain why things are not as straight forward as what seems 'obvious', but no one is interested in educating themselves, and I'm sure not educating people who respond in bad faith on average without being paid lol.

Because it's not just a trait. Neither in fact or in practice is being gay comparable to being brave or selfish or anything "personality" wise. I would argue that sexuality is more changeable (or at the very least it can take people far longer than being 10 to realise themselves (inasmuchas anyone has a 'true self')), but for their purposes it's not a problem, and y'all are blowing all of this waaaay outta proportion.

At best it feels like you can't fathom that games aren't just designed for you anymore.

 

Well, that's the only allowed crusades in CK3. Because Deus Vult is problematic.

 

So are you arguing with the statements I am making, or some random strawman you have created?

This is getting further and further off topic but I do not think overpopulation is a concern. We clearly have the effect of demographic transition that is trending to put us on negative population growth. On current trends we peak between 9 - 11 billion population before it starts falling.



Also you are arguing in bad faith and acting with great arrogance by then proclaiming that other people are instead.

To take the position that you are clearly correct, and others must 'educate themselves' by agreeing with you and accepting your arguments. And then further that you can't possible 'put in the work' to 'educate them'. AKA you can't be arsed to make arguments to convince others of your point of view. Presumably, you think others, should uncritically read propaganda that makes your argument for you? And then you dare state that others are responding in bad faith. That is the definition of arguing in bad faith and an act of great arrogance.

To argue in good faith is to present your arguments, consider other people's arguments, and then be willing to re-evaluate your own position in light of what is presented. While I certainly agree most of the time people arguing on the internet are not doing this, it is a super bitch move to try and act like you are above this and not doing this but people who disagree with you are.

 

Let me give a serious answer to this nonsense. Before Vatican II there was a strict rule banning sodomites from entering seminaries (let alone priesthood). Not only practicing sodomites, but anyone who held same sex attraction. This is because a priest is supposed to be a spiritual father, a feat a sodomite or someone attracted to unnatural acts is incapable of.
This was not limited to sodomites, but included everyone who had problem with chastity. There was strict filtering of the applicants. If one managed to pass, and was caught in an unchaste act later, he was immediately expelled and prohibited from taking vows. Sodomite priests were laicized and given over to secular authorities for punishment (including the fair one: execution). The rules used to be strictly observed for a long time, and it was very difficult for a sodomite to become a priest (though there were cases here and there, they were rare), let alone a bishop, or a Pope.

The observance of seminary entry rules was relaxed after the modernists returned and managed to infiltrate many key positions in seminaries. That was around 1940s.

After Vatican II the official rules for entering seminaries were relaxed, ban on sodomites was removed, and the sodomites started entering en masse. This resulted in the abuse crisis, which has reached its height in 1970s (most of the sodomite abuse of altar boys and seminarians committed by the priests took place in mid to late 70s, after those who entered the seminaries in late 60s received their collars). This is when people like McCarrick spawned, Positive feedback loop of modernists and sodomites has been very efficient, and now there are many countries where chaste bishops are minority, and majority of the US bishops are suspected of being sodomites.

So, yes, Vatican II represented a crucial break that enabled large scale sodomite infiltration of the Church.

 

1. I'm not arguing in bad faith, I'm merely not willing to put the work in that others never will.

2. I'm not saying I'm objectively right about anything. But the fact you and others are responding at a trope-ish level doesn't fill me with confidence that you're even trying to understand other sides of this whole thing beyond "what pop media says for clicks and what reactionary places like codex memes in response".

Who has time to give codex a whole fucking book they'll never read, or appreciate?

 

You know what? You are right. That kettle sure is black.

 

In fact, not only they were allowed, but many seminaries actually sought out to discourage or even expel traditionally minded seminarians while not only trying to draw in sodomites, but also encouraging them to act in that way. How widely disseminated such practice was is very hard to measure, but the presence of several such cases is widely documented in books such as "Goodbye, Good Men".

 

It's okay as long as we can fill our dungeon with asexual lesbians and force them to pop us some bastard heirs every year.

 

I'd reconsider that strategy if I were you.

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Just try to imagine what its offspring would look like.

 

Trait as in a CK2 trait part of the CK2 trait system. You know, that row of icons on the character sheet that indicate different things about the character. They aren't limited to personality traits. Having one eye is not a part of your personality. Neither is having the black death. But they are CK2 traits used to indicate additional information about the character.


Also, 'At best it feels like you can't fathom that games aren't just designed for you anymore.' is a trope argument. just like 'extrapolating bullshit to try to justify how insecure you feel around homosexual men or w/e.' is a trope argument. I thought you had just established that you didn't want trope arguments being involved in this conversation.

 

No geniuses, sure. But some might end up strong.

I hope free title revocations for believers of wrong gender will be the thing.

 

I agree and am sad. Also did the codex always have so many sjws? Will my block list eventually include everyone?

 

That's a "no", then. I'll go ahead and add in a "no" for reading the quran and your studies including the Islamic golden age, as well.

 

Don't worry.

We "fathom" it perfectly...

Also:

Never quite understood how it is unique or worse then all the preceding WARS OF CONQUEST commited since the literal days of UR back in Ancient Sumeria...