Temat jest zamknięty
If an action jedi game, I wish they'd look a bit further back than just The Force Unleashed, to the Jedi Knight series, which imo far surpasses it in gameplay.
But I suppose it has long since faded into obscurity with the last game there being Academy in 2003.
I liked the old Jedi Knight series, though I prefer the combat style of TFU a bit more.
Only a sith deals in absolutes. *draws lightsaber*
"Probably"- the statement wasn't actually an absolute as written.
Hasn't Bioware already said Mass Effect: Andromeda won't be Dragon Age: Inquisition in space? That despite DAI's success MEA would be it's own thing?
I certainly hope you are right.
Your whole post is basically a No True Scotsman.People who know there are individuals who borrow a politically correct, moralising speech without understanding or caring for the real meaning behind the words. Much like politicians. They always speak in the name of the people. When have they ever ruled FOR the people?
A lot of those self-appointed SJW pretend to defend a social cause to disguise their frustration at their inability to live in society or to deal with some of its aspects. For example, the constant fighting they have with their family. Being bullied in school because they're fat or nerds. The feact they have trouble standing up for themselves.
These people have A LOT of self-esteem problems. Most of them never learned to accept who they are. But they are spoiled and want to feel on top just for once in their life. So they create an alter ego online, the so-called SJW, and spew words they read in blogs, twitter accounts and other media with a righteousness that's meant to intimidate and not to enlighten. Because they can't attack their targets IRL, they attack random people online who are "alright to attack" because the bloggers and other influential people tell them they are "allowed" to attack people who fit into a specific profile.
The thing is most SJW are people who live behind a computer screen and have never engaged in any real action to defend victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, physical violence motivated by prejudice and other serious problems.
And most SJW continue to have problems adjusting to real life, which makes their speeches something that's only to be listened by others, but not for they themselves to practise it in their everyday life. This is why they lost credibility over time.
Using a speech to attack people, to further divide them into factions, rather than to enlighten and promote true understanding between different philosophical viewpoints is dishonest. To verbally attack others just as people have attacked you in order to feel better is dishonest. To defend a social group is better than the rest while denying rights to another is dishonest. Fundamental human rights are for EVERYONE. Denying that truth is promoting DISCRIMINATION AND SEGREGATION, the very two things social movements have been trying so hard to fight ever since the beginning of the 19th century.
It isn't social justice, it's a bunch of cowards subverting the original speeches used in the first social movements in defense of minorities to satisfy their selfish, petty whims. And it's wrong, because it promotes further discrimination rather than putting an end to it. It's verbal violence legitimized by false authorities: the so-called social justice gurus who tell the flock who to attack and how to attack.
If you ARE a social justice warrior, you'll go out there and ACT. You'll end discrimination in your everyday life with EXEMPLARY ATTITUDES. You won't stalk a public forum or tumblr looking to pick up random fights with strangers. THAT is why the number of people who see RIGHT THROUGH SJWs is increasing. And they simply won't buy any more of their BS.
Only a sith deals in absolutes. *draws lightsaber*
One of the dumber pieces of SW writing... 
I was assuming that SJWs actually support social justice. You might disagree with that person about what constitutes social justice (or, like me, assert that the term is meaningless), but you're unlikely to oppose the pursuit of what you think social justice is.
When "SJW" is used as a pejorative, it goes beyond supporting social justice, but taking it to a zealous extreme. As in that old Goldwater saying:
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"
But this is getting kinda political and really has no place here. But I think we can all agree that generally speaking, people don't like being preached to in their entertainment.
I think it damages actual social justice.
It's like the Boy Cried Wolf.
I also think it closes minds to the history of the term. To me, MLK Jr. is the greatest person of the 20th century. But to some younger person not too familiar with that, they might be turned off from ever learning... when the sky is constantly falling over trivial things. They'll just tune out both the good and bad.
I don't see anything preachy either. It seems a lot like the first Star Wars, in fact. Formula-wise.
It's just not as good.
I was assuming that SJWs actually support social justice. You might disagree with that person about what constitutes social justice (or, like me, assert that the term is meaningless), but you're unlikely to oppose the pursuit of what you think social justice is.
They won what? Bioware features? Or games in general? I have my doubts on the latter.
Bioware, sure. But I find some of them disingenuous about it. I don't remember Patrick Weekes being this way once, for example. I even recall a thread where he was making fun of Jessica Alba, for wanting to be more than a sex object. That that was "all she is". He sounded like any other flippant male at Something Awful.
It's funny to me that now Jessica Alba is one of the richest entrepreneurial females in the world (for "the Honest Company").
Make some games though and you're the champion of human rights. Give me a ****** break.
Given any person's own definition of the words therein, I find it hard to believe that same person would oppose the work of a social justice warrior.
Who openly opposes social justice?
Nobody, which is why Marxists adopt the term to be more acceptable. It's done to play on your emotions so they can say "who is against justice?" and hopefully remove any challenge.
People who know there are individuals who borrow a politically correct, moralising speech without understanding or caring for the real meaning behind the words. Much like politicians. They always speak in the name of the people. When have they ever ruled FOR the people?
A lot of those self-appointed SJW pretend to defend a social cause to disguise their frustration at their inability to live in society or to deal with some of its aspects. For example, the constant fighting they have with their family. Being bullied in school because they're fat or nerds. The feact they have trouble standing up for themselves.
These people have A LOT of self-esteem problems. Most of them never learned to accept who they are. But they are spoiled and want to feel on top just for once in their life. So they create an alter ego online, the so-called SJW, and spew words they read in blogs, twitter accounts and other media with a righteousness that's meant to intimidate and not to enlighten. Because they can't attack their targets IRL, they attack random people online who are "alright to attack" because the bloggers and other influential people tell them they are "allowed" to attack people who fit into a specific profile.
The thing is most SJW are people who live behind a computer screen and have never engaged in any real action to defend victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, physical violence motivated by prejudice and other serious problems.
And most SJW continue to have problems adjusting to real life, which makes their speeches something that's only to be listened by others, but not for they themselves to practise it in their everyday life. This is why they lost credibility over time.
Using a speech to attack people, to further divide them into factions, rather than to enlighten and promote true understanding between different philosophical viewpoints is dishonest. To verbally attack others just as people have attacked you in order to feel better is dishonest. To defend a social group is better than the rest while denying rights to another is dishonest. Fundamental human rights are for EVERYONE. Denying that truth is promoting DISCRIMINATION AND SEGREGATION, the very two things social movements have been trying so hard to fight ever since the beginning of the 19th century.
It isn't social justice, it's a bunch of cowards subverting the original speeches used in the first social movements in defense of minorities to satisfy their selfish, petty whims. And it's wrong, because it promotes further discrimination rather than putting an end to it. It's verbal violence legitimized by false authorities: the so-called social justice gurus who tell the flock who to attack and how to attack.
If you ARE a social justice warrior, you'll go out there and ACT. You'll end discrimination in your everyday life with EXEMPLARY ATTITUDES. You won't stalk a public forum or tumblr looking to pick up random fights with strangers. THAT is why the number of people who see RIGHT THROUGH SJWs is increasing. And they simply won't buy any more of their BS.
Well said. As I said earlier, most "social justice" isn't actually about justice or equality. They actually want special treatment. It's mostly a cover for Marxist ideology.
One of the dumber pieces of SW writing...
It is from the prequels.
The odd thing is that it's never the "SJWs" who bring these topics up here, eben though they're supoosed to be the ones who complain all the time. I guess that's because they've won.
That is completely false. Now there's definitely room to say the pejorative "SJW" is too quickly applied to anyone who even brings up a topic associated with "social justice."
Not always. I used to work for a free market think tank (most people would call it a right-wing think tank), and they would say that they were defenders of social justice.Nobody, which is why Marxists adopt the term to be more acceptable. It's done to play on your emotions so they can say "who is against justice?" and hopefully remove any challenge.
Well said. As I said earlier, most "social justice" isn't actually about justice or equality. They actually want special treatment. It's mostly a cover for Marxist ideology.
Not always. I used to work for a free market think tank (most people would call it a right-wing think tank), and they would say that they were defenders of social justice.
That's the point, isn't it? Anyone can call themselves a warrior of justice.
The definition of "Warrior", "Justice", and "Social" changes according to the needs of the interest group using the title.
I can name myself a dragon, but I won't be able to fly or breath fire. It's the same with the word "Justice", when people try to claim it for themselves.
That's the point, isn't it? Anyone can call themselves a warrior of justice.
The definition of "Warrior", "Justice", and "Social" changes according to the needs of the interest group using the title.
I can name myself a dragon, but I won't be able to fly or breath fire. It's the same with the word "Justice", when people try to claim it for themselves.
But SJW's don't really relish calling themselves SJW's. Isn't SJW something that other people call them? They don't call themselves that. They don't claim it.
But SJW's don't really relish calling themselves SJW's. Isn't SJW something that other people call them? They don't call themselves that. They don't claim it.
At this point it's like questioning what came first, the chicken or the egg, the title stuck, for good or ill.
At this point it's like questioning what came first, the chicken or the egg, the title stuck, for good or ill.
Yeah but you're saying they intentionally wrested the phrase "social justice" from the intellectual ether and conformed it to their cause, as a evocation of something vaguely 'right' and 'just' on its face - a deliberate PR move. I think everything else you're saying makes sense, but in this particular case, I don't think they claimed that title or really wanted it ever.
Yeah but you're saying they intentionally wrested the phrase "social justice" from the intellectual ether and conformed it to their cause, as a evocation of something vaguely 'right' and 'just' on its face - a deliberate PR move. I think everything else you're saying makes sense, but in this particular case, I don't think they claimed that title or really wanted it ever.
*shrug*
I'm not the one obsessed with titles and pronouns, so I don't care anyway, and in any case that's not my issue with them.
It's more about what they imply about themselves and the high horse they usually arrive on. And the double standards.
*snip*
I can agree with most of what you said, and I can respect the reasonable fashion with which you said those things.
If this was the usual level of discussion on this topic, I wouldn't have a problem with any of it.
That's the point, isn't it? Anyone can call themselves a warrior of justice.
The definition of "Warrior", "Justice", and "Social" changes according to the needs of the interest group using the title.
I can name myself a dragon, but I won't be able to fly or breath fire. It's the same with the word "Justice", when people try to claim it for themselves.
We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names—liberty and tyranny.
-Abraham Lincoln.
Not always. I used to work for a free market think tank (most people would call it a right-wing think tank), and they would say that they were defenders of social justice.
Sure, but they would say that it was "real justice" as opposed to those who have bastardized the term.
Yeah but you're saying they intentionally wrested the phrase "social justice" from the intellectual ether and conformed it to their cause, as a evocation of something vaguely 'right' and 'just' on its face - a deliberate PR move. I think everything else you're saying makes sense, but in this particular case, I don't think they claimed that title or really wanted it ever.
That's exactly what has happened. All sorts of causes are crammed into "social justice" so they can ask Sylvius' question; "Who would be against social justice?" It gives them cover against opposition. Rather than actually debate, they just claim their opponents are against justice.
As this discussion has run its course this thread is being closed.
Do góry