Sorry but I'm not going to entertain this narrative. I've said what needed to be said. Heterosexual marriage is vital for the continuation of our species. It has to do with duty. If you marry just for pleasure or "love" (lust) it will fall apart once that love disappears, as it often does, because humans are naturally selfish creatures. Homosexual relationship is an entirely different thing. It's just for personal pleasure. It has no other function, nor is it necessary. You can love without sex or marriage, the same way you can love your parents, siblings or children. There's no reason you have to extend that to sex and marriage other than for your own personal selfish pleasure. It's detrimental to society when a contract as important as marriage is cheapened into a simple status update for pleasure. Divorce rate will increase and children will have their family life screwed up.Alright, well then based on this post, it looks to me that you hold very strong opinions that border into hateful, and that honestly makes me question if you are fit to raise children.
Why and how should I fight my own biological reaction? There's no merit for me to do so. This is akin to saying that I should just destroy my ear drums because a small group of people in my neighborhood likes blasting music.It is most definitely for you to figure out.
Is it? It's pretty close in my opinion. Many people are naturally disgusted by cross-dressing. It's similar to seeing people naked in public. You didn't address this at all. You just addressed them as nonsensical because you don't have it, if you're even honest about that. And think about what "educating children about gay people" will consist of. What if your kid gags when he sees a grown man cross-dressing? You're going to tell him he's wrong and he shouldn't react like that? Kids aren't sheep. You can't just tell them "It's their preference" and stop there. Kids are curious and won't be satisfied by dismissive answers. Why should I teach kids about things so closely related to sexual orientation? Especially when people can just be civil and dress normally. Not all clothes are gendered. How many women do you see wear pants instead of skirts? There are so many ways around it. It's not all dress and skirts. If you can't even be bothered to do that much, why should other people work so hard for you? Why is it so hard to keep your sexual fetish in your own house? Really. Answer that last one.And the analogy between someone dressing up in a way that feels gender appropriate to them and someone walking around naked is, again, nonsensical.
What restrictions? All I'm trying to say all this time is that LGBT people should just live their lives normally instead of making their sexual orientation their whole identity. As you said yourself, LGBT parades are counter-productive to their cause. The same with them pushing LGBT ideas in social media. I know they can live a normal live, and many are living a normal live right now. I'm addressing the LGBT movement, which is filled by obnoxious people, LBGT and not.And if you concede that it's only that loud minority you're against, why do you wish the restrictions be applied broadly, to the entire LGBT community?
That's very shallow, frankly speaking. It's not just your problem. The country or community will (have to) do something about you, because it's inhumane to just leave a neighbor rotting away like that. Even if do die and rot alone in your house, there will be people who have to deal with your corpse and other things. There's a term for this in Japanese by the way (kodokushi = lonely death). That's not all tho. You may be able to stomach that lonely life because you know it's your own fault, sure, but spreading this lifestyle to others who may not even think about this, is irresponsible.then that's my problem
Why not? I've said before that it's extremely unnatural and suspicious. There are so many concerns about this that can't be answered with a definite yes/no.That is, that they should not be disqualified as candidates simply because of their orientation.
Yet we're being shown LGBT content all the time in media, people get shat on when expressing dislike to said content, and parades take public space which affect uninterested people too. And how else would you normalize it unless you show it in some form? You're telling me that people should just keep their dislike to themselves? Sure. Why can't these LGBT people do the same then?You don't have to attend pride parades, hang out at gay bars, or go to drag shows if you don't want to
Yes, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't minimize the chance that kids get bullied. If a gay couple adopts a kid, and the kid innocently accepts only to later find themselves get bullied for it, the damage is already done. You can't really police other people's kids. You can't solve bullying entirely to prevent this from happening. It's best to try minimize it. Some of the other things you said are avoidable too, frankly enough. Take marriage seriously, don't have sex simply for pleasure and accidentally create children, etc. These are not just irrational religious teachings. They have functions.There is often no rhyme or reason to it, and it can be pointlessly cruel. [...] Bullies are not rational enforcers of societal norms. They're kids with their own problems.
Yes. It's more nuanced than that, which is my point. You said it's a stereotype, but it's not true. There's biology that plays into it, but it's not entirely biology either. There's also education. These are very complicated, and that's why many people have doubts that having two men/two women to take care of children is a good idea.It is much more nuanced than that and the jury is still out on the nature vs nurture aspect of it.
The society I live in is different from the west. People here seriously don't talk about sex when socializing. We talk about girlfriends and wives, but not in the context of sex. It's almost always in the context of family or SFW lover activities like going on a trip. While we do make sex jokes, it's not the vulgar kind. Just silly innuendos.I think a better question than "how many LGBT people do you know" is "how many people in general do you know" or "how often do you go outside" if this is honestly what you think.
Most people are programmed to be heterosexual. Therefore there's no need to promote it. Thinking about heterosexual activities won't disturb most people because they develop a liking to it once they're in puberty. Homosexuality is not programmed in most people. People naturally aren't comfortable with the idea. If you want to normalize it, you will have to push people to get through their biological discomfort. The question is, what about people who don't want to? If it's disturbing to them, chance is they won't want to watch enough homosexual activity to get used to it. Forcing it will cause conflict. It's not even necessary. You can befriend someone just fine without liking/caring about their sexual orientation/fetish/hentai tags. It's not exclusive to homosexuality either. People generally keep their fetish to themselves. They don't force others to accept it. That's just weird. Yet you don't see people complaining about how they feel so oppressed that they can't talk about their sexual preferences.When guys talk about their girlfriends or vice versa, people in media (fiction and non-fiction) are portrayed in heterosexual relationships, etc. it's all taken for granted and left out of your mental calculus for determining how prevalent it is.
Those weren't actual questions. I was just putting them out there to make you understand why people have doubts. Still, you didn't answer my questions about the bullying and the kid's psychology. Not that I blame you, because the answers are very complicated. Child growth as a whole is very complex. There are so many factors that research on a particular topic is not the end of it. For example, formula milk. While it may be physically healthy, it's not necessarily so for the psychology of the child. Breastfeeding helps build a bond between mother and child, which will be important a long way down the road. These kinds of things are difficult to research properly. There are too many variables, and growth takes a very long time. Also, the women thing is not just stereotype. There's biology into it. Even animals have it. Yet these are rarely discussed when the LGBT movement is concerned. The conversation usually only goes accept/not -> hurrah/boo.That's why every post you write reads like moving the goalposts, because arguments from rational positions have already been refuted by data.
This kind of thing is heavily looked down upon in Islam, and I know was too in Christianity, so yeah I agree it's a big problem. I'm not gonna preach that people should be religious tho. I've caused enough ****storm as it is.Many times, children are created accidentally and their parents decide after the fact that they don't want them
Because everyone knows heterosexuals (in general) are capable of continuing the species. There's no reason to question them by their sexuality alone. There are, however, questionings on other factors like their financial capability, their mentality, etc. Not only does social norm does this test for them, natural selection also does. A woman won't marry a man who can't provide, and a man won't marry a deranged woman.The problem with what you are saying--and how you are saying it--is that none of these limits and thresholds are imposed on heterosexual people, and the only reason that is the case is because they are heterosexual.
I never mentioned politicians or authority when making my suggestions. I said people around you. We didn't need the government to tell us Christians are cool. We learned that by ourselves. We didn't need an imam or a priest or the president to promote "don't be mean to Christians". This happened successfully because Christians were patient. Again, there are so many places and times in history where different social groups blended naturally. It's viable. It's just that these days people want everything fast. They don't have the patience.Sitting back and waiting for some mindful & conscientious politician to come along and acknowledge that you're tolerably mundane isn't a viable path to progress.
But they are. Justification doesn't erase reality. And you said it yourself. It's pride, and what they're promoting is not "LGBT people are normal". It's "We're so damn weird and we're proud of it, screw you." It's not doing them any favor indeed. Again, I know it's the minority, but it's that loud minority that I'm against. Not the people who are not doing that.It's not that they're promoting it, exactly, but when they've been repressed for so long it's a natural reaction, I guess.
Those 8 billion people won't take care of YOU when you're too old to work and feed yourself. They have their own family to feed. That's why it's still an issue, and why some countries are freaking out about demographic collapse and birth rate. It's undeniable fact that people grow old and frail. You will need someone to take care of you when that time comes. That's the functional aspect of a family. You invest so much resources into raising someone that will care about you enough to wipe your bum the same way you wiped theirs when they're just helpless babies.I don't think that's a great argument in a world with 8 billion people.
Correct. It should be case by case basis. Is the LGBT movement pushing for this tho? Nope. They think in "us". The whole group. I bet you they won't accept case by case evaluation as they think it's discriminatory to only allow a portion of their "us".As for adoption, this is something which needs to be decided on a case by case basis
Personally? Two normal ones. I just see and debate with random ones on the Internet every once in a while. During the whole discussion I'm including all those people who put flags and pronouns on their social media profiles. There's so many of them. I'm also including non-LGBT people who are aggressively supporting that movement. I'd say that's decent sample size.I can't help but wonder how many people in the LGBT community you know. Your posts read like you're very, very removed from what they are really like.
Really? It's for us to figure out? What constitutes as "harm" here? Even before I knew anything about LGBT people to have any prejudice against them, men dressing like women drew a very natural gag reaction from me. Of course now I can tolerate it to some degree, but there's natural aspect to this. Where should we draw the line? You wouldn't want to see people naked on the streets now would you? You might be fine with it, but how about others? Well, normalize it then I guess? Make people used to it. How about kids then? Should we show drag queens and naked adults to kids? Or should we "educate" kids that these are gay people etc? They dress like women because they prefer having sex with men. What's sex? Well, you see, Jimmy, sex is- [snip]. You see where I'm going with this?I can see how it could make some people feel uncomfortable, but honestly that's something for them to figure out. That person is not harming anyone.
It may read like that, but that wasn't my suggestion. I know homosexuality has existed since ancient times. I also think that it's genetic, at least partly. It's not an absolute no-no tho. A homosexual can adopt children and pass down their lifework, provided that they have the ability to do so. Meaning they can finance it, and have the ability to parent their adopted children. It doesn't pass down their genetics, but it's still an okay in my eyes.This reads like you think homosexuality & transexuality are recent developments in human society, or that once a subculture has passed the post they're free from persecution in perpetuity.
Yes, because marriage and adoption are so important that a government needs to be very careful about it. This is yet another one of the things I called "what's truly important." People should work on figuring out whether LGBT people are truly capable of holding a family together and take care of children properly. You wouldn't want orphans to be adopted by people who can't take care of them. Before you jump on my neck, I'll mention once again that I think they can do it, as long as they're not obsessed with their gender identity or LGBT ideology. It's just hard to convince people of this when the LGBT movement is acting the way it is now. Yeah sure it might be a minority, but it's a really loud one, and this loudness contributes to a bad image.Living life normally is difficult when you are legally prohibited from participating in parts of normal life, like marriage and adoption.
A research on recommendation systems. Something like the algorithm on YouTube. I'm trying to help solve several problems this field is currently facing. Well, solve is a big word. This specific field has been plagued with the same problems since its birth. We're just trying to mitigate them.What kind of academic research? I am actually curious 🧐
And you won't reach an understanding if you dismiss people who disagree with you as uneducated bigots, and by acting in an unpleasant manner. That's my whole point.until they start understanding them and forging relationships with them.
That's rather difficult to describe briefly. What is considered normal varies depending on place and time, but there are certain universal norms that form naturally and stand the test of time, and you can use those as a standard to define what is universally normal. That's why I think it's important to let things play out naturally. Things that are legitimately good will pass the test of time, while those that aren't will not. If a certain lifestyle allows you to live long enough to produce an offspring, then you've passed nature's most basic test. Your lifestyle is worth passing down to the next generation. At the very least it works. And I'm not mentioning reproduction to jab at LGBT people. I mentioned it simply because it's literally what keeps our species going. I know many people in the modern world don't want to reproduce, but I think that's an absolutely wrong way to live. If everyone follows that lifestyle, humanity is literally doomed.I guess the question is what is your definition of being normal.
You tell me. I've never lived amongst them. I've only met Jews online and they're not religious or care about their Jewish heritage. I just assume they're like other people.So why have they been (and honestly still are, antisemitism just got more sneaky) hated?
Academic research. Completely unrelated to this.Also you talk about doing research, what do you mean by that?
Oh my.wagging your fat joystick in everyone's face
I appreciate the gesture. I might follow up on that in the near future. Currently swamped with research and work at the moment. Probably around the weekends. I should set the following first by the way:If you want feel free to send any "proof" to my private messages, I would be happy to show you that they are not as much proof as you think they are. Again, as long as you are open to that, otherwise it's kind of a waste of everyone's time.
I never said or suggested the LGBT movement is bent on world domination. I just said they're aggressively spreading their lifestyle, which people here disagree with. I think it's important for me to clarify that what I think as "bad" will be different from your perspective. For example, we think drinking alcohol is bad, but it's normal in the west, but it's not like we think it's bad purely from a religious perspective. We have legitimate reasons to think so. I will write details on this once we get to PM, giving you a perspective that's common in where I live, and probably even extends to the rest of Asia to some degree.That doesn't equate to an evil LGBT movement bent on world domination. That is not a thing. It is however how antisemitism paints Jews, so make of that what you will (should they also have tried to be "normal" people?).
This is only "true" for the big cities. People in rural areas are still in extreme poverty. Or people who come from rural areas to work in the big cities. Besides, there's a lot going on with it that I can't really put together because I just woke up. Lowered standard for what is considered poverty, IP thefts, cheap labor, etc. To be completely honest I'm not an economist so I can't talk about these with confidence, but the point here is that the Chinese people are on such economic pressure that some of their youths have completely given up on the future. I don't think good economic numbers justify having such social condition.This often does lead to internal turmoil which can often seem apocalyptic at times, but it also creates the fastest economic growth in human history. The average wage in China is higher than anything I could hope for in London, the cost of living is far lower, and extreme poverty has been almost completely eradicated.
Right. You're talking about middle eastern countries when saying this, right? To be completely honest with you, I don't like the middle east. I think that whole area is a mess and their nonsense bleeds into Indonesia. One of our biggest issues, Islamist extremists, come from there. You won't see me defending whatever is going on in the middle east. Their issue is deeply rooted in their application of Islam in general. You refer to this as Islamic fundamentalists I believe. They really need to get that solved before we can talk about other issues like feminism, and forcing a western feminist movement into them is not going to work.That is actually what most Islamic feminists start from, and it's not got them a lot of progress.
Only if you see it with a pre-existing prejudice. Your ideological alignment led you to make that jump because I was on the opposing side. What I meant is that they obviously are normal people, and thus completely capable to do what I was suggesting. That's what I meant by it not being that hard. Again, it's such an obvious fact that I didn't feel the need to specify it. I know they're capable of living normally, and some of them already are.This comes across as you saying that trans people are not normal and not okay human beings.
Yeah obviously. I don't even know why you even bothered pointing this out.By the way, men and women who are comfortable with the gender they were assigned at birth can and are hated and discriminated against.
No, quite the opposite. Gender dysphoria is such a rare condition that the majority of people don't know about it. Meanwhile being male or female is such an obvious, seen-everywhere differences. People learned to accept the difference because it's such a core part of human society. Men live among women throughout the entire human history everywhere. Even cavemen could differentiate between men and women.The only reason why it might be a bit easier for them than it is for trans people is that their differences are more difficult to see if they are trying to hide them.
No. I can't even figure out how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote. I made such clear and simple statements that should just be taken as they are.This to me is like saying to a man that they should try wearing a skirt or a bra sometimes because their not doing so is making other people uncomfortable.
I don't understand the refusal on this either. You can even see it everywhere on Twitter. How is it not a thing? Why are you so sure that nowhere in the world, nowhere on the world wide web, that people did those? Well thanks to the mods I can't post proofs of what I meant or even mention them, but go look at what materials they're putting in western education nowadays.If you are referring to the elements that were removed by Monty in your previous comments, those are not a thing. That just does not happen.
No. I never even said the word "hide" or "shut up". I don't know how to make it even clearer. The acceptance happens in so many parts of the world, about so many minority groups, at various periods of time. I'll explain one example in length, as clearly as possible.Where? How? You are saying (or at least come across as saying) that people should hide who they are to be accepted by other groups that hate them.
The "gender affirming care" I'm thinking of doesn't seem effective, that's the thing. Continues with below:There is actual, proper research and effective treatments. The treatment is gender affirming care.
That depression and high suicide rate is among what I meant by "what's truly important". I mean, it's still pretty high now isn't it? Even with people who take the surgery. That's why I said the treatment doesn't seem effective, so there must be other factors. I've done this kind of debates a lot, and oftentimes I found that people get really upset when I refer to gender dysphoria as a disease or mental help problem. That's why I used the word "condition" in this thread. It's essentially a mental help problem, but keep in mind that it's okay to be sick. You don't have to be perfect, as nobody is, and having certain sickness doesn't justify discrimination against you.I am also unclear on what you mean when you talk about "what's truly important". What is truly important in life? Gender dysphoria is associated to depression and high suicide rates if it is not treated appropriately.
There's nothing more I can say than look it up. There's so much outrage around this movement and for some reason you and the others haven't seen it. I'm already limited in my speech here, and that itself is a form of aggression, minor as it may be.I don't see this aggressiveness. Again, what are you talking about specifically?
I think this boils down to what each of us meant by "changing". Standard of measurement kind of thing. I'd say millions of Jews getting killed is a social change, but you seem to only refer to more long-lasting and drastic changes as a real change.I would however like to point out that German society did not change as much as you think, because Hitler had a lot of support from Germans. They kind of liked what he was doing, just like Italians liked what Mussolini did. Both rode to power on sentiments that were already there. And I really did not leave the holocaust period out, I am just saying that it failed to generate the change that they were looking for.
Yeah. On the second part of that, it's not against "LGBT people wanting to live peacefully." As I've pointed out, they should just live peacefully. The LGBT movement is not really pushing for that, even though it might be unintentional."Us vs them" is exactly the problem, so I am glad we agree on that at least. Again, I don't see where you see the ideological part in LGBT people wanting to live their life in peace.
I wasn't exclusively referring to what DestructoRama mentioned, but she did have a point. She was just too aggressive and rude about it (proving my point once more about aggressiveness). Then again I'm not allowed to talk about the details.I definitely agree with you that we should all talk more to people from other countries. It's part of why I like this forum. But once more, I don't understand what you are talking about here:
[we really don't like what we see going on in the US around this subject]
DestructoRama is, I am quite sure, fully immersed in an alternative reality echo chamber where she gets constantly told that LGBT people are deep frying children in pizza or some other nonsense.
I think that idea is rather outdated and obsolete. As five bucks has pointed out, that goal is pretty much already accomplished in the western world. Right now people should be evaluating the current progress and deal with whatever is still lacking in society. Remaining to insist on equal representation will take your attention away from focusing on the real issues. As it turns out, people aren't absolutely equal, and they don't have to be. It's okay to be different. Women and men have some differences, but that's not a problem. It's only a problem when someone decides to act badly upon differences. These are very case-by-case and thus need proper work to solve, instead of just shoving it up as misogyny etc. There are other factors that need to be looked at, like economic pressure and general lack of moral. That's why I think the feminism movement is outdated and obsolete, at least in the western world.What is your stance on equal representation of the sexes in areas like politics, religion, finance, and in management positions in society in general, like universities etc.? Are those not valid goals? Along with equal pay for equal work, not being forced to wear specific (religious) clothing and such.
Thank you for the courtesy. I really appreciate it. I hope you don't take offense to this as I really couldn't find a better way to put it, but the holocaust did change the German society during the period it was happening. The thing is, WW2 was an even bigger event that, with force, changed that society yet again. You're conveniently leaving out that period during the holocaust to fit your argument, but I know that's not because your intention is bad or anything like that. I will address the reason why along with the following:I had held back on answering this out of courtesy towards you being muted, but given that that's a thing you seem to enjoy I am going to go ahead and answer now: concentration camps were an atrocity and did unspeakable damage, but also utterly failed at changing society, at least in the way that they intended.
@Adorno @Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 JamesAnd I don't doubt that there are people who "disagree with the LGBT movement" as you put it (disagree on what? On the right of LGBT people to have a free life? Cause that sure sounds like homophobia/transphobia to me)
The Chinese people aren't stupid, yes, but that decision was. Reproduction is such a vital thing in a society, and they were in too much hurry and rush to solve their past population issue, which was also caused by another stupid decision by the way. The rest of the people, including the lower ranking members of the CCP, couldn't resist the atrocities because it's a brutal regime, not because they're stupid. The CCP is very reactionary in making policies, and their various failures are good examples of my point about why you shouldn't rush certain things.The Chinese aren't stupid, of course they knew there would be demographic issues down the line. They did it to solve a demographic crisis in the present. They weren't the first country in east asia to implement family limits either, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore was the first, and a handful of other countries followed suit. It's silly to act as if nobody in the gigantic CPC bureaucracy ever noticed that imposing child limits would cause fewer children.
I wouldn't say they work. More like they're very persistent. The reason those native movements fail is because they're doing it wrong. They're trying to push a different idea but limit themselves with the existing tradition, instead of trying to understand the tradition and use it in the direction that they want. In Islam for example, you can push for feminism by saying that Islam actually tells men to treat women kindly and respectfully. Many Muslims don't actually know Islam enough to understand these. Religion can be interpreted for good and bad. Teach them the good. If you want an ancient example of this, is how religious myths blended with local myths to ease assimilation. Different religion was a much more radical and sudden change, but people made it work. Granted sometimes it's by war, but the lone priests and monks travelling around did it without fighting.It's the same with the lgbt movement. The reason you have American-style lgbt organizations in basically every country on earth is because they work. "Native" feminist and civil rights movements are slow to act because they work within the culture they came from. There has been an islamic feminist movement for about 200 years that has achieved very little.
Good to hear then. It was too easy to run around the border making corpses and just run into a friendly fief to hide from a massive army when one actually came.Yes, a war will start if you raid a village.
It wasn't about Bannerlord.Uh Oh I see a broken Pitchfork, Grank in detention with the delinquents? Time for some backreading!
I didn't say this though. You made that jump by yourself. In fact, if you had even the slightest faith that I'm not an inhumane monster, you'd realize that what I meant by "real proper work" includes actually researching this issue and thinking up real solutions to it, instead of just going with outrage culture like people are currently doing. Trans people are suffering, but "transphobic people" aren't the only reason why. The world is, lazily and conveniently, ignoring those other reasons.Because you ended your rant with "just live your life in a way that doesn't challenge my view of what is normal and acceptable behavior." That's not even a half-step away from "the help should be seen, but not heard."
The question wasn't whether you could weigh in on the conversation or not. MadVader asked me how I think trans people could be accepted. I answered with the simple fact that if you want to be accepted, just show that you're an okay human being and your lifestyle is not dangerous to society. The reason people don't accept these things is that because they think they're dangerous. It's not pure stupidity either. There are legitimate, logical reasons behind it, but they're never heard. Because it's common these days to chalk disagreement as transphobic, stupid, and outdated. It's happening in this very thread with MadVader assigning labels and Antoine censoring me for "transphobia." I wasn't even saying those activities I mentioned are the majority. The discussion didn't even get to go that far. The mere mention of them was enough to censor me. It's as if they don't actually happen anywhere in the world whatsoever. Yeah right. It'd be like me going nuts over someone mentioning Islamic terrorism and insisting it's just Islamophobic crap.Nobody asked you to prove that you live a normal, fulfilling life before you could weigh in on the conversation.
I don't mind dying here. It's good practice, standing my ground with this much censor on my bum.If you want to double down here, that's on you. Not a great hill to die on, I would think.
Wow. GOT is an isekai all along.GoT is on another world
Exactly. It's better than just making wild claims based on nothing.Thanks mate 😊 it's better than carrying on without nothing to offer. I'm really hopeful for the future of the game and everything it has to offer!
Why is it so hard to talk with you people? It's like walking through a land mine. Thank God I didn't bring up statistics.this would be more convincing if you didn't immediately follow it up with a bunch of transphobic stereotypes and absurd generalisations.
i've gone ahead and removed them from your post for you. do not post them again.
Yeah my bad. I wrote that wrong. I mean to say dishonor didn't make you powerful. It only made people dislike you, and thus make you lose power. My point being that in Warband, if you want to be powerful, you pretty much have to be honorable. You can't play a powerful military tyrant, but you can do it in Bannerlord.Wrong.
Honor in WB:
"Honor affects your interactions with other lords and causes certain events. A high honor can increase the likelihood of a mercenary accepting an offer, or of you being elected as marshall. In Warband some lords will like you for having positive or negative honor; every 3 points in honor will increase or reduce your relation score by 1 (although the latter has small effect due to negative relationship repairing over time). Low honor can result in a bounty being placed on your head or a war being declared on your faction."
Yes, but it's not like Bannerlord is completely lacking this. Again, I agree that Bannerlord is shallow, but it's not as bad as people are putting it out to be.Nope, it is not just that. It also relies the output of the game according to your input which is your actions.
I like to think that it's akin to you asking these clans for help, and they're just sending someone to represent them in your army as a gesture of friendship. Of course, as you have pointed out, it's rather silly at times that you can order powerful clan leaders just like that. In my opinion it should be that you're calling upon a clan, and they decide who to send according to your relation with them and influence spent. If you're a nobody they will just send a second son or a young lord, for example. If you're a good friend with them, the clan leader himself might show up to help you. I imagine it would be cool to be surprised that a clan leader decides to answer your call himself.Please explain how does this making more sense than WB? Or tell me how can I roleplay this? How can I imagine a situation that I can earn such a political power?
It's normal that you're confused. It means you understand that the world is complex, and what I've said in the past couple pages has some sense in them. Remember, what I'm preaching for is balance, not some kind of slow-ism vs fast-ism. Not everything needs to be done slowly. The communism issue is one example. However, we were talking about feminism and LGBT, which are, these days, being pushed too rapidly and aggressively. This current speed and the nature of the issues make them the type that needs to be done slowly and carefully. We're in no real rush like a war or mass starvation. Feminism and LGBT are both issues that affect family lives and our reproduction as a species. You need to actually test and observe how your plans work out before you push it into the mass. A clear example of family-structure-altering policy going wrong has already happened in China. The one-child policy resulted in a demographic crisis that's going to make life very difficult in a few years. Notice how long it took them to notice the destructive impact that this policy brings.As someone both affected and extremely disillusioned by post-commie Eastern European movements I find last couple of thread pages quite confusing. I just want to oppose Grank's 'take it slow, yo' attitude, even if I can't dress it up in actual arguments.
For starter, you can try to actually listen and understand people who disagree with you instead of just dismissing them with a label or straight up sewing their handsome kissable lips. It's not as easy as is sounds, as both you and Antoine have demonstrated. It requires patience and an open mind. Had you actually been reading, you might have found merit in what I've said. You might have understood how Indonesians think, and how to better push for LGBT-acceptance in Indonesia and other Asian countries. The more proper form of this, is research. Do proper, actual research. Take the time and effort. Don't just lazily throw any opposition to the bigotry basket.What would you, as an alleged follower of Confucius (and also Lao Tse, Sun Tzu and Keanu Reeves), define as "real, proper work" when it comes to acceptance of transsexuals?
I disagree with you, so you think I don't understand? If I understand then I will automatically agree with you. Is that what you're saying? That's ridiculous isn't it? I will say it again. I understand what you and others mean. I disagree with it because I think it's wrong and biased to blatantly ignore the good and only focusing on the bad.You clearly do not understand and no, it is not wrong/biased.
What's so bad about being immature? People make mistakes from time to time. Does it insult you so much when someone points out you're being immature? You can't accept the idea that you might be wrong? I mean, you and many people here seem to think that making mistakes is a big no-no. Being incompetent warrants a lashing. What's what I meant by toxic. It's a very toxic way of living.But sitting there and acting like because you don't care that others are "immature" or whatever other insult you might have for caring, is ridiculous.
I did that to emphasize that I'm not taking sides in this nonsense. If I only say bad stuff about the game you will think I'm on your side, and if I only say good things you will think I'm a TW simp. Simple fact is, I'm not. I bring both good and bad to the table. Thing is, merely bringing the good immediately means simping it in people's eyes. I mean, didn't you say it's impossible to know someone's intention the other day? Yet you assumed I'm playing semantic and taking TW's side? Come on...Saying "the game is not great, BUUUUT" followed by whatever excuses you have, is exactly excusing them away.
Funny isn't it? How it's basically the same as what people are doing here. Because they feel the game is bad, they think it makes sense to act like that?So because you feel like they are being "unfair", you think it makes sense to treat people like that? Okay...
It literally is, buddy. One of the biggest arguments here is that "I paid so much money and the game is not worth that much". If you only point out the bad while pushing that argument, it becomes unfair. If you want to be fair when assessing the worth of something, you need to mention both good and bad. Otherwise of course the verdict is going to be "not worth it". You're just adding minus without the plus. The reason why people aren't doing that is because if they actually include the good, they will find that Bannerlord is not that bad of a product. Their argument is proven wrong. It's not unplayable garbage. It's just a video game that's not as good as its hype.nor does only pointing out the bad make it "unfair".