Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on Today at 12:41:52 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Well, my friend, do not be vexed! Everything within Scripture has *context*. God does not want us to be helpless, weak, pathetic victims, just bowing down to evil and tyranny. In the New Testament, Christ commands us to when we go about into the world, to carry a sword. The disciples asked Christ, why should we go forth into the world armed, Lord? To which Christ continued, saying, for we live in an evil world. If Christ had wanted us to always be peaceful and sweet, and never do violence, then He would not have commanded us to arm ourselves.

Likewise, the Scriptures talk about being armed, and ready to defend your home and community from the wolves, from the brigand, the robber and thief.

Furthermore, the Scriptures are full of histories and stories of where righteous people rose up--and violently defended themselves, and resisted evil, wickedness, and tyranny. The Old Testament is full of this.

Perhaps, by individual temperament, a person may be so tranquil and so peaceful, as to simply be paralyzed when contemplating violence. Likewise, an individual sincerely convinced and committed to pacifism. The US government has historically acknowledged a sincere conviction of pacifism, based upon a few verses and teachings in Scripture. However, as regards a broader world view, such Scriptures and context would be a minority. There are far more examples, exhortations, and instructions for the Christian to be armed, and prepared for violence, either defending his person, his family, his home, or his community. Defending all from foreign invaders, but also from domestic evil and tyranny.

Quakers, for example, are a historic community within America that have always been committed to pacifism. I don't agree with their interpretation and application of a few Scriptures, but, they have freedom to believe as they do. I think such freedom is not just vouchesafed within our own Constitution, but also I would agree some allowance for such within the spiritual traditions of the Christian faith.

As I mentioned, I believe there is far more Scriptural evidence that does not support Pacifism, and instead counsels courage, being masculine, prepared, and ready to fight. There are also Scriptures that speak against the coward, the traitor, the man who would not fight to defend his community, his family, and his people. The Scriptures focus primarily on men, being dominant, and active--but also applauds and honours even women that stand up against tyranny, and eagerly and faithfully stand together with their men.

Search the Scriptures diligently. All I speak of is truth.

Thus, I sleep well at night, thankful to my Lord Christ, and to my armoury of weapons.

"The Lord teacheth my hands for war"

I hope that I have encouraged you, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Oh yeah! So many little points of conflict and strategy that balanced on a knife edge!

With Sea Lion, it is not widely known--but the German Luftwaffe was very close to annihilating British air power over Britain. Maybe just a few more weeks of constant focus and hammering of British radar stations and airfields, and the RAF would have been crushed entirely. Lots of chain "Ifs" involved, but plausible. Once the RAF was crushed, German air superiority over Britain and the English Channel would have check mated British naval power operating within the English Channel. From there, Britain would not likely have been able to defeat an airborne assault made by 20,000 German Fallschirmjagers--which is precisely how the Germans overwhelmed and conquered the island of Crete. First, air superiority; then, checking the naval superiority; thus enabling a bold airborne assault, which was then supported by amphibious troops and reinforcements from sea. The Greeks and British forces holding out in Crete were thus doomed, and Germany was eventually victorious.

Germany, following that similar strategy, could have proceeded with Sea Lion. The Fallschirmjager could seize a port or two, and then be reinforced with additional invasion forces. Can you imagine the 7th Panzer Division--the "Ghost Division" of Erwin Rommel unleashed at Dover? Guderian leading more panzers into London. The British after Dunkirk had a decent army of 300,000 plus troops in Britain, though they had very little artillery, trucks, or tanks, and honestly, not even much rifles, machine guns, or other infantry support equipment. Churchill himself said that Britain was next to empty, with nothing but broom handles and beer bottles to resist a German invasion with! *Laughing*

That would not have boded well for a German invasion force of well-equipped infantry, Panzers, lots of artillery, while the skies were filled with Messerschmidt's, Heinkel bombers, and of course, the infamous Ju-97 "Stuka" Dive Bomber. Britain would have thus likely fallen by Christmas of 1940, or sometime in the spring of 1941. Can you imagine if *that* had happened?

Of course, following from that epic disaster for the Allies--when the Reich then turned East afterwards to launch Barbarossa against the Soviet Union--imagine Barbarossa being waged with +25% more German ground troops and tanks--and +40% more of the Luftwaffe--and, ZERO prospect of there ever being any kind of "Second Front." No North Africa campaign. No invasion of Siciliy and Italy. Italy never being knocked out of the war. And no invasion of Normandy. Just as importantly--NO STRATEGIC AIR WAR crushing German cities to ashes and grinding German industry down. And no need to keep 40% of the Luftwaffe or more, guarding the skies over the Reich.

That, and with the increase in manpower--no need to keep 20 German divisions in Norway, or 20 divisions in Yuhoslavia, or 300,000 troops in North Africa. All that, and more--would have been able to be sent against the Soviet Union. Oh, yes, and NO LEND LEASE CONVOYS to Russia, bringing the Soviet Union tons and tons of valuable supplies, tanks, trucks, clothes, food, radios, train locomotives, and the precious high-octane AVIATION FUEL--which made the Red Air Force able to field dangerous and competitive fighters, ground attack aircraft and bombers in the Red Air Force. All of that would have gone away. And, furthermore, an unleashed Italy and a German Afrika Corps under Rommel could then certainly have swept victoriously into Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and--the Caucuses region of southern Russia.

Yeah, as can be seen, the domino effects all cascading together, stacking up--the Soviet Union would have likely gone down as well, eventually. Then you would have a German Reich and Italian Empire dominating all of Europe from Britain to the Ural Mountains, and from Norway to the Congo in Africa, and the entire Middle East as well. Both Iraq and Iran were moving closer to being allies of the Reich. So, yeah, that is likely what would have happened. Then, you would have Rommel on the Indian border at the Kyber pass from the West, looking to invade India from the West--while the Japanese Empire was invading India from the East.

Truly mind-boggling!

Interestingly, this is exactly the scenario envisioned by the American High Command, as seen in the 1942-made government film, "Why We Fight!" The US high command were very well versed in the whole immense importance of the grand strategy of "The Heartland." Basically, controlling Europe from Britain to the Ural Mountains in Russia is "The Heartland" and the resource keys to enforcing absolute dominion outwards over the entire globe. THAT is exactly what we were very worried about happening looking at the war in the spring of 1942 through the smoke and ashes of Pearl Harbour.

All this talk about "Nah, the Axis never had a chance. That's all BS." All that kind of talk is smug arrogance, triumphalism, and borne from the comfort of hindsight and being victorious.

I remember my own father telling me that yeah, the Axis could have won the war. Damn right we were worried about winning. He told me it was not a sure thing at all. We had a very long and hard struggle facing us, everywhere.

It was definitely not a forgone conclusion in 1941 or 1942, maybe not even in 1943.

Thankfully, though, the Axis powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan, all had the troops, the power, and the momentum to achieve victory--but they also suffered from several critical strategic thinking mistakes that ultimately cost them the war--and would end with them all being crushed by fire and ashes.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:10:50 AMGURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Eric,

IIRC, it's in 3E Compendium 2. Sold it years ago. I don't think that rule made it into 4E.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan on April 22, 2024, 10:37:59 PMSo I've read the latest beta watched a session, and I have thoughts.

[editing]

Such as?

It's like our TTRPG list but for video games, wonder if Ocule's list should be included there?

DEI Detected

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PMEhhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Indeed:

Marx's Theory of Man and the World

QuoteThe world of man — state, society — as Marx had it is the social structure that he creates for himself and that he, indeed, imprisons himself within. Man creates society and embodies that creation in the State, and the society, shaped by the State, in turn creates Man. Marx called the creation of society "praxis" and the creation of Man by society "the inversion of praxis." Praxis is theory-informed activism, so activism or "the work" done in light of Marxist Theory. It is the transforming activity done by Man on the world of man. The inversion of praxis is social conditioning. The society that Man has created for himself socially conditions him almost completely deterministically. Man is limited and thus psychically incarcerated by the limitations of his social conditioning through the inversion of praxis.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 23, 2024, 02:28:24 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 23, 2024, 12:18:39 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 11:46:37 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMIt occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism...

Before I touch this subject, I'd like you to define "anthropological realism" because I have not been able to find a definition online.

As ForgottenF put it above, (1) writing fantasy as if it were history, to which I'd add (2) employing races, sexes, cultures, and religions logically as derived from the inspiring mythos or cultures from which the given fantasy comes.

It doesn't make sense to have Africans in Rohan, for example. In fact it defeats the whole purpose. LotR is a European fantasy, the Rohan are an Anglo-Saxon horse culture; the other races of man are geographically and culturally peripheral.

OK, but doesn't that go back to before Tolkien? In Beowulf there was Grendel, and even Grendel had a mother. In it's most basic form, that is "anthropological realism" in that it is a copy of western family structure.

It appears so. The difference between Beowulf and LotR would then be quantitative.

Quote from: Fheredin on April 22, 2024, 04:55:07 PM

QuoteThis is not to object to media products being transformed into propaganda. I'd agree that they're already always propaganda. Refusing to indoctrinate someone is indoctrinating them into neutrality, just as refusing to teach children religion is teaching them nullifidianism. The Wokists have that right: most everything reinforces one political narrative or other.

I would beg to differ on this one, and I think it's better to approach this from a Christian Apologetics angle than from politics or the history of gaming. I will try to circle back after I make my point.

There's one key difference between Atheism and Theism. If you push the Atheistic universe to it's conclusion, you must assume that logic, mathematics, and ethics are self-assembling.  If you push the Theistic universe to its logical conclusion, these could be self-assembling, but it is more consistent with the universe for them to be directly provided by God.

The problem is that since the 1930s and Godel's theorems of incompleteness, we have known that mathematics especially doesn't fit into neat self-assembling boxes. Without this, ethics and epistemology follow suit. This is why pseudoscientific ethics typically resort to non-answers like survival and reproduction and secular ethics fall apart under scrutiny. In this sense I think that it's more accurate to say that as our culture abandoned Christian ethical ideals, it lost the moral fiber to resist Marxism. Marxism also failed--it became Wokeness by switched away from economic arguments to racial and gender arguments--but because the Christian moral authority was exiled from public life and there were were no other moral authorities to call it out, Marxism evolved into Wokism.

And here we come to the rub; Christianity is getting targeted by the Woke because it retains the moral authority to call Wokism out. No one else really does.

So, no, I don't agree with the sentiment that teaching children nothing is actually teaching them nullifidianism. You either teach children functional worldviews or you don't. And if you didn't, chances are they will become Woke, not because they actually believe any of the ideas, but because the only thing which is real to them is the opinions of their peers.

I stand corrected. Then, my stronger point is that the mind of a political animal abhors a vacuum--something must be sucked into it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 04:37:01 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Ehhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Campbell invented the monomyth structure by examining various myths and stitching together originally unrelated scenes into a vaguely coherent storytelling template, but it's not actually an accurate reflection of universal human psychology or storytelling (read the ATU fairy tale index for comparison). That's not to say that humans don't have universal psychological biases, we obviously do.

My criticism is unrelated to wokeness and is a pure criticism of writers becoming increasingly uncreative and just aping Tolkien. That's been a problem even before wokeness.

First, Campbell may have been the first to codify the concept, there has been a ton more scholarship that analyzes and explores the concept further.  So, despite the evidence-poor assertion of a couple of randos on the Internet (including the page you linked), Campbell's framework has been pretty useful overall.

Secondly, you've changed your argument on Tolkien several times in this thread.  First his tropes have trapped the writers that followed by establishing a pattern to be slavishly followed; then he's inventing evil overlord tropes that clearly predate him (Ming the Merciless?  There are many others...). Lucas was expressly and consciously  copying the serials of the 1930s and 40s, which predate LotR by decades.

Honestly, your whining about the lack of good writing in modern media due to Tolkien seems predicated on a cartoonishly simple generalization.  Somehow others must be copying Tolkien, and not copying who Tolkien copied.  As brilliant as he was, Tolkien was also heavily influenced by ideas that came before him, and those ideas were expressed in a lot of other media.  So perhaps they were all reacting to ideas that were much older?  Nah, they must just be copying him...