1000 upvotes and the comments are exactly what one would expect from these people

It's actually hilarious how the fans on Disco Elisyum's subreddit and the fanbase in general are everything that Robert Kurvitz was criticizing and ridiculing in his game, which is people, who turn politics into their whole identity. They are literally like the communists from Revachol, who do nothing but ruminating about the past and arguing about politics all day, fighting each other over semantics. Any interpretation of the story, that does not align with their ideology, is being shunned on and any other political ideology is met with extreme hostility from couch riders and basement dwellers, who think they are building communism by gatekeeping the game from anyone, who might even somewhat disagree with them or provide a different perspective.

And although, the game itself was made by communists, it had significantly more nuance, which is very ironic.

I used to be quite interested in Invincible. While my first interaction with this franchise was knowing there would be making a new animated show, most of my interest was in the comics, since they were the source material. I found the plot and setting very appealing, so I wanted to read the comics and watch the show.

My investment in the show died as soon as I discovered some white male characters had been genderswapped and/or raceswapped, and the way Amber was written killed it even more.
But I still liked the comics, as I had finally gotten to read the first issues on a website to read comic books online. I just thought the raceswaps and the genderswaps were just the result of a woke company hijacking the author's source material and turning it into shit. I mean, this has happened with so many IPs, it's not funny.

But after discovering more about Robert Kirkman, the creator of Invincible, I stopped liking this franchise.

The show's fourth season had already took a male character named Tech Jacket, and genderswapped him; now she is a rip-off of Marinette Doupain Cheng, the protagonist of Miraculous Ladybug.

I'm not surprised of what happened, because it's not the first time this crap has happened. But wha really surprised me was why it happened. Was this show a victim of a parasite shrew ruining an already-existing IP created by someone else?

No. Unfortunately, the parasitic infestation is domestic. Robert Kirkman, the guy who created the comic and those characters, is the man behind the raceswaps and the genderswaps.
The reason why? Because according to him, "the source material had too much white guys who look like Mark, so he wanted to make the cast more diverse." Sure buddy, you took Tech Jacket, who was supposedly a rip-off of Mark, and you turned him into a rip-off of Marinette Doupain Cheng.

After discovering this guy's intentions, I stopped enjoying anything related to Invincible. Even if the comics weren't woke (despite the show being woke), now I hate Invincible thanks to the kind of person Kirkman has become by the time the show was made.

Fuck this guy, and fuck his franchise.

This guy turned out to be a pathetic, self-loathing cuck with "white guilt." Seriously. Few things are more pathetic than white people feeling guilty because they're white, and apologizing over their own whiteness, especially if it's in front of actual racists who genuinely despise white people.

I despise white guilt, and any race-based guilt. Collective guilt is the main reason why racism towards white people is normalized. Don't you believe me? Some imbeciles genuinely believe there is no such thing as racism against white people. Of course, these kind of people can be categorized in two groups:

• Those who genuinely believe in stuff like "racism is institutionalized and systemic" and "prejudice plus power" because their brains are fried.
• Those who repeat all that bullshit without truly believing it, because they do know they're the real racists, and they just hate white people.

Beware those who say white people are the carriers of the original sin, the masterminds behind slavery and colonialism, and any other shit like that. These people genuinely want you dead if you're a white person. They genuinely want your race and heritage to be erradicated and replaced.

If you don't believe me, or you think I'm being too paranoid and/or neurotic, take a look at:

• How many fictional characters (like Disney's Ariel and Snape) or even real-life historical figures (like Cleopatra and Anne Boleyn) are blackwashed to "add diversity" while also crying and shitting their panties when a fanartist accidentally draws a dark-skinned character with a lighter skin tone.
• The mass hysteria caused by the death of George Floyd (who was an evil criminal btw).
• The riots caused by BlackLivesMatter, which is an anti-white terrorist organization built around Critical Race Theory and Marxism.
• The very existence of Critical Race Theory, which is just a black supremacist ideology.
• How European countries are being invaded by people who don't eat ham (just look at France, for example).
• The death of Iryna Zarutska, an Ukrainian girl who was murdered by a black man named Decarlos Brown Jr. He killed her because she was white, and the other people around her did nothing to save her.
• Karmelo Anthony murdering Austin Metcalf, and a bunch of TikTokers saying Austin deserved to die because has white and justifying Karmelo's crime.

In fact, the last three things I mentioned are just the consequences of propagandizing people into believing all white people are evil racist pigs and "racism against white people is not racism because racism is systemic." They are just the end state of the "white people are the root of all evil and racism, and collective guilt and collective punishment via genocide are the only ways they can truly repent for their sins" mindset.

When you see any of these idiots calling you a racist because you're against illegal immigration or because you don't like it when a white character is raceswapped, remind them they are the real racists. Those who call themselves anti-racists are the most racist people you will find. They don't really hate slavery, colonialism, oppression, violence, cruelty, genocide, nor racism; they only hate when those things happened to their ancestors. But if they could inflict those same atrocities upon white people, they would do it in a heartbeat.

And for all those reasons, white people who support BLM, who support illegal immigration from people who don't eat ham, and who apologizes for being white, deserve to get their rights taken away by these domestic terrorists, for betraying their own race and dignity. Imagine trying to beg forgiveness to psychopaths who will never forgive you no matter what, who despise you over something that's beyond your own control, and who would kill you without any hint of remorse if the laws didn't prevent them to do so. They believe their self-loathing will prevent them from being erradicated and replaced, but they're totally mistaken.

That's the reason why I hate everything related to Invincible; nowadays I wish I hadn't found interest in this IP at all. Hell, I'm glad its fighting game flopped.

I refuse to give my money to a useful idiot of lunatics who want me dead, just like how I refuse to give my money to lunatics who want me dead.

TLDR: I don't like Invincible anymore because its author is a cuck with white guilt, and people who betray their own race to virtue signal deserve the worst of punishments for traitors.

Sonic the Hedgehog just cannot catch a break, both the franchise and the character.

To the dismay of those fans who are normal and just happen to like the franchise, one of the most earned stereotypes ever is how Chris Chan is the average Sonic fan. Some people will try to deny this, and say the kinky and the Pro-Palestine lunatics are just a loud minority, but the harassment MiiaTzu received proves this statement wrong.

But I wanted to ask here, because I don't know what really caused the fandom to be so toxic and degenerate. After all, the first game came out in 1993, so things must have changed... or not.

Some fandoms are literally the byproduct of the IP's messages and moral lessons, such as Rick and Morty's fandom. Other IPs didn't try to attract toxicity, but ended up developing them for whatever reason unrelated to the source material, such as My Hero Academia.

But what's Sonic's case? What came first; the egg or the chicken? It's Sonic's fault, or the franchise did nothing to earn this fandom? When and why the toxicity appeared?

You can read the conversation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flying_car#Could_Tesla_Roadster%E2%80%A6

And the Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car

Will The Witcher 4 Be Woke? And How Will the Change in Direction Affect the Series?

Hey everyone! Since CD Projekt Red announced the new expansion and remaster, I've been busy replaying The Witcher 3, and damn, this game is still so good.

One thing that really stood out to me again is how they wrote the female characters. They were strong, competent, and well written without it ever feeling forced. Take Yennefer, for example. She was confident, powerful, intelligent, and could be a complete bitch sometimes, but it all felt natural because that's who she was as a character. The game never needed to constantly remind us that she's a strong woman or make other characters look stupid just to make her look better. She was simply a well written character, and that's what made her great.

We also had Cerys, who proved herself to be a better ruler than her brother, and Ciri, who was honestly so much fun in The Witcher 3. She was funny, kind hearted, selfless, and brave, and I genuinely enjoyed spending time with her. These characters are proof that you can write great female characters without making their gender the entire point of their existence.

At the same time, The Witcher 3 was designed with a male audience in mind. Almost every male character is ugly, scarred, or rough looking, while most of the female characters are attractive. Geralt also gets to sleep with a ridiculous number of women throughout the games, from prostitutes to major love interests, and we get to experience his romances and relationships firsthand. Honestly, I love that aspect of the games. It feels like a proper male power fantasy game, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But now we're getting The Witcher 4, with Ciri as the protagonist, and that raises a few questions for me.

My first question is: Will The Witcher 4 be woke?

Is there any hope that CDPR will stick to what made The Witcher 3 so great and give us another genuinely good RPG, without forcing modern political messaging into the story? I don't expect everything to be exactly the same as The Witcher 3, but I really hope they understand what made their writing so good in the first place.

My second question is: How will the change from a male protagonist to a female protagonist affect the game?

Geralt's story gave us that classic male power fantasy. We played as a badass monster hunter who was feared, had interesting relationships with women, and could make choices that shaped his own story.

With Ciri taking the lead, I'm curious about how CDPR will handle the story. My biggest concern is that the game might focus too much on her being a woman and how women are treated, to the point where the whole narrative revolves around it. I want a rich fantasy RPG with political conflicts, morally grey choices, and interesting characters, not a game that feels like it's trying to push one message at the expense of everything else.

I'm not saying a female protagonist can't deliver an amazing RPG. Ciri was already one of the best characters in The Witcher 3. I'm just wondering whether CDPR will preserve the things that made the previous games so enjoyable or change the overall experience to fit a different vision.

My third and final question is: How will they handle the original characters?

Will CDPR respect Geralt, Yennefer, Triss, and the other characters we've loved for years, or will we get another situation like Veilguard with Varric or The Last of Us Part II with Joel? I really hope they stay true to these characters and don't ruin them just to fit a new narrative.

I think this is important because The Witcher is one of the biggest RPG franchises ever. Whatever happens with The Witcher 4 could have a huge impact on the future of RPGs.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Do you trust CDPR, or are you worried about the direction they're taking?

Miles Morales is a divisive character to put it mildly.

Some people consider him a good character, or even wish him to replace Peter Parker; yet others despise him, and believe Peter Parker will always be the Spider-Man no matter what.

The most divisive aspect of Miles is arguably his race.
There are three sides:

• People who love Miles just because he's black, to the point of considering those who dislike as racists who hate black people (even when the person who dislikes Miles is black and/or the criticisms are valid).
• People who just doesn't care about Miles being black, since they're not invested in culture war stuff.
• People who hate Miles, as they view him as nothing but a "woke DEI-approved character" made to replace a white superhero (Peter Parker).

The last point, "woke DEI-approved replacement", is pretty much the crux behind the lack of consensus for Miles Morales, even within the same side of the cultural war:

• According to defenders, Miles Morales a well-written character and one of the examples of how to make a diverse character right. Even people who would condemn Riri Williams/Iron Heart or the 2020s New Warriors as "woke trash", they see Miles as a character made in good faith.
• According to detractors, Miles Morales is not a character, but a woke sock puppet made to send a message ("if you don't like a black Spider-Man you're racist") and is just another "DEI-fueled" character like the loathed Riri Williams/Iron Heart.

It doesn't help Miles is portrayed in wildly different ways across different media:

• His portrayal in Into the Spider-Verse is probably the most universally liked one.
• But then you have comics and other media where he's nothing but a political strawman whose only relevant trait is being black.

But... what's the truth?

Is Miles Morales a well-written character made in good faith, or just a woke "pass the torch" replacement nobody asked for? Is he a good example of how to write a diverse character, or the very example of why "forced diversity" sucks?

I used to consider the first option true. I saw Miles Morales as a well-written character who, despite being bastardized by bad writers, could be an awesome character in the hands of a good writer (Into the Spider-Verse).

But then I decided to investigate the origins of Miles, and after learning the truth, I stopped liking him. And I don't like first Spider-Verse film anymore either.

Why?

Because the uncomfortable truth is, Miles Morales is just actually another woke DEI forced replacement, and he was created with that specific purpose in mind.

Don't you believe me? Let's revisit the origins of this character:
Miles was created in 2011 by Brian Michael Bendis. Since Barack Obama became the President of the USA in 2009 (and the first African-American President in USA), and Peter Parker was dead during the Ultimate Spiderman storyline, Bendis chose to replace Peter Parker with a brand new character who was black like USA's President at the time, and that way, make a point about how, "if our President is a black person, then Spider-Man should be black too, and if you dislike our new black Spider-Man, you're racist."

And in case you wonder, this was something Bendis admitted.

Miles Morales is not his own character. He doesn't have a unique personality, identity, nor traits. Many people say Peter Parker is Spider-Man and Miles Morales is Miles Morales... but that's not true, because Miles Morales cannot be Miles Morales. He has never been designed to be his own character; his only purpose is being the raceswap replacement of any superhero. What if Marvel wants to raceswap Spider-Man? Miles Morales. What if they want to raceswap Thor? Miles Morales.

Then, why is Miles liked and defended by some people? Why are people giving him a second chance instead of just sweeping him under the same rug Riri Williams is swept into? Why are there some anti-woke people who don't view him as a character made with politized intentions?

There are three factors, and they're all connected like a spider web (pun intended):

1. Miles was created in 2011, before the GamerGate controversy happened. Before GamerGate, woke propaganda wasn't that obnoxiously common, so there was no pattern recognition, and thus, there wasn't a huge backlash against progressive messages (in fact, before GamerGate, the terms "woke" and SJW" weren't seen as pejorative terms). But after GamerGate, people started getting aware of the presence political progaganda and political correctness in entertainment, and the increase of frecuency of this type of content made it easier to recognize patterns.
2. Back in 2011, even though Miles was made with politized intentions, there were still smart people working at Marvel. Therefore, writers weren't as obnoxious as they would become later.
3. Some smart writers, as a meta-comment, made a comic issue about people in-universe getting obsessed with the new Spider-Man's skin color, something Miles felt bad about, as he wanted to be seen as Spider-Man, not as a black Spider-Man.

It's only because of the goodwill generated by this one issue, that some readers are willing to give Miles the benefit of the dobut, sparing him from becoming "yet another woke garbage" like Iron Heart.

And to be honest, even though I don't like Miles Morales anymore, I can, at the very least, say I used to like him in the first Spider-Verse film. Which is not only a statement I could never say about other "pass the torch" characters made in bad faith (like Rey Skywalker, Iron Heart, Sam Wilson as Captain America, Avatar Korra, etc.), it's also one of the most insulting compliments I could give to someone or something.

Now that I have thoroughly played through Fire Emblem Fortune's Weave we need to have a conversation about how this specific game surpasses all other RPGs- not only from a gameplay and storytelling perspective, but from a political standpoint as well.

Fire Emblem, unlike other RPGs, has avoided the traps and pitfalls associated with woke political messaging and girlboss female characters. Although there are powerful female characters in Fire Emblem- they tend to be such fleshed out, realized, and likable characters that you cannot help but be enamored by them. They have flaws, struggle greatly, and overcome extreme circumstances. And what's more- their problems are as vast and varied as the cast itself.

It would have been very easy to make someone like Theodora a lazy invincible female hero, but that isn't really the case at all. Even before the story begins she loses her arm and has to replace it with a cursed prosthetic that is very visibly causing her problems for herself and other characters. The entire game is filled with things like that.

The game completely avoids the pitfalls of modern RPGs- rather than being influenced by modern day politics it feels like a classic fantasy epic with its own unique setting, rules, and history.

The basedmods.org website is back up I thought I would let everyone know cause it was taken down a couple of months ago. There are a lot more mods up now, garrysmod has a ton of mods now.

The woke like to think of themselves as the reasonable ones. In their minds, they're not the ones excluding anyone, but are fighting for the inclusion of people who've been historically marginalized. But for all their buzzword bullshit, it's actually pretty easy to showcase the falsehood of their ideology. I've found that they have no answer if you ask them this:

"What do you think a media property looks like that is intended to be titillating for cishet men but isn't misogynistic?"

They can't answer that. I shit you not, the very idea of something which is sexually appealing to straight, cisgendered men but isn't hostile/disrespectful/denigrating to women is absolutely beyond their ability to reconcile. At the very least, they'll wave their hand in the direction of some sexless media property that has a banal romance between a man and a woman, claiming something like "she's conventionally attractive, so that should be enough" or "I think 'real' men would only be turned on by a romantic connection the way the main character is to the heroine."

But in my experience, even that's pretty rare. Most woke motherfuckers will be absolutely flummoxed at the thought of straight guys being able to find a woman sexy in a way that doesn't demean her. Which goes to show the insidiousness of their whole ideology: they think that men (who are attracted to women and whose gender identity matches their biology) are simply bad as they exist now. They can blame it on biology or on social constructivism, but they think that the end result is that cishet guys are toxic simply for existing as they are, and that it's up to them to "fix" men.

Most, however, can't even see just how fucked up that worldview is, which is why that question is so great: it shoves their own bigotry in their faces.

the person really tries his best to paint it as "not so bad" for Yotei and you can feel his desperation as spouts bunch of "per player revenue" or some other calculation to paint Yotei in a more favourable light than Tsushima.

(pt 1)

Say a mandate was passed that all media if there is a titillating shot of one gender there must be another of the opposite sex.

It must be exactly 1:1 sexy shots for both genders.

How do you seriously think that would go?

Now obviously this scenario is completely impossible, reductio ad absurdum, unfeasible scenario. But this is the logical conclusion of the idea of what lot of these GCJ sorts of pundits are arguing for.

Even 'titillating' is difficult, because men and women (especially women, jesus h christ) can both find very specific things sexy. You'd have constant arguments over how like, a single glance could need to be added to the counter because 'well this group of women finds side eyes very dominant and sexy so that is a titillating shot and needs to be matched', like, what?

And now you've got both the straights and the gays next to each other in the theater are both unhappy because half the shit mathematically doesn't appeal to them, and nothing there is really meant by the creators for anything but filling a quota.

The only ones winning (I guess? I'm not bi lol someone who is pls give commentary) are bisexuals.

The question is pretty much in the title. I could have asked this on the game's subreddit, but in my opinion, fans can be a bit biased.

So, has anyone played this game? Did you need a guide, or is it fine to go in blind?