Originally posted by O Ri O:

Tito should not appeal to media literacy when he’s demonstrated his own lack of literacy overall. See his admitted lack of discernment practice when judging whether a Wikipedia article is currently contentious.

He did not come to the conclusion that the humans in Starship Troopers (the film) were the bad guys because of actually watching the movie.

He doesn’t understand that they are, in the film, portrayed as the good guys, because it is a satire.

That they aren’t good guys is a view derived from knowledge external to the film itself (which is how satire works). It’s necessary that we understand that they are not good guys by our standards in order for their portrayal as good guys in the film itself to produce humor.

Similarly, within the context of Robocop, the police are good guys. Ours (or the Author’s) position relative to “ACAB” wouldn’t alter what is exegetic.

I read a lot of “Neo-Wushu” comics recently. The protagonist is the hero, and everyone who opposes him or even disrespects him deserves everything the protagonist decides to do to them.

Protagonist chokes one of his rivals’ wives to death in her sleep after torturing her with nightmares. He later finds out she was pregnant and says he’d gladly do it again.

This is not a good person to me, it’s a horrible person actually. But this is what the story is telling me, exegetically, what they think a hero is. And unlike starship troopers I don’t have any external knowledge from the author of whether or not satire is intended.

The revenge stories like the one you mentioned, the protagonist isn't meant to be a hero. Or if they are, it is an anti-hero, similar to the punisher.

Also, the author of the Starship troopers meant for them to be the good guys, and the book was not satire. The movies based on it turned it into satire. I have all the movies, including the animated ones, not including the SatAM one.

Originally posted by Bishop:

If you want more of a general answer to when did this kind of insane toxic activism start well you'd have to go back to around the turn of the century when a certain demographic of people immigrated to America, established Hollywood, began to take over academia, and the media.

Push long enough and the old roots of this nu-culture war always shows the paw.

Originally posted by D. Flame:

The revenge stories like the one you mentioned, the protagonist isn't meant to be a hero. Or if they are, it is an anti-hero, similar to the punisher.

Unfortunately not a revenge story; this is not the count of Monte Cristo or the Toxic Avenger.

In another part of it he’s competing in a tournament and decides to kill one of the competitors “accidentally” because he doesn’t have any friends who will seek revenge.

He’s just a bastard. (it’s “Log into the Future”)

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by Bishop:

If you want more of a general answer to when did this kind of insane toxic activism start well you'd have to go back to around the turn of the century when a certain demographic of people immigrated to America, established Hollywood, began to take over academia, and the media.

Push long enough and the old roots of this nu-culture war always shows the paw.

It makes it funnier when you realize that Hollywood was established in 1903. And that the turn of the century was 2001. And who was in office in 2001.

Oh right George W. Bush.

Originally posted by Reiya:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Push long enough and the old roots of this nu-culture war always shows the paw.

It makes it funnier when you realize that Hollywood was established in 1903. And that the turn of the century was 2001. And who was in office in 2001.

Oh right George W. Bush.

He forgot to update his propaganda from when it was written.

I know this is a troll thread, but it got me legit curious.

The earliest example I can think of where video games were a direct commentary on the world is Missile Command, which is a commentary on Mutually Assured Destruction.

Originally posted by PopularVote:

I know this is a troll thread, but it got me legit curious.

The earliest example I can think of where video games were a direct commentary on the world is Missile Command, which is a commentary on Mutually Assured Destruction.

I suppose it would be better to be more specific; what was the first exegetic and explicit instance.

Exegetic meaning contained within the actual game itself; if we used Missile Command as an example, if it was explicit and exegetic there might be a message every time you lose going “the only winning move is not to play”

Then that was around the time the first "Winners Don't Do Drugs" message popped up.

Originally posted by Bishop:

Well many devs have always consciously or subconsciously inserted their politics into games. Bioware is a good example. All of their work has featured progressive elements which over time opened the door and led to the infamous "I'm non-binary" scene. Leftwing politics as a whole are a slippery slope where the extremes become normalized as time goes on.

To answer your question more specifically the activist mindset as you'd call it was promoted heavily by Matt Lees back when he gave presentations at Gamescom and PAX to others devs urging them to be political. He took the stance of types like Anita Sarkeesian who believed everything was political and that those who wished to be apolitical were enemies. Gamergate of course kicked off the culture war as we know it when activists spun the narrative that gamers were all evil White supremacists and that devs shouldn't seek to have a gamer audience. The rise of Trump in 2016 further radicalized the left, etc. It's all just one thing building upon another.

If you want more of a general answer to when did this kind of insane toxic activism start well you'd have to go back to around the turn of the century when a certain demographic of people immigrated to America, established Hollywood, began to take over academia, and the media.

Evangelical Christianity is just one of many demoninated perversions of Modern Day Christianity that literally is Zionism. Anita Sarkisian was one of the original POSTER CHILD's for the NWO to push for no more creativity. Then joined people later on like Brittany Venti and Melonie Mac, and those 2 are far worse: both are lesbians acting like they are Christian, but they only care about their petty greed coming from the cult. Nothing more than Pharisees that Jesus warned us about.

The whole DEI Culture War has been nothing more than a Psyop and a GRIFT?!

And people continue to send super chats to these dimwits, like it is their PURPOSE to do so like servants to their False God....

I'm sorry, but I won't send my hard earned money to some Celcius Grade Room Temp IQ Cult Stooge so they can live like a "KING" when in reality, they are nothing more than a pawn and an expenadble asset to these parasitic elite.

I feel bad for many of these golems, I do. They can't even see their own demise cause all they see in front of them, is this FAKE MONEY that blinds them to all the truth around them.

It's f'ing sad...

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Then that was around the time the first "Winners Don't Do Drugs" message popped up.

Very good example.

Edit: although it might not technically be exegetic*, it’s close enough since it’s definitely activism attached to the work.

(*If you were doing an exegesis of Pirates of the Caribbean you wouldn’t take into consideration the FBI anti-piracy warning, haha.)

I think it's a global phenomenon related to how densely connected the world is. Thus everything is political.

What I mean is this - hyperbolically, even if you so much as feel that something in the world should be different, that's you trying to rule the world. Of course as long as you don't act upon it (e.g. communication), it doesn't matter. I'm just saying that the emotional tendency to rule reality fundamentally exists.

Throughout all of history, mankind has successfully attempted to make the distance between intent (In the mind.) and manifestation (In reality.) as small as possible: Let will manifest directly. At first, this was to escape suffering, then it was for convenience, etc. - First, a camp fire in a cave. Now, a remote-controllable thermostat radiator at home. This was a natural trajectory (originally instilled by suffering), and it is one that mankind will continue. And the more this progresses, the faster it can happen.

That was about wanting to shape reality, and having the means to do so.

Now add to this the immense density of connections between us on all levels. Basically, every move you make is political. It's all connected. So, you can affect it all - and it all affects you.

This means, you're being instilled with the wish to actually ACT on your emotion the world shall be different.

And there's your explanation. It's just the time. Will wants to be manifested. Not everybody handles this correctly.

Probably years before we noticed, i'd say around 2012 was the first start of the Woke* activism which ramped up just around Hogwarts Legacy release.

The actual start would have took a fair while to employ and indoctrinate so maybe 10 years slow progress before..

*DEI/ESG infestation into media, education, corporations and governments.

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Which is an obvious strawman fallacy.

Then explain the curator groups on Steam blacklisting games and calling them "woke" for having female characters in them.

oH it'd be double woke beccause they'd complain about being 'tricked' into playing the game as a female all the way up to the reveal at the end.

Can you imagine to levels of "ReeeeeeeeEEE!"

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Probably years before we noticed, i'd say around 2012 was the first start of the Woke* activism which ramped up just around Hogwarts Legacy release.

The actual start would have took a fair while to employ and indoctrinate so maybe 10 years slow progress before..

*DEI/ESG infestation into media, education, corporations and governments.

yes because the problem is the lack of straight white men in the media industry.

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by The nameless Gamer:

Then explain the curator groups on Steam blacklisting games and calling them "woke" for having female characters in them.

oH it'd be double woke beccause they'd complain about being 'tricked' into playing the game as a female all the way up to the reveal at the end.

Can you imagine to levels of "ReeeeeeeeEEE!"

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Probably years before we noticed, i'd say around 2012 was the first start of the Woke* activism which ramped up just around Hogwarts Legacy release.

The actual start would have took a fair while to employ and indoctrinate so maybe 10 years slow progress before..

*DEI/ESG infestation into media, education, corporations and governments.

yes because the problem is the lack of straight white men in the media industry.

Actually you are right it is they've been slowly removed to add more DEI recruitment.. Look at the bungie differences between Halo release and now Marathon.. Its predominantly women now.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/1puonn3/exbungie_next_to_nubungie/

Happening industry wide..

Well then you need to do your part and get more men into the related fields m8.
Though its nice of you to admit what your problem actually is.
UI mean the fact you're claiming its industry wide kinda undermines your prefered narrative.