Is anyone else getting the feeling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronduwil

I don't think they mean globally. I may be wrong, but I think they're talking about uses of the term similar to the annual Fox News report about the war on Christmas. Stores have been changing their seasonal messages from "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" in an effort to be more inclusive. Somehow this is supposed to translate to persecution of Christians. I am well-acquainted with this annual report because it riles my father-in-law up to no end, ironically making him very unpleasant to be around when I take the kids down for Christmas. The OP in this thread also frivolously interprets the term. I agree that persecution of any group is a serious problem that should be taken seriously, but I, too, am amused when people make frivolous claims. I agree that the bombings to which you refer as well as recent actions against Christians taken by various African governments are legitimate examples of persecution. As such, they are no laughing matter. Those are a far cry, however, from the presence of zealots in a fantasy game who resemble medieval church-sponsored institutions. Most Americans, when they claim domestic persecution of Christians, have no basis for the complaint. 75% of Americans are Christians. It's kind of hard to persecute a group that is a majority in terms of population, wealth, and political power.

---

To play devil's advocate here, wouldnt blanket statements about groups that actively dismiss their concerns as "frivolous" generally be considered a form of persecution? This is like saying "Youre the majority, therefore by virtue of that, you have no right to complain and you cannot be persecuted."

To show a different perspective with the same thought process, this would be saying you cant be racist towards whites on the simple basis theyre the majority in the western countries generally. The only way this argument works is if you make racial groups a monolith, rather than treating incidences and people as individuals.

At the individual level, people can persecute others by faith in individual acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

To play devil's advocate here, wouldnt blanket statements about groups that actively dismiss their concerns as "frivolous" generally be considered a form of persecution? This is like saying "Youre the majority, therefore by virtue of that, you have no right to complain and you cannot be persecuted.".

---

No but when an organization that holds tremendous power and influence and use that to create laws and govern a nation in a way they see fit then undermine in every way they can anyone asking for any recognition or the rights to do the most common or simple of things, is so used to being untouchable that even the perception of the slightest criticism or critique in a game that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population will play and comes with no consequence personal or otherwise makes them cry persecution while they still hold all then power, it is frivolous and frankly, as I stated before, is funny. not to mention another way to hold on to said power through the magic of sympathy. Just because your feelings were hurt, doesn't mean you are persecuted. If you were persecuted that means you would have your rights taken away, you couldn't get a job, you were forced into poverty, you were not allowed to marry, you would have to hide yourself physically, mentally and spiritually. You could face violence and possible death. If you were persecuted you would have to fight every day just to exist and be who you are.

With the amount of cultures, languages, histories, stories, etc that have and continue to be erased and undermined thanks to certain institutions with incredible power in already powerful countries, I think a little critiquing of them, purposeful or not, doesn't really add up to persecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mezzoforte

That is sort of silly to say. Since all humanity is rife with hypocrisy. Noone is immune to it. Noone is above it. That is more a flaw with humans than it is with any specific organization, religion, or group.

---

True. But the difference being in (using all the reference points I have) almost all Christians I have encountered have put themselves on a moral high horse....acting like their farts smell of roses...when in reality they literally picket Pride events, try to prevent equal rights, try to control what women do with their bodies, openly disrespect other religions by claiming their faith is false...yet literally none of these groups asked them to interfere with their lives....yet they're happy to play the victim once they are punished (and rightly so) for their attempts to control peoples lives, where they have no such authority to....

So I disagree, it is not silly. It's simple truth.....I will however admit that other religions are just as guilty of this, so it's more accurate for me to say religious groups as a whole tend to show hypocrisy more than other communities, from my experience. Also of course not every person of faith is like that...but then again not every person is so consistently hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

To play devil's advocate here, wouldnt blanket statements about groups that actively dismiss their concerns as "frivolous" generally be considered a form of persecution?

---

No. Dismissing someone's concerns is not persecuting them, especially when those concerns are unfounded. Of course, you have the right to complain. I never said otherwise. You just don't have the right to be taken seriously when your complaint is silly. For example, I'm not persecuting my kid when she complains that I won't let her eat Doritos for dinner. She has the right to whine and cry about it all she wants, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take her seriously. In the real-life example that I gave earlier, all the stores were flooded with wreaths, Christmas trees, Santas, and religious music. How is that a war on Christmas? How is that persecution? The cashier saying, "Happy Holidays," is not an attack on Christianity. After all, Christmas is a holiday too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

This is like saying "Youre the majority, therefore by virtue of that, you have no right to complain and you cannot be persecuted."

---

No, it's not. As I said earlier, you have the right to complain. You don't have the right to be taken seriously. If you're going to complain that you're a Christian being discriminated against in a room full of Christians on the basis of your religion, then you'd better bring pretty compelling evidence because I'm going to find it unlikely, especially when all the visible evidence suggests otherwise. "Cannot be persecuted" is not the same statement as "not being persecuted." You're jumping to a completely different conclusion from what I stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

To show a different perspective with the same thought process, this would be saying you cant be racist towards whites on the simple basis theyre the majority in the western countries generally.

---

This is a straw man argument. It's one thing to say that racism against whites can't exist. It's another to say that racism against whites does exist. I'm certain that racism against whites exists in some neighborhoods and among various cultural groups. Does it exist on a systemic basis in the United States? Absolutely not. It's less likely to exist when whites are a majority. When most of the people in charge are white, they are unlikely to discriminate against their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

The only way this argument works is if you make racial groups a monolith, rather than treating incidences and people as individuals.

At the individual level, people can persecute others by faith in individual acts.

---

What does this even have to do with what I was saying? The only point I was trying to make was that many Christians in the United States claim that they're being persecuted despite widespread evidence to the contrary. Most Christians don't make that silly claim. Very rarely, you'll find a case where a Christian was legitimately persecuted. The case of a guy who was forced to wash the ash off his forehead at school on Ash Wednesday comes to mind. More often than not, though, claims of persecution in the United States range from two men kissing in public to cashiers conveying season's greetings in a non-denominational manner.

For OP:

Quote:

---

CGM: Until now, much of FFXIV‘s narrative has been centered around the player being a champion of Light who fights against the forces of Darkness.. With Shadowbringers, the script is flipped on a large scale. Were there any challenges in disentangling the ideas of “good” and “light” from one another, and how is this reflected in your creative approach to enemy design in Shadowbringers?

NY: From my own personal experience with fantasy media, there typically seems to be a conflation of “light” or “justice” with the notion of “good.” It feels unilateral to me. Surely any force that goes too far in one direction can’t be entirely good, right? That’s why I figured that if there was too much “light” in the world of FFXIV, then there had to be some negative effects. The linchpin here is the Warrior of Light being so thoroughly active in their duties as the realm’s champion that their “light” has become overbearing, disrupting the balance. That’s exactly what happened in the First—the setting for Shadowbringers—and why it has been decimated by the Flood of Light. We felt that restoring that balance would make for a very Final Fantasy-like narrative.

In terms of enemy design for Shadowbringers, this was actually a big stumbling block for us. Some context: generally speaking, Japanese people tend to be rather…agonstic, so to speak, acknowledging aspects of all religions. On Christmas, we exchange presents with one another, but a week later, we’re at Shinto shrines making offerings for the New Year. We’re neutral in that sense. So when we think about the concept of “evil,” we have a comparatively large pool of ideas to draw from. Now, in designing foes that stem from a source of light that has become too powerful, it’s all too easy to immediately jump to the idea of a fallen angel. We specifically wanted to avoid that pitfall in Shadowbringers. Players will be fighting against the First’s “Sin Eaters,” yes, but they are not necessarily angels. It’s funny—when our artists first started conceptualizing new enemies, many couldn’t resist the pull of drawing meticulously feathered wings on their creatures. I feel that’s oversimplifying things. That’s why I had to ask them for several retakes whenever I saw those wings start to appear. I had to explicitly ask them to tone down the designs. Basically…I told them to come up with something super demonic-looking, and then make it white. (laughs) We definitely did struggle with this concept because it’s apparently been ingrained into our collective consciousness to associate white with “good” and black with “evil.”

---

Obviously you were referencing some of the Ishgard stuff in the beginning (this focuses on shadowbringers), but I wanted to share this as both solace and evidence that you don't need to carry/worry the feelings you have.

A bit related but the following question in the article is another great point to that:

Quote:

---

CGM: At the 2019 Media Tour in San Francisco last month, you gave a thoughtful and nuanced answer to the hot topic of gendered expression in FFXIV via clothing options. I wanted to say thank you for being aware of this discourse and giving thought to players’ feelings. Is there anything you haven’t had an opportunity to express on this issue or any comments you would like to clarify at this time?

NY: Individual expression actually ties into what we’re trying to depict in Shadowbringers by challenging the idea of light being good and dark being bad. They are not absolutes.

As people, our values are formed at the intersection of many factors: education, history, religious teachings, and so on. They are typically something we gain through instruction. With regard to the conversation surrounding gender and matters of personal expression, we need to acknowledge that people’s values influence whether they see this is a positive or a negative thing. We can’t change that. We can’t change what people are taught. But we are in the process of changing our perspective, and that’s important to keep in mind.

With matters regarding LGBTQ+ expression in FFXIV, we can’t necessarily say that people who oppose it are universally evil and that people who are for it are universally good. It’s understandable that if you were raised with certain preconceived notions about gender or sexuality, then you would not necessarily think to challenge them. What we are trying to impart to our players is a sense of freedom. The freedom to choose how they want to express themselves as individuals, and the freedom to retain their own values. We don’t want to place blame on either side. If we do become one-sided in the way we approach these things—much like the seemingly “good” force of light overtaking the First—we run the risk of being too extreme and alienating the people who stand on the other side of the issue. We are prioritizing freedom, and we are still on the road to finding a way for everyone to understand that we all are free to make our own choices.

CGM: Thank you for thinking about this. It’s a delicate issue, to be sure. For what it’s worth, I appreciate that FFXIV did grant me the freedom to use the Ceremony of Eternal Bonding to marry my male partner back in 2015, and that meant a lot to me.

NY: I’m glad. And to reiterate, I don’t want to measure our players on a yardstick of good versus bad. We just want to give them options. FFXIV is a social game, and there are always going to be players from different countries, decades, cultures, backgrounds, and so on.

---

SE may beg the question, may suggest freedom to view the world with your own lenses rather than those prescribed, nor is that question just directed at you or those similar to just you- that's for all of us to check our own prescribed lenses and to make sure we're free to view the world and interact with it. Rather than just wear the shades we're told to wear and jump as high as we're commanded to jump. So they may ask something, but you're allowed to answer :).

I know it's a bit similar to what I posted on the first page but I thought this was pretty great in relation to they're own words (or at least the director/producer's words). They're not giving you the answer or forcing one upon you ;) (or targeting you specifically).

It's an encouragement for self discovery really, which is pretty cool I think.



Also super unrelated but on that interview, ayeee yes cookbook. Make that and I'll make a youtube channel making them lol.

[source]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnimaAnimus

No but when an organization that holds tremendous power and influence and use that to create laws and govern a nation in a way they see fit then undermine in every way they can anyone asking for any recognition or the rights to do the most common or simple of things, is so used to being untouchable that even the perception of the slightest criticism or critique in a game that a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the population will play and comes with no consequence personal or otherwise makes them cry persecution while they still hold all then power, it is frivolous and frankly, as I stated before, is funny.

---

Soo...are we talking about religion in general? Cause this statement can be applied to many organized religions. And before the "Im talking about Christianity", the only sect of Christianity that has an very large organized power structure which youre referring to is Catholicism, and most prostestant sects of Christianity operate on a more independent scale that are loosely related. Furthermore, Of those states that have Christianity as an official state religion, very few of them are a actual theocracies.

Lastly, this doesnt address the key point: You are collectivizing a group and then saying "Because this group is a majority or has 'the power' they cannot be persecuted." Persecution more frequently in western nations happens at the individual scale between individuals, and not from the state. You can persecute someone whos a christian even in a christian nation, let alone one that isnt officially christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnimaAnimus

not to mention another way to hold on to said power through the magic of sympathy.

---

Yes, something that is not unique to Christianity, or faith in general, or even broader categories. Its actually quite the problem that sympathy and victimhood complexes are being used as means to either gain power or maintain it. Creates an issue where real problems cant be addressed because people become jaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnimaAnimus

Just because your feelings were hurt, doesn't mean you are persecuted.

---

I agree. It doesnt mean youve been persecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnimaAnimus

If you were persecuted that means you would have your rights taken away, you couldn't get a job, you were forced into poverty, you were not allowed to marry, you would have to hide yourself physically, mentally and spiritually.

---

This is semi right and wrong. You dont have to have your rights taken away, lose your job, forced into poverty etc to be persecuted. None of these are necessary for persecution, though do accompany it at times. All that is nearly needed to an arbitrary disdain or attack on a person for a characteristic they hold. As a point, you can persecute a person by specifically going out of your way to attack them on a personal level because of some aspect, collectivizing them based on that aspect, and attempting to force them out of social interactions based on that aspect. And not all persecution has to be overt. As I said, if you collectivize then immediately dismiss an individuals concerns on the basis of their group affiliation rather than on the points provided by the individual, you are acting out a very covert form of persecution as well as intolerance. If an individual has grievances, you either say that their individual grievances arent worth your personal time, or you address their points rebuffing them. If you go ahead and say their poitns arent worth addressing because of their group affiliation and your opinion on that group, youre not acting in good faith anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AnimaAnimus

With the amount of cultures, languages, histories, stories, etc that have and continue to be erased and undermined thanks to certain institutions with incredible power in already powerful countries, I think a little critiquing of them, purposeful or not, doesn't really add up to persecution.

---

My biggest bone is you dont seem to have valid criticisms, but rather overly broad opinions that you justify with seemingly vague proof of concept. The way you frame points or what not doesnt speak as someone who has criticisms, but someone who has a personal investment in hating said institutions. You want to do valid criticisms, it requires that you also acknowledge the nuance and speak about specifics. Simply saying "Big institutions which do all these terrible things are deserving of criticism, and its not persecution to go out of my way to be incredibly negative" isnt a criticism. Its an opinion that sounds founded in a personal issue.

You want to do criticisms, then its things like "While most priests in the Catholic Church are not pedophiles and openly denounce the abuse of children, the fact the Arch Dioceses keep protecting the fraction of priests who are is not acceptable. The Vatican should openly and unappologetically out said priests as they are not acting even remotely in accordance with the doctrines the church is founded on."

If you have valid criticisms, then maybe you should consider how you phrase things, because from my perspective, your framing and dialogue isnt coming across as criticism but as vitriol and scorn. Particularly when you rely on the "Theyre powerful and do terrible things, therefore its super okay to dismiss the individuals concern or perspective on something." as justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izanagi_Fiaresu

Can't they use other religions as symbolism? I mean it is pretty anti christian first the HW story and now the Holiness being evil

---

In my perspective the trailer of the game does leave that question in open "become what you must" but doesn't mean you need to play a Warrior of Darkness after MSQ, those players with a backbone won't change their moral standards or religion just because of the MSQ worry nor it won't make a scratch.

You will only perceive in the character perspective it is not about your real life, or personal path much less about your religion but about the character's journey/evolution.

As far as I understood the MSQ is not about the Holiness, much less about Christianity or any variant but His Angels and those have no agenda but His.

But if you speak with someone that knows the madness of Solomon they will clarify you better about the trailer and this feels about it.

You saw the Angels painted in the wall the black, gray and white wings and the symbolism guess is self-explanatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

If you have valid criticisms, then maybe you should consider how you phrase things, because from my perspective, your framing and dialogue isnt coming across as criticism but as vitriol and scorn. Particularly when you rely on the "Theyre powerful and do terrible things, therefore its super okay to dismiss the individuals concern or perspective on something." as justification.

---

Yet the problem is exactly what Anima said she isn't lying and they did terrible things over lies as excuses to their crimes.
It's not a criticism Anima is being factual even.
They are not different from criminals who should be the real persecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronduwil

No. Dismissing someone's concerns is not persecuting them, especially when those concerns are unfounded. Of course, you have the right to complain. I never said that. You just don't have the right to be taken seriously when your complaint is silly. For example, I'm not persecuting my kid when she complains that I won't let her eat Doritos for dinner. She has the right to whine and cry about it all she wants, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take her seriously. In the real-life example that I gave earlier, all the stores were flooded with wreaths, Christmas trees, Santas, and religious music. How is that a war on Christmas? How is that persecution? The cashier saying, "Happy Holidays," is not an attack on Christianity. After all, Christmas is a holiday too.

---

Well this one has a lot of nuance that needs to be addressed. In regards to your child, it's not persecution to deny your child (someone you have ward over) because they want to eat doritos and you say no. Youre not saying no becuase of some characteristic they have, but that you feel eating doritos isnt healthy and she is (at her age) not responsible enough to mind her own personal health and understand that. Itd be persecution if the only reason you denied her doritos was if you did something akin to "No, Doritos are only for boys. Females are all horrible witches and Im gonna be mean as hell to you because youre a girl." Thatd obviously fall under sexism, but the point is youre going after a specific factor and collectivizing.

As for Xmas, yeah the War on Christmas is silly, but the concerns didnt pop out of the Aether either. For Christmas, a holiday that is very big for Christians and has religious significance for them particularly, being told from outside organizations that saying Merry Christmas is exclusive and hurtful and people should say "Happy Holidays" does come across as a ding. The reason? There would be no Xmas holiday if not for the religion itself, and saying Merry Christmas is a part of that religious practice on a cultural level. This gets more worrisome for same said crowd because Christmas has become more and more coopted as a public holiday that is disconnected from its religious roots. It's become more corporatized and some people within the faith are not happy about it. It's a bastardization of their religious beliefs and the religious significance of the holiday. Think of it htis way, if we corporatized Yom Kippur or Ramadan in the same fashion as Christmas, do you feel that those groups would not be thrilled by it?

Nuance is key to discussing issues. There's more on top of this too, as people have a hard time adapting to change, or the different outlooks between sects of Christianity regarding the subject, or whether it matters due to some of the paganistic roots that Christmas comes from. Etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronduwil

No, it's not. As I said earlier, you have the right to complain. You don't have the right to be taken seriously. If you're going to complain that you're a Christian being discriminated against in a room full of Christians on the basis of your religion, then you'd better bring pretty compelling evidence because I'm going to find it unlikely, especially when all the visible evidence suggests otherwise. "Cannot be persecuted" is not the same statement as "not being persecuted." You're jumping to a completely different conclusion from what I stated.

---

My point was simply more along the lines of whether or not the dismissal of said complaint is at the individual level (i.e. you personally reject the personal assertions of the other person for specific flaws in that person's position) or if its collect (i.e you reject their complaints because of their group affiliation and use an overly broad brush). As a side point, you really dont know much about faiths in general it seems. A 'room full of christians' wont persecute christians? Certain sects of Christianity absolutely hate other sects. There is a real hate for Catholics in some circles from other Christians (Some parts of 7th day adventists come to mind; theyre not fond of the catholic church and actively view its leadership as the antichrist.) If you want to lookoutside Christianity as an example, much of the conflict in places like the middle east are between Sunni and Shia Muslims, two factions of Islam. They are not fond of one another typically. This is what I mean by "Overly broad brush."

This doesnt even address a key aspect - Just because you belong to a majority does not mean people cannot persecute you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronduwil

This is a straw man argument. It's one thing to say that racism against white can't exist. It's another to say that racism against whites does exist. I'm certain that racism against whites exists in some neighborhoods and among various cultural groups. Does it exist on a systemic basis in the United States? Absolutely not. It's less likely to exist when whites are a majority. When most of the people in charge are white, they are unlikely to discriminate against their own.

---

It's not a strawman. Im giving you an example of the concept that being a part of a majority group does not mean you cant receive hate. Racism is just a readily digestible example. I never argued systematic either. I argued that it can occur. Maybe I wasnt articulating it , but my point was that collectivism sucks, and that issues should be addressed at the individual level.

Also, you really dont know your history to well either. Whites have been a majority and in power in the US for a while, but they certainly did discriminate against other whites at times. People tend to forget Irish and Italians were both actively discriminated against. Borderline systemic at some points. This goes beyond that though - groups can find ways to discriminate against people who would otherwise be a part of that same group for all sorts of reasons. It's not a unique phenomenon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronduwil

What does this even have to do with what I was saying? The only point I was trying to make was that many, but not most, Christians in the United States claim that they're being persecuted despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

---

Much like racism can occur at the individual level, so can persecution. That was the equivilance I was attempting to illustrate. There being a majority or minority or whatever is a moot point. Beyond that, the point ultimately should be if you think someone isnt benig persecuted, you address them at the individual level. "Youre not being persecuted because of x, y, and z." is far different from "Youre not being persecuted cause your part of the Majority." My criticism is simply that what you mentioned appeared to follow the latter train of logic.

Every day we stray further from the light of the crystal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronduwil

I don't think they mean globally. I may be wrong, but I think they're talking about uses of the term similar to the annual Fox News report about the war on Christmas.

---

The thing is, this is a global forum, and if you do not specify the area that is being referred to, then it should be considered globally.
Someone from the countries where Christians are very much being persecuted probably wouldn't like reading about it being "amusing" to a person, when that person did not say specifically which Christians they were referring to. All they said at the time were something along the lines of Christians in relation to the last 2000 years of history. Christians have been persecuted a lot globally in the last 2000 years.