What's the point with that quite lackluster story in Endwalker?

[Kaurhz]

All this talk of Venat/Hydaelyn being genocidal. To be frank those that survived the sundering were just as bad..

[Lauront]

All this talk of Venat/Hydaelyn being genocidal. To be frank those that survived the sundering were just as bad..

Which is acknowledged - albeit with the caveat that they are doing so to reverse the very act she performed in the first place, while failing to give them a proper explanation of why, so much so that they saw it as their duty to restore both the star and their people. Yet few of us would say the rejoinings not genocides in their own way. The fact that she is genocidal, though, is often brushed under the carpet or contested, even to the point that it's claimed that the sundering did them no harm and just "created more life".

Do we want to argue whether Hermes was special for his knowledge of celestial currents again Lauront?

You can repeat it until you go blue in the face. It won't change the fact that it is not he alone who is credited with the design of Zodiark. Worse comes to worst? Strip mine any pertinent knowledge from his mind. He is a criminal at that point anyway.

[Theodric]

All this talk of Venat/Hydaelyn being genocidal.

Yes. It's an apt descriptor for the deliberate act of wiping out the Ancients and whatever other species did not survive the Sundering.

To be frank those that survived the sundering were just as bad..

As much strife as the Sundered have sown themselves, they largely did as much as a direct consequence of the Sundering itself. Often in an act of desperation to preserve their lives and territory.

It would be nice if it was possible to have a discussion about Venat without you posioning the well with an interpretation of her character that not everyone agrees with. The implication of your post is that you and people who agree with you are 'sucessfully seeing that the writing is bad, and 'correctly' pointing out that Venat is a genocidal monster'."

Don't you see that with language like that, there is no room for disagreement or different intrepretation? Just you and the people who agree with you, who are definitely right, and the foolish, misguided people who like the story and Venat (because they want to simp for thier crystal mommy or refuse to acknowledge genocide, or something. Not because they looked at the same story that you did and came to a different conclusion.)

You're free to draw whatever conclusions you so wish. You can go through my post history and see that I have consistently urged people to agree to disagree when it comes to these 'debates'. I'm a little lost as to how that is equal to 'poisoning the well'.

If you or anyone else happens to like Venat? Cool. Good on you - plenty of people like Zenos so it can't be said that characters with few, if any, redeeming qualities in the eyes of many cannot be popular.

Yes I was being very defamatory when I got compared to a rape apologist in the last thread we discussed Venat in. Yes I’m the one with the personal attacks.

I daresay that would be something to take up with the poster who supposedly did as much. It has nothing to do with me.

[KariTheFox]

If you or anyone else happens to like Venat? Cool. Good on you - plenty of people like Zenos so it can't be said that characters with few, if any, redeeming qualities in the eyes of many cannot be popular.

You're doing it again, right now. "You can like Venat, it's fine. Even though she has no redeeming qualities, just like Zenos"

Are you actually confused about how what you're doing is toxic? If your position was to just agree to disagree, your posts wouldn't be filled with constant asides about how Venat defenders want to be apologists for genocide because they love thier crystal mommy.

[Theodric]

You're doing it again, right now. "You can like Venat, it's fine. Even though she has no redeeming qualities, just like Zenos"

Are you actually confused about how what you're doing is toxic? If your position was to just agree to disagree, your posts wouldn't be filled with constant asides about how Venat defenders want to be apologists for genocide because they love thier crystal mommy.

I don't think that I need to preface every sentence with 'in my opinion'. It can be reasonably deduced that when describing characters I am attributing my own thoughts on their actions, motives and depictions. Just as everybody else is free to do so.

I've linked it before, but for the sake of clarity here's a relevant thread:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...l-Opinion-Vent

Perhaps that will shed some light on the situation I am referring to in regards to a portion of Venat's most dearly devout.

[Kaurhz]

Yes. It's an apt descriptor for the deliberate act of wiping out the Ancients and whatever other species did not survive the Sundering.

Which I never argued otherwise.

As much strife as the Sundered have sown themselves, they largely did as much as a direct consequence of the Sundering itself. Often in an act of desperation to preserve their lives and territory.
.

That is still genocidal, regardless of how you view the matter. In this case 2 wrongs do not make a right. Besides Emet-Selch has openly viewed us in contempt in that he doesn't even view us as Human. So yes, still as genocidal as Hydaelyn, and this is not taking into an account that they elect the best course of action to address the final days (Their own fault btw) was to sacrifice themselves, and then to carry out a second sacrifice in attempt to rekindle the world itself, and then a final sacrifice to the new life in attempt to restore those originally sacrificed. Then we get onto Hermes himself, he who defended and stopped Emet, Hythlodaeus, the WoL, and Venat all from getting hold of Meteion, who is essentially responsible (what with her song of oblivion and all) for what happens.

Not sure about you mate but it seems pretty clear cut that they're equally as genocidal. Find it a little funny and ironic that you were here calling out people for being Venat/Hydaelyn fanatics when there's arguably just as many people here presenting fanaticism for what the Ancients done or were trying to do.