Who knew the 6.15 Omega Quests… (Spoilers)

[Renathras]

No. No, I should not and WILL NOT take this back. You're out of line.

I'm out of line when you just called the bulk of FFXIV players history deniers on a whim?

Aaaaaaaand, now we have officially devolved into literally justifying the genocide of cultures we don't agree with the moral values of. How have you not been banned yet?

Maybe because I have not officially devolved into literally justifying the genocide of cultures I don't agree with the moral values of? I did, however, note that many people ARE in favor of that (see again: Nazis and Nazi culture/ideology), and that most people on Earth today are, in fact, in favor of that. Maybe I haven't been banned because I've broken no forum rules and am not even arguing what you think I'm arguing? I even outright pointed out how it isn't genocide to begin with.

I quite literally don't know what to say to or about you, besides yelling at you and calling you labels that frankly aren't permitted here. You need to do some rather strenuous introspection, if you believe half the things you spout this is an issue.

I can't even tell what you have issue with because all you do is insult me, not refer to anything I've specifically said, seem to have made up things that I didn't say, and then chose to attack me and question my moral and personal character.

You are out of line.

EDIT:

So tell me where does speculation and hypothesis end and headcannon begins? Also I know both sides have accused each other of leaning into headcannon, but how does it come off as those who don't agree with what Venat did only gets to have their speculation and hypothesis taken as that and the other side is the one wading in the headcannon pool? I guess the story and this quest line did its job then if people aren't able to agree on if what one or more people did was justifiable or not depending on their perspective. I chose all three were in their own right as from certain points of view one could see how each of them ended up at their decisions. I also thought about choosing none of them since they were all horrible decisions. All three lead to some form of genocide and suffering. What the problem is at least to me is how at least one side is incapable of understanding how the other is able to reach conclusions based on evidence that the story has given as having a high chance of possibility of those conclusions being probable. That are then labeled as headcannon.

Its always that way. Its bad that someone says something mean about someone liking the Ascians/Garlemald (and I agree that discussions should be done without personal insults...), yet its perfectly fine to call the other side sheeps, tempered or mommy lovers.

Its bad to say that someone did not like the story because they did not understand it or skipped cutscenes but its perfectly fine to say that those who enjoyed it simply like easy stories or are white knights..

You are always tone policing if you say anything about way too aggressive posts but as soon as someone from "the other side" does it, its fine to tone police them.

Seemingly there are many horrible people/opinions outside of this forum yet we still get hit with all the heath here. (And some nice signature pictures that are of course totally not here to continue being passive aggressive) Its tiresome and its not surprising that a few of the veteran posters are bascially silent. I myself feel like I dont want to post something here. Maybe it will get better with time and new storylines but I doubt it.

Basically, yeah.

If you argue - using in game sources, reason, logic, and respectful argument - the pro-Venat position, you are called horrible names (I've now been accused of being pro-genocide...that's a new one!), regarded as a "simp" (explaining a position is not being a wannabe booty call), and your FACT BASED POSITIONS are derided as "headcanon". Meanwhile, if you're on the anti-Venat side, you can do no wrong, you're right about everything, even - or especially - the parts you made up as wholesale head canon, you can freely ignore in-game lore as "They didn't know what they were talking about" or "Nuh-uh!", freely ignore the writers' direct words on the topics, and ANY insult against you is beyond the pale, as is calling you out for any fallacies or insults you are employing yourself.

And the messed up thing is, almost NO ONE on the pro-Venat side is saying "Venat did nothing wrong", unlike the pro-Zodiark side that often DOES hold cases like "Emet did nothing wrong". Most on the pro-Venat side say she was faced with nothing but bad options and did the best she could, which is what both the story and the writers of it have said.

It's weird being called pro-genocide with questions about morals and how one hasn't been banned for simply expressing what the game itself largely does, and making no strong pro or con argument.

Hell, I heven't once defended what Venat did as the best option, or even a GREAT option, or even a GOOD option. But, apparently, this somehow makes me pro-cultural genocide of the Native Americans or...something. I don't even know how some of you guys' brains work, but that's a bit out there...

.

I do get some people like anti-heroes/anti-villains and moral gray/ambiguity. Some people hate "true good" characters/gods in stories. Some people hate Superman, not because he has no real challenge, but because he's not edgy, doesn't have a mean bone in his body, and in most lore is a genuinely good person with no great moral failings who also has the power to back up his goodie-two-shoes personality.

And some people absolutely hate that kind of thing, preferring worlds where there is no true good or evil, and everyone is some shade of gray.

Note the word some, not all or most or a majority, btw.

So I get how the idea of Venat NOT being a bad person is hard to take from people that had all but assumed their headcanon they came up with during ShB was that Venat was going to turn out to secretly be the Big Bad this whole time...and when the story said "No, she actually is/was a genuinely good person, just faced with horrible options", refused to accept that.

But that's no reason to abandon all civility in a discussion where people are free to argue both sides.