Do people on these forums only complain endlessly?

[LordGiggles]

If you don't care to understand why people disagree with you, then fair enough. Stick to your little group here, feeling superior. It IS extreme language for most people imo.

I agree it's a pretty extreme term, but considering the actions in question are pretty extreme I don't really see the issue? Wiping out an entire species is genocide really no matter how you put it, justified or otherwise. Any other language you could use would really just be posting a definition of genocide.

Like "forcefully destroyed the bodies and personalities of millions of people because x,y,z" applied to a particular group of people is just genocide.

[Boblawblah]

I agree it's a pretty extreme term, but considering the actions in question are pretty extreme I don't really see the issue? Wiping out an entire species is genocide really no matter how you put it, justified or otherwise. Any other language you could use would really just be posting a definition of genocide.

Like "forcefully destroyed the bodies and personalities of millions of people because x,y,z" applied to a particular group of people is just genocide.

So why do most people like Venat then and don't have a problem with her actions? Are we going to jump to saying they just don't care about genocide? Or could it be that they don't see what she did AS genocide, especially given the culture of the Ancients? When you frame the discussion as "it's genocide. period.", it makes it VERY hard to have a rational discussion.

Let me be clear, I can see why someone would argue that what she did was completely insane, and wrong.

Oh, and about the "bitch" comment, that was just an extreme example. I have no desire to "win internet points" as someone mentioned, I'm not sure why I would care, what internet points are available here exactly anyways?

[LordGiggles]

So why do most people like Venat then and don't have a problem with her actions? Are we going to jump to saying they just don't care about genocide? Or could it be that they don't see what she did AS genocide, especially given the culture of the Ancients? When you frame the discussion as "it's genocide. period.", it makes it VERY hard to have a rational discussion.

Let me be clear, I can see why someone would argue that what she did was completely insane, and wrong.

Oh, and about the "bitch" comment, that was just an extreme example. I have no desire to "win internet points" as someone mentioned, I'm not sure why I would care, what internet points are available here exactly anyways?

I have no idea why they didn't have a problem with it (though the wol can say they don't think she was justified in the recent omega quests), but I don't think the scions get to dictate the meaning of an irl word. Particularly when none of them come across as terribly wise (UT alone is decent proof of that). It's fairly objectively a genocide, any discussion of the morality of the sundering needs to start from that base fact. There's just not any real way to view it differently.

The writers generally choosing to frame it as a good thing doesn't change what it is, it just means they/some characters think it was a justified action.

[Striker44]

So why do most people like Venat then and don't have a problem with her actions? Are we going to jump to saying they just don't care about genocide? Or could it be that they don't see what she did AS genocide, especially given the culture of the Ancients? When you frame the discussion as "it's genocide. period.", it makes it VERY hard to have a rational discussion.

Let me be clear, I can see why someone would argue that what she did was completely insane, and wrong.

Oh, and about the "bitch" comment, that was just an extreme example. I have no desire to "win internet points" as someone mentioned, I'm not sure why I would care, what internet points are available here exactly anyways?

From my perspective, it's not a matter of considering/not considering something genocide or caring/not caring about it, but recognizing the lack of a viable alternative. If Venat doesn't act, the Ancients go through with their plan of sacrificing people to summon Zodiark, sacrificing more people to bring about an explosion of life, and then mass genociding that life to bring back their previous sacrifices. Genocide would have occurred no matter what Venat chose to do or not do, so it becomes irrelevant.

I compare it to the famous mine shaft problem in philosophy. A rock is falling down a mine shaft and will crush 4 people. You can pull a lever to send the rock down a different shaft, where it will crush 1 person. What do you do? If you pull the lever, you intentionally cause the death of that 1 person. If you don't, you never "directly" kill anyone, but you also guarantee that 4 people will die instead. The basic matter of the act that someone dies is irrelevant because someone dies no matter what you do. Venat chose to pull the lever and bring about the death of less people while allowing a massively larger amount of life to occur and have a chance, instead of doing nothing and seeing that life be destroyed in place of the remaining 1/4 of so of the Ancients.

So some claim at every possible opportunity, yet the existence of people speaking out against Endwalker and expressing their concerns with the story suggests that it isn't overwhelmingly well received and instead received mixed reactions.

There's literally hundreds of thousands of active players in FFXIV right now. There's maybe a few dozen of us here on the forum. The mere existence of a minuscule handful of people in comparison "speaking out" about something in and of itself is utterly meaningless. That "existence" of people will be present for literally any position on any topic you can create, even if we know it's completely and utterly lopsided in favor of one side.