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

[Vyrerus]

Refraining from that terminology doesn't make light of her actions .

Actually it does. When you refuse to call something what it really is, then you are caving into euphemisms. It's a subtle manipulation tactic that shies away from the truth. Kind of like you can refer to someone murdering another person by stabbing them to death as an, "impassioned knife incident." Or a couple of teens running over an old man on a bike a, "Biking Accident." Or you can refer to domestic violence as, "They had a falling out as a couple." While true you don't need to invoke specific words to describe an event, to shy away from them obscures the discussion just as much as any emotions (and causes emotions in turn, anyway).

The only persons spared by shielding people from their emotions and the truth are the perpetrators of the crime. Never the victims.

What they wrote with The Sundering was an atrocity, fictional though it may be. Why do you seek to put on the kiddie gloves with Venat?

We don't need a 1 to 1 to be able to call a magical spade a spade. Nor a magical genocide a genocide.

And do note that the term genocide is only 79 years old. Would you prefer older terms that mean the same thing? Völkermord? Other terms altogether, like Racial Extermination? They do not get any prettier. There is no way to truthfully depict Venat's actions while denying what they are.

[Lunaxia]

I respect your decision not to use the term but there is enough there for me to use it as all the crucial elements for it are met by her actions.

That's your preogative. I just come here to discuss and hopefully convey what I think and feel about the story, and to that end I'm mindful of the words I use and what they may mean to other people when I'm making a point.

Actually it does..

Except I've outright called the actions of both Venat and the Ascians murder, killing and death on multiple occasions, so that doesn't work here. Opting not to use words with charged historical undertones when it is not necessary to not muddy the waters of the discussion is not employing euphemisms. I've been very open and vocal about what she did, the double standards and hypocrisy that are rife in Endwalker's story and the tragedy that was the Sundering on many occasions, and I like to think I've earned some credit to not have it immediately assume my choices revolve around defending or shielding her from criticism. I don't use those terms for the Ascians either, and you would know that were you not so quick to jump to conclusions. This is part of what prevents other people from actually taking the point you're trying to make seriously.

And highlighting the recency of the term hardly helps your case here, given that it was coined to actually describe some of the events I would prefer to keep out of the discussion, and makes dividing that particular word from its origins even more tenuous.

[Absimiliard]

Opting not to use words with charged historical undertones when it is not necessary to not muddy the waters of the discussion is not employing euphemisms.

I've found the term omnicide far more accurately captures the crime. She did not single out a particular race, religion, nation, creed, or ethnic group. She killed everything and everyone on the entire planet except herself, Zodiark, the three unsundered, and a few of her creations. The eradication of all life on a world is outside the scope of genocide as a term.

[Lunaxia]

I've found the term omnicide far more accurately captures the crime. She did not single out a particular race, religion, nation, creed, or ethnic group. She killed everything and everyone on the entire planet except herself, Zodiark, the three unsundered, and a few of her creations. The eradication of all life on a world is outside the scope of genocide as a term.

And regressed them back to a state of sub-human intelligence and capability (talking post-Sundering here, not a swipe at mortals, lol), leaving them to rebuild mankind and civilisation all over again while instilling herself as their guiding figure, and all of the hardship and suffering that entails. All of which is what I'm referring to when I say a direct conflation of IRL events with what happens in game is a bit of a false equivalency to make - and it's not to her benefit.

[Absimiliard]

And regressed them back to a state of sub-human intelligence and capability (talking post-Sundering here, not a swipe at mortals, lol), leaving them to rebuild mankind and civilisation all over again while instilling herself as their guiding figure, and all of the hardship and suffering that entails. All of which is what I'm referring to when I say a direct conflation of IRL events with what happens in game is a bit of a false equivalency to make - and it's not to her benefit.

I can see where you're coming from given some people feel some kind of way about some rather nasty historical events, but I don't think most people using the term in relation to this are trying to make any kind of comparison to prior atrocities. I believe they are using it only with the textbook definition in mind, nothing more. Doesn't mean people won't make the connection on their own after reading the word, but you get what I'm saying. Regardless, I still don't find the term appropriate based on its definition.

Genocide I can understand, but I'm not certain if omnicide would necessarily fall under the same umbrella. As it stands, the term has not been applied to any event in real life. Nor could it be, because it would mean we were all dead. It has, however, been used in fiction on a number of occasions.

As an aside, have you played NieR Re[in]carnation by chance? If not, it might be worth taking a peek at the lore they hid away over there as part of the crossover event. It ties in nicely with what you said about the state of mortals immediately post-sundering, though I suspect you already have given how you described what they were reduced to.

[Lunaxia]

I can see where you're coming from given some people feel some kind of way about some rather nasty historical events, but I don't think most people using the term in relation to this are trying to make any kind of comparison to prior atrocities. I believe they are using it only with the textbook definition in mind, nothing more. Doesn't mean people won't make the connection on their own after reading the word, but you get what I'm saying. Regardless, I still don't find the term appropriate based on its definition.

When I say IRL events, I mean the basic idea of what those words are actually taken to mean in our world, including why they happen and the motives behind them. It's nearly impossible to divorce the implications of such terms and where they came from, from the words themselves - well, you can try to in the context of an argument, but it's not a standard you can impose on other people or assume will be readily accepted, and you will be inviting a comparison to actual historical events should you choose to use them, even if that's not your intention.

As an aside, have you played NieR Re[in]carnation by chance? If not, it might be worth taking a peek at the lore they hid away over there as part of the crossover event. It ties in nicely with what you said about the state of mortals immediately post-sundering, though I suspect you already have given how you described what they were reduced to.

I have! It certainly would have lent a different tone to the events of the game if they'd bothered to throw that in there from the beginning. It's genuinely fascinating they chose to even make that a thing, when they had Endwalker play out the way they did. I wonder if it was planned when the story's future still lay in a different direction to what we wound up getting?

[Absimiliard]

When I say IRL events, I mean the basic idea of what those words are actually taken to mean in our world, including why they happen and the motives behind them. It's nearly impossible to divorce the implications of such terms and where they came from, from the words themselves - well, you can try to in the context of an argument, but it's not a standard you can impose on other people or assume will be readily accepted, and you will be inviting a comparison to actual historical events should you choose to use them, even if that's not your intention.

Genuine question. I'm obviously well aware of what genocide is often taken to mean, but where does omnicide enter into it? As it stands, I don't believe I've ever seen the term applied to anything that wasn't a planet getting glassed in some SciFi setting or as a preamble to some post-apocalyptic settings. I don't think most people even realize it is a word.

I have! It certainly would have lent a different tone to the events of the game if they'd bothered to throw that in there from the beginning. It's genuinely fascinating they chose to even make that a thing, when they had Endwalker play out the way they did. I wonder if it was planned when the story's future still lay in a different direction to what we wound up getting?

I too have long wondered that. My suspicion was as yours seemingly is; the story had a different planned direction. I might be misremembering, but I believe the developers (or at least Yoshi-P) at some point mentioned wanting to make Endwalker lighter after the complete disaster that was everything from the year 2019 onward. If nothing else, we can pretty handily infer it based on the stark contrast between what ShB was setting up and what Endwalker delivered. The only term I can think of to do it justice is tonal whiplash.

I also considered the possibility it was sequestered away in NieR Re[in]carnation as a means of revealing the truth of the sundering without it affecting people's view of the story or characters in Endwalker proper. The FFXIV team's side of the crossover happened in late May of 2022, if memory serves. We were several months into Endwalker by then.

[Vyrerus]

Opting not to use words

Euphemism:
1) the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt
2) the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant

You are avoiding using the term genocide because you find it unpleasant, as it does not muddy the waters of discussion whatsoever, and never seemed to muddy the waters of discussion when used to describe actions of the Garlean Empire or the Ascians in prior expansions and years past forum discussions.

You are doing the opposite of being open when you refrain from calling The Sundering what it was. I'm sure you think you're being impartial, and winning folks over who don't agree with my line of thought, but you're not. They aren't disagreeing from a place of logic or rationale, but from a place of feelings. In fact, that is entirely what the Sundering metaphor scene is predicated upon.

Genocide itself is older than its own modern, universal term. That was my point. With not every language having a precise word for it. We do now. Use it.

The man who coined the term was himself a Polish born Jew by the name of Raphael Lemkin. Again, by shying away from the actual term, you are granting more power to the perpetrators of it, than you are to victims.

Like you know why Raphael Lemkin coined the term and then campaigned for the Genocide Convention?

Because the crime itself was not universally recognized. He had to invent a term and then campaign for it to even feel like he was getting close to justice done for the atrocities that went on in The Holocaust.

Like do you see how your insistence on denying the term's use is a microcosm of the very issue he campaigned against?