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

[Absimiliard]

The premise of the argument that Venat wasn't faced with tempering and didn't do anything is visually represented in Game and disproves the argument. We see in the infamous "walk" sequence a roundabout portrayal of the situation where the Ascians were unwilling to get them to focus on anything other than summoning. As far as tempering, you can't say "she had access to the futurre information" only when it's convenient for your trolling. If she knew tempering was going to occur at any time, obviously her response would be based on that. Her reasons for sundering are boiled down to stopping Zodiark but obviously that isn't just a personal grudge-- it's because of how he affects people and what he represents. That's what you're glossing over to make some weird argument about EW.

Aight. I'm just gonna say it. I normally try to maintain some degree of civility, but this is getting old. Thus far you've seemed insistent on misrepresenting a rather large number of things, ranging from what the game tells us to the comments and intent of other posters. You've displayed a propensity for clipping specific components of what others have said rather than including enough for the original context to be present, after which you then either reply to a point that was never made, accuse that poster of something, or simply try to reframe the initial comment (sans any of its original context) as something else entirely.

My dude, people are allowed to have opinions. They're allowed to look at a textbook case of omnicide and go, "you know, I think that's messed up." People are also allowed to analyze a character's actions or lack thereof and conclude for themselves whether or not there was justification for whatever it was they did or did not do. This doesn't mean they're asking to have the story changed or whatever it else you've inferred over the course of this discussion. It means they're choosing to draw conclusions based on the information they've been given, and in this case those conclusions for the most part manifest as a simple question of, "wait, why is this atrocity near-totally glossed over?" Their conclusions about the story are obviously different from yours. This does not invalidate their thoughts on the matter. For that matter, their thoughts on the matter don't invalidate your thoughts on the matter. So relax. This thread isn't some personal attack on the game or its writers, and it's certainly not an attack on a fictional character. It's people sharing their thoughts. Continue voicing your disagreement with other posters if you wish, but do it honestly and respectfully.

[Turtledeluxe]

I recommend you go back and watch that scene again. You're omitting a lot of context to support your point.

"Even if you interact with others, you cannot affect meaningful change."

[Absimiliard]

"Even if you interact with others, you cannot affect meaningful change."

Once again omitting surrounding context.

[Turtledeluxe]

My dude, people allowed to have opinions. They're allowed to look at omnicide and go, "you know, I think that's messed up." People are also allowed to analyze a character's actions or inactions and conclude for themselves whether or not there was justification for whatever it was they did or did not do.

Alright, I'm just going to say it. It's fine if you think casually throwing around the term genocide makes you edgy. It's fine if you want have a unique take on EW. As I said the issue is that edgy takes have storytelling implications. My analysis of the storytelling implications is also just an opinion.

Also EW has been out for over a year. The fact several of you still think it's shocking or interesting to label everything genocide and put out "what if Zodiark was right" theories (which I know that isn't what you're saying and it's hilarious you are triggered by it) is frankly a bit cringey so sorry if I come across as dismissive.

Genocide isn't absent context. You are welcome to analyze a character but people know what they're doing when they use the term and then have the audacity to play moral superiority over a technicality "well that's what it is!!". Then when people call you out it's "hey man everyone can have opinions". It seems like you're crying wolf and want total autonomy to just say whatever.

[Swordsman]

Aight. I'm just gonna say it. I normally try to maintain some degree of civility, but this is getting old. Thus far you've seemed insistent on misrepresenting a rather large number of things, ranging from what the game tells us to the comments and intent of other posters. You've displayed a propensity for clipping specific components of what others have said, after which you then either reply to a point that was never made, accuse that poster of something, or simply try to reframe the initial comment (sans any of its original context) as something else entirely.

Alright, I'll take this a step further and say this. I think the guy you're arguing with is a Titanman alt. There's no way his arguments were made in good faith. A majority of the things he's saying have some kind of passive-aggressive comment inserted in it.

[Boblawblah]

It's wild seeing the EXACT same arguments as 800+ pages ago. No change, no deviation, just the same stuff on both sides. I have to admit, I'm impressed that you all are able to keep it up for this long.

[Absimiliard]

Alright, I'll take this a step further and say this. I think the guy you're arguing with is a Titanman alt. There's no way his arguments were made in good faith. A majority of the things he's saying have some kind of passive-aggressive comment inserted in it.

The thought had occurred to me as well. If not him, then one of the Titanmen copycats we occasionally see rise from the depths. Either way, I've kept engaging in full knowledge it was almost definitely a troll. Why? Well, see the post below.

It's wild seeing the EXACT same arguments as 800+ pages ago. No change, no deviation, just the same stuff on both sides. I have to admit, I'm impressed that you all are able to keep it up for this long.

You cannot possibly comprehend the levels of boredom I operate at.

[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.

[Turtledeluxe]

It's amazing when people who s post that hard accuse people of being alts.

Especially when you're quoting someone who is being far more gracious than me in pointing out the aggressiveness of your trolling.