[SJW plot points, redemption]
So I have something for you. This is linked to a game called 'Bioshock Infinite' - a game I haven't played ... so I can't quite actually talk about it, other than I didn't ever care a lot about it, ... but ... thats a good thing. I can even start by saying: The facts don't matter in this! At all! We can take it like a fairy tale, an anecdote, a metaphor/parable - where, if the situation were inaccurate here, we could somehow make it accurate ... by either picking a game that fits or making one. ... Totally irrelevant.
This story goes to tell a lot about the "state of gaming" - where or how SJWs stand and why thats wrong/a bad thing (and subsequently whether or not you are a 'true SJW' or not ... maybe) - and maybe our society/world of today just in general. Politics, (Mass) Media, politics, ... stuff, ... and stuff. And politics.
The main reason why I didn't care about Bioshock Infinite may be its ... economic meaning. As ... Bethesda (???) - whatever. I don't know those people and more often than not my critique of "games" isn't that ... at all. Well ... I mainly dislike Microsoft because I don't like Windows - in just ... "soooo many" ways ... (and while I'm using Windows 10 at the time, ... and my opinion of it has grown more positive, ... it did also take a bit of a nose-dive after those first few impressions.).
But well. So, apparently Bioshock Infinite is settled in a world that is designed as based on conservative Christian values; And at some point takes the narrative on the "good guys" that however have become monsters over the course of time. Its something that SJWs label as 'Both-sides-ism'. (Check out 'Rags' vido (Bioshock in Trump's America. A very good video I think - as it also sheds a totally new light onto the whole debate/drama/issue. You don't need to know Rags - I don't know him well - as he comes across as ambiguous as to whether he's a Trump supporter or not - and thats important to discussing the structure of both-sides-ism ... in this context ... I think. Because Rags so resembles the third side. The protagonist who as over the course of the game learns to see two sides as bad guys.))
I don't need to run through the things you can get from watching that video - yet so, ... SJWs. Why is it bad? We get the sense that shooting white supremacists can be a guilty pleasure ... but now, what about the other side? Why can't SJWs tell the ... 'philosophical "nuance"' - in the 'both-sides-istic' ... story. Those guys are bad therefore the others are automatically good?
It would make sense ... as something SJWs promote ... but ... that already implies that their ambitions aren't ... "kosher".
Its like epically failing one of the more simple "tests" of life ... the simple question of: Is life any more complicated that stubborn monochronism applied onto everything?
[play jeaopardy ... "time to think" music]
Now, the problem here is that one video doesn't help extending the context of this story. There so is the SJW side that criticizes both-sides-ism ... and how. Which from the herein provided perspective requires some mental gymnastics in trying to get the SJW perspective ... or ... 'intention' rather.
I guess thats a thing ... that ... there is the 'perspective' subject, which is me for instance speaking about myself to so give you an idea of my perspective. Thats also how Anti SJWs generally go. Its ... even so the 'selling' point when going on to call it the 'skeptic community' - as something that were to include Thunderf00t because we draw the image ... not the actors involved. Regarding the actors involved, well, thats the other thing. "Both-sides-ism" IRL ... I guess.
So, Anti-SJWs ... Undoomed, first and foremost, ... or - OK. Undoomed, lets stick with that. The format is simple. Take a video ... and comment on it. What I so get is that there is some 'razor sharp stupidity' that is then usually being criticizes. It generally starts out with an SJW video that opens up as apparently entirely/perfectly reasonable. At least once you're skeptic you are to give those SJW flicks the initial benefit of the doubt, ... to also be in a position of criticizing the narrator. Over time I have found multiple occasions at which I could/might/would criticize him, ... but overall the general point he's making/trying-to-make gets across.
Razer sharp stupidity could be described as the triggering part.
One of the 'louder' issues is the wage gap. Here Anti-SJWs keep emphasizing that the wage gap that Feminists refer to is due to women working less because of ... reasons. But that is now one of those things that end up getting shrugged under the rug. "They didn't say that" ... because they couldn't have because it isn't a thing. Sotosay. Except ... that it is?
And RSS - Razor sharp stupidity - is also what comes to mind here in regards to the Bioshock example. See, ... the narrative so tells you how to feel about how the game-developers designed that part of the world. "Its disgusting how they did that (don't play it)". "There is nothing more to be seen (so don't look!)".
Like all the "Ghostbusters/Star Wars/Black Panther critics are misogynists and racist". Because there sure are those pieces one can pick if he or she wanted to present that kind of narrative, ... but the narrative falls apart when reconsidering ... that there might be more than just that!
And how could someone have an authentic opinion about a movie? Its not like we didn't rate movies since practically ever ... but in certain cases such just doesn't exist because we ought to feel a certain way about it. Some projection at what you are to cheer for if you want to be on the "right team". Maybe. Maybe because we all have to have the same opinion on those things? "Star Wars is good!" ... and now what?
And thats really the danger of ... 'actually' just being caught up on the wrong side of the line that is being drawn. Like ... geologically. When a war breaks loose a pretty decent chunk of your fate is really determined by where you are, on the map, at that point. Thats all the difference between which stack of the statistics you end up being in. Just think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Unforeseen, sudden, ... and ... fatal.
"The less you believe that you can be affected, the more likely it is that you are affected". Which is ... mumbo jumbo. I mean ... there is some merit to it I guess ... but it pretty much evaporates once there is an objective frame that can be applied to be more specific about this and that. There may then be those that say that there is such a thing and those that deny it. However ... we might inertially tend to think "statistically" - that if we think of a historic event or significant truth ... that there will be these and those. The other 'both-sides-ism'. A different ... totally different one.
And the Bible would seem to confirm it. That ... after all and nonetheless there will be "those" that just won't accept the truth or ... yet keep rebelling at it for some reason. And sure, ... I can already feel bad for certain of my own mistakes that might have triggered or fueled some of those ... yet eventually its enough to simple end that sentence on a point of truth. Which makes me think that their issue isn't something I could feel bad about unless I'd really seriously think I should join them on their "adventures".
But is that really why? Or do I have reasons by which I would change ... my behavior? OK, I wouldn't join them for reasons that can now either be personal and biased or in some way linked to higher ideals. Reasons. ...
I mean ... maybe those few last rebels are just a fluke. On another page it reads that the spirit will be poured upon all flesh. Is that before, or after? Well - I try to think that it doesn't matter. At some point the mere existence of hell is "offensive enough" - which then comes to speak of an apology where now either you accept the atonement of Christ or you don't.
What more can we ask for? An end to this?
Thats ... perhaps ... a side-splitting topic. But should it be? Could we not agree to a sense of humanity whereby we're supposed to find the things that we can/are-to universally agree with? ... But then, how does intellect and education factor into that?
Maybe as perpetuators of overcomplication?
Maybe. Maybe not.
Accepting Christs sacrifice doesn't 'end' the world as it is. I mean - it should be pretty much objectively clear that within any of the steps done up unto and including unification/enlightenment we yet remain 'earthbound'. It says about baptism that we die and get reborn - while everyone should understand that this isn't in the flesh. We don't physically die. "Or do we?" #controversy.
[Coz this is Thrilllaaaaa ...]
But then, yea. We can say it because 'your old self will surely die'!
And maybe thats the part where the snake lied to eve. If they hadn't eaten of the fruit they had stayed innocent ... but so without knowledge of evil. Is that gooder or worse? The thing now is that sin made redemption necessary. Sin however exists based on 'the Law' - a set of rules imposed by God - which He then 'acts/judges through'. Either we obey or we ... get punished. So is the situation that God kicked Adam and Eve out of Eden now ... not ... "intrinsically required". Its an earthbound perspective to read it as ... our physical existence is the highest that there is. As though God had no other choice but to kick us out. More-so are all the perils that came as of our lives outside of Eden now supplemental to the theme of good and evil. So - the tree was basically a gate into that world. Would the design for that world not have existed, the tree had no purpose. Or God just made something up on the fly as He couldn't have expected that we might actually eat of the tree?
He created the heavens and the seas in 7 days, but that eluded him?
So are we now 'let loose', with an ambiguous evil influence looming around ... somehow. Something we can get a more practical sense of as through 'Babylon' as the Revelation puts it.
And thats why we 'require' redemption. That could now be getting warped back into an Eden-ish state of mind ... but I highly doubt that! We are now free and there is evil. Why is there evil? There is evil because we are flawed. Our flaws perpetuate evil, ambiguate the norm and blurs our understanding of morality. ???
We are lost. Thats another side of the story. We're doomed to our nature ... unless we allow God now to set some goalposts for us to universally adjust to. I mean - else we're supposed to argue things out. Thats just ... how it is.
And so did the evil that God did put into this world maybe just speed everything up a little. We "had" the free world, ... now ... we're not sure as to whether or not we've entered Dystopia already! The wealthy/mighty would/might certainly enjoy that!