What's the most enriched fantasy setting?

It's the very fact that themes of "alternative" sexuality are displayed in the show, which according to the cultural theories of modern left is a corrective step towards dissolution of hetero-normative, white-priviledged society. Basically, media to them are inherently a form of propaganda used by individual social groups to oppress or impose their own agendas and interests onto others. And they believe that heteronormative, white, male (and other "strong") groups have usurped them and used them to oppress smaller smaller, less visible groups. So every instance of display of member of these marginalized groups, and every presentation of political or social ideology that favors these groups over the "normative" mainstream society is deemed a victory, hopefully pushing towards society where no group or no set of ideals is deemed more normal than the others, forming a power-equilibrium.
Radicals of course can take it even further and advocate vindicative actions actually oppressing the formerly "dominant" (cis, white, male etc...) groups, but these radicals are not really a majority.

It's still a completely fucked up and by the way really patronizing ideology.

Isn't that logic basically saying that one side is "objectively inferior to the other"?

>modern left
Almost only in America though. Maybe the UK too.
It's much less prominent in most of Europe and in Asia.

In South America we still have retards that support dictators just because they are communists/socialist flavor of the month

That's pretty normal for that kind of ideology. They're very condescending towards the groups they "champion". Often they all but directly say that minorities can't be trusted with or held accountable for anything they do and need to be treated like children with PTSD.

Everywhere has dictators that support populist policies. The US is getting its own right now.

I saw a snippet of those comics. Firelord Sozin, the dude who started th Hundred Year War to spread the imperialist values of the Fire Nation, is noted as having hated gay people and outlawed homosexuality (Korra calls him "the worst"). Kya reminisces about her first girlfriend. Kyoshi is revealed as bi.

>Isn't that logic basically saying that one side is "objectively inferior to the other"?
Not sure how you would arrive to that conclusion, to be honest...
It is saying that the sides are inherently in conflict with each other. Really: it's little more than just a context swapped Marxist class conflict. Except it's juxtaposed into cultural context, and the bourgeoisie/working class is replaced in with whatever cultural or social identities they need (male/female, straight/queer, white/color, fat/thin, you name it). But the dynamic is the same: one unfairly usurped an exploitative, dominant position, the other became victimized and oppressed. Instead of ownership of means of production, they talk about media discourse (which includes things like representation in media) and various possible real-world applications and opportunities.
But the core dynamics are the same: one are unfairly advantaged and oppressive, other are victimized and need to rally up and fight against their oppressors. The claim here being that virtually ever human being is just a puppet of a greater identity and social dynamics, and that most suffering in world is caused by this injustice of unfair distribution of power.
It's weird because it at the same time claims that individual is inherently more important as a group (as their claim is to fight the injustice that the unbalanced system may impose on any individual), but at the same time individuals are really treated as either victims, or puppets of social power dynamics.

I wish that was true, but this ideology IS really wide-spread - across UK, majority of French intellectuality, entirety of Scandinavia, considerable portion of Germany...

East Europe, which was isolated from western philosophy until the 90's is somewhat more sane, but shit still seeps in through ways you probably aren't even aware off.

>you can have alternative sexuality
>but white people cant say they just like white people

>getting blatantly /pol/baited this hard

Veeky Forums pls

Thats retarded. Why the fuck is it such a big deal if a character is gay.

>duke nukem

>Why the fuck is it such a big deal if a character is gay.
Without wanting to sound like I support the ideology: you can ask that a conservative too. It's not like the entire America wasn't shitting their pants when a white guy kissed a black girl on national TV just fifty years ago...

Yes, ideally, I'd say "so what" to this kind of shit. But the situation has already been kinda fucked up, and now the left is trying to take advantage of it and reframe the already existing tensions and frustrations for their own agendas.

You're getting too fixated on certain dynamics and by way of that turning it into a matter of classism. People can talk about sexuality WITHOUT having that specific point or conclusion. Saying that's as a rule true is like saying any religious themes implicitly suggest putting people to death for all the dumb shit the Bible suggests putting people to death for.

It's more to do with either exploring how we define matters of human sexual persuasion and gender, or how those are reflected in fiction. Most of the time there's not at all much to say about it unless it's speculative fiction, which of course usually intends to be a sort of thought experiment to begin with.

>characters that are written as not explicitly heterosexual as a deliberate favor to slashfic writers
>"queer themes"
Yeah sure.

Every sides been manipulating for their own agenda

Magic the Gathering

b-b-but how can someone who tells me exactly what I want to hear be manipulating me!?

All this over a comic that very clumsily handles sexuality. All it does it make one character bi (which people already kinda assumed) and made one character a homophobe (because it wasn't enough that he was genocidal I guess). It's nothing deeper than that.

Yes? What are you, racist? You can't like white people because it is 2017.

I see /pol/ doesn't just browse MTG threads.

>People can talk about sexuality WITHOUT having that specific point or conclusion.
Sure. And I'll even admit I did not bother reading this particular article, so maybe this isolated case is one that has no actual political or ideological background to it. But in that case it is a rare exception within a established and very dominant discourse.

>It's more to do with either exploring how we define matters of human sexual persuasion and gender, or how those are reflected in fiction.
Actually that is what I have been saying, too. I was just pointing out that the currently highly prominent ideology does it with specific focus on those concepts in relation to larger social power-dynamics. The left wing ideology interprets issues of defining sexual identity, and how they are reflected in fiction:
It does so from a certain specific angle, and I dare to maintain that they do it in a way I just described.

Hold up mang we got dis guy over here talking bout dat LGBQTPSBBQLMNOP agenda

Am I the only one to think their relationship came out of left field ?
I saw lots of shipping fan art, but no clues in the show?

user, when they showed a toilet for the first time on screen, it caused ripples. Not because "that's unheard of!" but because it was something that hadn't been shown on television/film before.

Was the Star Trek episode written to have the scene just to point out racism in the US or was it to serve the story of the episode? Did the actors think they were doing some great and progressive thing for social justice, or just acting? Did the writers go on TV to talk about how US is a racist country?

>Critical Role
ugh

>literally elected
>literally not able to do everything he wants
>dictator
Can we fucking stop being reddit please? I'm starting to yearn for a real dictator just so you'll all shut up.

>Am I the only one to think their relationship came out of left field ?
If it was considered more for the sake of displaying political or virtue qualities, it's possible that it really came out of a left field - as in that it was not something that has been intentionally set up or growing from logical character or story development.

I honestly don't follow the damn thing at all, so I can't judge if it really is the case or not. But it has been the risk with politicization of fiction in this way: the need to prioritize didactic message over internal logic of the work.

If this is REALLY the case or not, I'll leave that to judge to those who follow the work more closely.

>Was the Star Trek episode written
>Did the actors think they were doing some great and progressive thing
My memory is hazy, but as far as I remember both the writers and the actors did view it as an intentional provocation and display of their conviction on the subject of interracial relationships, and that they had to fight quite drastically over it with the producers and censors, actually.
So yes, as far as I know that was intended to be a political message. Star Track was actually quite renown for being an extremely "socially progressive" franchise.

Which by the way, is not inherently in any way abnormal. It's not really my complaint with this issue. On level of individual expression, art and media should provide challenge for their audiences.
The problem lies elsewhere, in the particular motivations and reasonings behind the challenge, and social steps that moderate it. And a lot has changed between 1968 and now.

>literally elected
>literally not able to do everything he wants
>dictator
When will summer end?

Why did you delete your post?

Warhammer

>If it was considered more for the sake of displaying political or virtue qualities, it's possible that it really came out of a left field - as in that it was not something that has been intentionally set up or growing from logical character or story development.
>I honestly don't follow the damn thing at all, so I can't judge if it really is the case or not. But it has been the risk with politicization of fiction in this way: the need to prioritize didactic message over internal logic of the work.
>If this is REALLY the case or not, I'll leave that to judge to those who follow the work more closely.

The authors came out and admitted that they snuck it in at the last minute as kind of a virtue signalling "fuck you" to Nickelodeon, who didn't like that they were inserting so many political bits into a children's show.

Don't know this setting, are the cloud giant kings married to each other or are they two kings who are both married?

Hit send by mistake while editing. I thought it was too angry originally.

>tfw fag
>gotta deal with queer theory nonsense and being forcefully put in a movement I don't particularily care for with people whose issues are vastly different from mine
>people think I'm defending it when I mention I don't mind seeing well-written homosexuals now and again
It bothers me.

I only ended up seeing the last two seasons after the shitstorm about it, and it's not so completely out of left field. The letters, cruising around in her roadster--it's there, they just never presented it in a way where we got the full context. Even them going off together is only implicitly them being an item.

Dictators don't just appear as figures in power out of nothing, usually they're there from some sort of arguable legitimacy before consolidating power. Breaking down the mechanisms designed to stop dictators, and that sort of thing.

Have you seen any indication whatsoever that Trump is going to dissolve the state and implement a dictatorship?

pastebin.com/sZb2sK7F

>implying fantasy and science fiction weren't invented just to be soapboxes to begin with

Science fiction maybe, but Fantasy originated as a way to recreate the wonder of the myths and fables that people had been told as children.

Given the whole "courting neonazis" thing? And seeming contempt for American jurisprudence paired with presenting himself as a "law-and-order" President?
I don't know if he wants to be a dictator, and I absolutely doubt that he ever will be one regardless, but I do know that he's conspicuously doing some of the things a person would with the end-game goal of becoming a dictator.

You haven't been paying attention to Trump's attitude and statements.

Trump really doesn't like being President. He's not going to go full dictator because he's already miserable just dealing with the normal responsibilities of his job. That's why he goes golfing so often, why he takes vacations immediately after coming back from the previous one, and has pushed most of his work onto Kushner.

If he manages to make it through his 4 year term (Between the investigations and his atrociously unhealthy lifestyle), he's most likely going to finish it off with some grand speech about how everything he did was great, then step down from the presidency instead of running for a second term, so he can go back to sitting on his millions like Scrooge McTrump without having to argue with the entirety of congress and the judiciary whenever he wants to do something.

>Douglas P. Bachmann
Literally who.

Kings who are married to each other.

You know, because that make sense from a dynastic perspective.

A reader of Dragon Magazine and player of FRPGs. The majority if Dragon's material was submitted by readers.

I never said he's a dictator or planning a coup (that is, I'm not the guy who that person replied to). All I said is that dictators start from being "not a dictator," on the back of a legitimizing body.

So he's a literally who.

For what reason? Do they procreate with each other or do they have concubines for it? Was it agreed upon as a truce between two families? Are they always happily married or are there tumultuous marriages that have almost ruined cloud giant civilization?

No need to answer all of these, it's mostly just what came to mind.

So are you and whoever you're having the conversation with, so discounting his opinion is tantamount to saying your own thoughts and anyone you're discussing the topic with don't matter.

This is the setting made for Critical Role, right? What did you expect from a bunch of arch-liberals in California.