Deus Vult - A Megathread (Read OP Before Posting)

[Darehus]

The sacking of the crusades was brutal but not unique for the time.

That is partially true actually, I'd refer you to wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)#Massacre
To quote it.
''However, the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may have exceeded even these standards.[17][18][19] Historian Michael Hull has suggested this was a matter of deliberate policy rather than simple bloodlust, to remove the "contamination of pagan superstition" (quoting Fulcher of Chartres) and to reform Jerusalem as a strictly Christian city.[20]''

 

[Robotkiller]

I'm wondering, if you're going to remove "Deus Vult" from this franchise, why stop there? You can remove every other religious slogan for the same reasons. Heck, just remove religion altogether and rebrand as "Medieval Kings". The demographic Paradox is attempting to now satisfy won't be satisfied until these steps are taken.

Those of you disagreeing without replying should think about why religious favoritism is justified.

 

[False_Prophet]

They are the ones who are responsible for the current situation in full.

No, I don't think I can agree with that. I think the would-be fascists getting a power trip out of policing other peoples speech are also responsible for the current situation. I have no reason to believe they wou (Edit somehow I cut-off here before) would behave differently without the alt-right existing because they act the exact same way in other topics as well and already acted this way before this became "a thing".
Right-wing extremism is not the only kind of extremism, and I refuse to absolve others of their guilt and crimes in a "enemy of my enemy" fallacy.

You'd understand that my point was that there was simply no such big massacres and persecutions before first crusade, by either side, if we compare them for after/during first crusade, I was saying that in response to a poster that was saying that Muslims were doing exactly same things of same magnitude as did crusaders during and after first crusade.

Okay, and I have proven with multiple examples that that is completly wrong. Such massacres and persecution DID happen before the first crusade. I literally posted one even in the area in question. I could post more that happened between Arab expansion into the Levant and the First Crusade if you want?

I mean, hell, I literally posted about one in 1066. And all you had to offer was "well it wasn't in the Levant" which is completly nonsensical because that had nothing to do with anything.

 

[Bon Roi Ménélas]

I'm amused that you refused to answer my question wondering whether or not you are against nazis. It makes things somewhat clear.

Yes, I must admit. You got me, I'm a nazi, here is my picture.

 

[Orlunu]

Now comes the part to post where all of you should read carefully, if you actually were reading my post with intention to understand it, and not reply to, then maybe you'd get that what I was saying was that there was no such large scale persecution and religious violence in Levant area as there was during and after first crusade. I was saying that in response to a poster that said that what crusaders done was justified by what Muslims done to Christians living in the area right before crusaders came. And unless you think that massacring dozens of thousands of Muslim civilians is perfectly fair before these Muslim rulers were persecuting Christians, and some hundred years ago comited war-crimes themselves, then by now, please, try to understand what I'm saying.

I read your post with the intention to understand it, as I read all those preceding it, and that is quite simply an obfuscation. You were the only one choosing that specific framing and you were choosing it because it was the most convenient for you. I frankly have no interest in expanding on why that is a failure to correctly represent the other side of the issue and why it is a very poor way of addressing the issue and the larger topic at hand, because I no longer have any belief that you are engaging in good faith. I can see that you are one of the group here reactively "disagree"ing every comment made by the other side - regardless of whether they are on topic, regardless of whether they are opinion or a simple statement of fact, regardless of whether or not you actually have an answer to them. In that light, your constant shifting and misunderstanding starts to take on a similar aspect to the more crudely partisan of your comrades here.

If that's an unfair judgement of you, sorry, but I've seen nothing to stand against it so far, despite looking for one and offering you the conversation on less "team" based terms.

 

[dingdongpo]

So let me get this straight, the official response is meaningless word salad and the original point in the RPS article is still on the table? What was the point of the comment then? Damage control? "We have not specifically considered which terms are used in the game" and "(I) was told emphatically that the words will not appear in Crusader Kings 3" are sending two completely different signals.

I expect a further comment down the line. Maybe if we're lucky Paradox will also listen to their fans. Wishful thinking I suppose since everybody here is highly biased according to moderation.

 

[Snowflake0000145]

That is partially true actually, I'd refer you to wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)#Massacre
To quote it.
''However, the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may have exceeded even these standards.[17][18][19] Historian Michael Hull has suggested this was a matter of deliberate policy rather than simple bloodlust, to remove the "contamination of pagan superstition" (quoting Fulcher of Chartres) and to reform Jerusalem as a strictly Christian city.[20]''

I’d like to remind that at the time of the crusades from 1100 to 1270 there was the sacking of Baghdad, the fall of the Song Dynasty, the razing of Georgia and conquests of subutai and all that was perpetrated by one empire

 

[minimouse007]

is it that hard to stay on the topic?

 

[Darehus]

No, I don't think I can agree with that. I think the would-be fascists getting a power trip out of policing other peoples speech are also responsible for the current situation. I have no reason to believe they wou
Right-wing extremism is not the only kind of extremism, and I refuse to absolve others of their guilt and crimes in a "enemy of my enemy" fallacy.




Okay, and I have proven with multiple examples that that is completly wrong. Such massacres and persecution DID happen before the first crusade. I literally posted one even in the area in question. I could post more that happened between Arab expansion into the Levant and the First Crusade if you want?

I mean, hell, I literally posted about one in 1066. And all you had to offer was "well it wasn't in the Levant" which is completly nonsensical because that had nothing to do with anything.

So, let me get you straight, what you are saying is, First Crusade atrocities were justified because there were also atrocities in other part of the world done by Muslims at same time?

 

[Empires91]

Who knows, maybe he's just responding for inherently human urge to get more profits in expense of others?

Oh yes! Funny how "god" only cared to retake Jerusalem when the Caliph put on some trade tariffs with the west. You'd almost think god were an italian merchant or something.

 

[Snowflake0000145]

So, let me get you straight, what you are saying is, First Crusade atrocities were justified because there were also atrocities in other part of the world done by Muslims at same time?

No but you’re misinterpreting a counterpoint someone said that the croustades were uniquely brutal that was dismissing that claim

 

[Empires91]

So you’re ridiculing me for my faith? That’s pretty bigoted ngl.

My dude, I am Christian. I was raised Catholic. And I will happily say that the crusades were bigoted wars of conquest

 

[Warspock]

I'm not saying that you shouldn't agree with a nazi. That's too passive.

I'm saying that you should be mad with the nazis for taking up your symbols and ruining everything. They are the ones who are responsible for the current situation in full. Would you blame a thief who has stolen your stuff, or the guy who accidentally broke it trying to stop the thief?

... The SJWs are the ones responsible, for being whiny pussies about a nothing burger.

 

[Darehus]

I read your post with the intention to understand it, as I read all those preceding it, and that is quite simply an obfuscation. You were the only one choosing that specific framing and you were choosing it because it was the most convenient for you. I frankly have no interest in expanding on why that is a failure to correctly represent the other side of the issue and why it is a very poor way of addressing the issue and the larger topic at hand, because I no longer have any belief that you are engaging in good faith. I can see that you are one of the group here reactively "disagree"ing every comment made by the other side - regardless of whether they are on topic, regardless of whether they are opinion or a simple statement of fact, regardless of whether or not you actually have an answer to them. In that light, your constant shifting and misunderstanding starts to take on a similar aspect to the more crudely partisan of your comrades here.

If that's an unfair judgement of you, sorry, but I've seen nothing to stand against it so far, despite looking for one and offering you the conversation on less "team" based terms.

I am sorry if the fact that I'm wanting to express my own opinion, and it so happens that in certain cases this opinion agrees or disagrees with other people makes you see me as your 'enemy' here, but very well, if you wish to see me as a secret queer-communist-antifa-SJW-spy, I guess there's nothing I can do to change your mind, except find it a bit sad that you see the world as you do.

 

[Rakshasa]

I just want to reiterate that it's not so much the phrase being erased, rather it's the implications behind censoring this phrase. So please, for the sake of time and energy, let's stop the "oh how come you are getting so upset over a phrase?".

I think people are perfectly right to be annoyed if Paradox is bowing down to political pressure from a shoddy media outlet with hacky writers that actively seek to interpret everything in today's games as something either offensive or problematic in a desperate attempt to clicks and viewership on their articles. Not to mention trying to coerce video game developers with the threat of bad reviews and refuse when refusing to apologise or kowtow to their utterly fabricated offence, i.e. in the case of Cyberpunk 2077.

I doubt Paradox caved. If they removed it it's because they agreed with the author to begin with, and if they didn't then who knows why the author would say what he did. You have to consider that a lot of game developers are in agreement with the Polygons and Kotakus of the world, and even if they're not individually that's the direction corporate culture has slid down over the last 5-10 years.

So, the choices are: we're either with you or we're against you? Well done, in adopting the Bush Doctrine.

And this is another thing that needs to be considered. Why should this phrase be surrendered to a rare few nutjobs who use it maliciously? You think new words and phrases won't simply take it's place? This accomplishes nothing, but here's one thing it does accomplish. With leftists insisting that this phrase is toxic and problematic, those far right bigots will seekcapitalize on that, and double down on using it in a malicious way. It is your camp that popularize it as a slur, when you insist that the only valid interpretation of this phrase is one bearing malicious intent.

This is exactly what happened with the okay symbol/circle game. 4chan decided to falsely say it was a dog whistle to screw with a hysterical media, the media that lurks 4chan tripped all over themselves to scoop the horrifying new racist hand gesture, guys started getting fired and banned from sporting events for playing the circle game once the camera's on them, which made the news, skinheads started using it as a result of the media hysteria, and now you have a feedback loop that leads to the ADL declaring it to actually be a racist symbol. No one would have used it in any racial fashion it if wasn't for the Huffington Posts and Rock Paper Shotguns of the world looking for scaremongering topics for their articles. It never really helps to go around inventing new ways to see witches during a witch hunt, especially if the Cotton Mathers of the world start putting innocents to the stones because of what you did.

 

[LazyTitan0514]

Oh yes! Funny how "god" only cared to retake Jerusalem when the Caliph put on some trade tariffs with the west. You'd almost think god were an italian merchant or something.

My dude, I am Christian. I was raised Catholic. And I will happily say that the crusades were bigoted wars of conquest

Funny how you’re catholic yet you don’t capitalize God and put His name in quotes as if you don’t think He is real.

 

[Seon]

So, the choices are: we're either with you or we're against you? Well done, in adopting the Bush Doctrine.

And this is another thing that needs to be considered. Why should this phrase be surrendered to a rare few nutjobs who use it maliciously? You think new words and phrases won't simply take it's place? This accomplishes nothing, but here's one thing it does accomplish. With leftists insisting that this phrase is toxic and problematic, those far right bigots will seek capitalize to on that, and double down on using it in a malicious way. It is your camp that will popularize it as a slur, when you insist that it is the only valid interpretation of this phrase.

Not exactly rare few nutjobs from my accounting.

Don't fool yourself into think you are with me because you are against the nutjobs. That's nonsense talk and we both know it's true.

Are you, or are you against nazis, racists, and nutjobs who use the phrase maliciously? Yes or no.

Do you rebuke them for using it to spread their hate? Yes or no.

That is what I am asking. It's a simple question, and it has nothing to do with whether you stand with me or not, because we obviously know that's not happening. I'm asking if you are also against the Nazis as well as me, and you are avoiding the question entirely.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

My dude, I am Christian. I was raised Catholic. And I will happily say that the crusades were bigoted wars of conquest

Totally agree. I also think the original muslim conquest of the levant was also just that. A biggoted war of conquest. Yet one of these is cencored, and the other not. Come on, if Deus vult needs to be cencored, then we should cencure the muslim equivelant as well.

 

[Andrzej I]

That’s just untrue everyone knows Islam was forged by the blood, it really had to be

Eh, yes and no. Islam managed to conquer vast swathes of the Byzantine Empire simply by virtue of persecuting them less than the Byzantines (with many Egyptians not adhering to strict Orthodox beliefs, but rather holding either being Nestorian or Coptic). That isn't to say Islam's hands are clean, by any means, especially since even its founder engaged in military campaigns and executions of civilians (ex. Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf), but to simplify Islam's conquests to being purely military is wrong.

Edit for clarification: Of course their conquests were done by armies, what I meant was that they were not always "by the sword", with massacres and great shedding of blood.

 

[Darehus]

I’d like to remind that at the time of the crusades from 1100 to 1270 there was the sacking of Baghdad, the fall of the Song Dynasty, the razing of Georgia and conquests of subutai and all that was perpetrated by one empire

This was quite different from the crusades, as in mongol case, it was simply a war of conquest fought with determination and often seen as terribly brutal by their fellow men, what differs most with them is though, is the fact that mongol conquest was simple in it's brutality, you either serve mongols, or you die, brutally. Whereas in Crusades, it was a tiny bit more complicated then that.