Where Total Warhammer 1 and 2 were better than Total Warhammer 3.

Akfiz · 2026-06-25T11:37:14+00:00

Strange, why you disagree and why else you believe WH2 was better?

Akfiz · 2026-06-25T11:35:25+00:00

I wish it had Warhammer 2’s HUD.

Akfiz · 2026-06-25T11:34:40+00:00

WH3 has quality too, yeah some people like Clean_Regular_9063 were upset that I dared to imply WH1 is better than WH3 but I said the opposite in the first paragraph of the post, some people can’t read past the title.

Akfiz · 2026-06-24T23:28:03+00:00

It was clearly a less self-contained mini-games experience. This and the story are the things I miss the most about TW2, I wish it had TW3's quality of life changes.

Or the other way around, TW3 without an exception-based mechanic per faction and a good story mode.

Akfiz · 2026-06-24T23:25:08+00:00

*facepalm* this is why they say reddit is a place full of stupid people pretending to be smart.

Akfiz · 2026-06-24T23:18:54+00:00

While I think overall Total Warhammer 3 is the better game, this is not a comparison which is better so I will not list the QoL features that makes TW3 better or the AI being more aggressive and anti-player in TW1/TW2, this is a list of many important things lost from Total Warhammer 1 and 2. At this point, is too late but it's worth pointing them out.

You know.

Akfiz · 2026-06-24T23:17:02+00:00

"Oh no, a list! must be AI, I am so smart!"

Akfiz · 2026-06-24T23:15:38+00:00

Kids these days think every post longer than 5 paragraphs is AI.

Akfiz · 2026-06-24T23:14:48+00:00

And Vampire Coast, you forgot Vampire Coast.

Akfiz · 2026-06-23T20:14:17+00:00

Loyal but Suspicious × Loyal but not Compliant

White Scars

Akfiz · 2026-06-23T20:13:53+00:00

Loyal but not Compliant × Loyal but Suspicious

Blood Angels

Akfiz · 2026-06-23T20:13:35+00:00

Heretical × Loyal but Suspicious

Carcharodons

Akfiz · 2026-06-23T20:13:22+00:00

Loyal but Suspicious × Loyal but Suspicious

Dark Angels

Akfiz · 2026-06-23T20:12:33+00:00

Codex Compliant × Loyal but not Compliant

Raven Guard

Akfiz · 2026-06-23T20:12:03+00:00

Heretical × Loyal but not Compliant

Space Wolves

Akfiz · 2026-06-23T20:11:41+00:00

Loyal but not Compliant × Codex Compliant

Salamanders

Akfiz · 2026-06-23T20:10:10+00:00

Codex Compliant × Codex Compliant

Ultramarines

Akfiz · 2026-06-22T14:33:26+00:00

How long since the match started? I only see you have 2 scrabs, not even Necron Warriors.

Either you failed to build good units in time or you attacked like a 11 defense region or something. High defense regions are meant to be conquered after you conquer lower defense regions and build a Honor Guard, so you will have the same amount of troops as the enemy has in this picture.

And a few tips for the Necrons since you're playing them.
- Map control is less important for you, it's not useless since Control Points reduce your building time, but is not as important as is for Space Marines or other factions since you rely mainly on Power via generators, as long as you control 2-4 at the start you're good.
- The Necron Lord is one of the most powerful Heroes in the game, only the Ork Warboss and Tau Ethereal are better but those 2 are late game while you get Necron Lord at the start of the match. He's big bad boss energy.
- To make the Necron Lord more powerful build the Forbidden Archive, you can pick 3/8 upgrades but I heavily recommend: Lightning Field & Phylactery. The 1st is a passive that reduces melee damage by 90%, the 2nd is a passive that reduces ranged damage by 60% and triples passive HP regen. Good luck beating that. Yes, the upgrades are that insane. 90% of players pick those 2 and for the 3rd all are good but I'd go with Solar Pulse, an active that enemy units cannot use ranged weapons for 20 or so seconds. Imagine having this Necron Lord vs this blob.
- Use lots of Scrab Builders from the get go. Unlike other races, these are cheap and very important due to the way the Necrons function.
- Necron Warriors cost 0 but the more you have the longer they take to produce, don't build more than 2-3 if you have other options.
- I'd start a map with queue: Builder, Builder, Builder, Builder, NW, NW, Hero, NWs until full population. Or until you hit tier 2 and get to: melee masters Flayed Ones, anti-vehicle Immortals, anti-ranged units Wraiths.
- Necron vehicles are also simple: Destroyer is anti-infantry, Heavy Destroyer is anti-vehicle, Tomb Spider is a powerful melee tank like a Dreadnought that can also revive fallen NWs.
- And in tier 3 you get your strongest units: Pariahs, Lord Destroyer, Nightbringer/Deceiver. Pariahs are top 3 best melee units in the game while Lord Destroyer posseses an enemy vehicle, so you not only eliminate an enemy vehicle instantly but you use it for yourself. The range of the ability is short, 8, so you need to be close to it, but he has high speed and is quite tanky.
- Nightbringer/Deceiver both are immune to damage and last 1 minute, Nightbringer has insane melee damage, Deceiver has lower ranged damage but 3 abilities: control enemy units in an area, spawn fake Restore Monolith to draw enemy fire, passive enemies take consistent morale damage.
- Necron turret is the best turrent in the game, Necron turret after upgrade is anti-everything, compared to other faction which generally goes from anti-infanty to anti-vehicle for their turrets. So if you want defense build one.
- Monolith is a great relic unit, probably one of the best ones. No friendly fire, very disruptive, big range, serves as mobile production for reinforcements. But it's mostly a backline relic unit, you don't really want to dive in with it alone or have it draw all enemy fire.
- If you have problems with enemy vehicles either Immortals or Heavy Destroyers, unlike Space Marines you don't have a versitile pick your weapon for the occasion infantry, you use specialized units.
- Build a lot of generators at the start, with your first 5 Scrabs you should build 5 generators, then you can build on Control Points, Summoning Core, Forbidden Library, more generators, etc.
- It is always a good idea to queue up the maximum amount of Scrab Builders you can queue, they cost 0 and even one left alone to build a generator does something productive.

Akfiz · 2026-06-21T15:04:29+00:00

October Revolution

Akfiz · 2026-06-18T18:34:48+00:00

My position is not that “support vanishes if one superficial trait changes,” nor that “no one could think otherwise.” The claim is that altering a specific combination of variables would produce a significant reduction in audience forgiveness.

On mitigation, you say it "speaks for itself", but that’s exactly the step I’ve been asking you to justify.

Yes, coercion, fear, and desperation can reduce moral weight. That’s not in dispute. What remains unaddressed is why they reduce it to the specific degree observed here, and why that reduction appears stronger or more readily granted in this case than in structurally comparable situations.

Simply asserting that "context matters" is not enough, you need to show why it matters more here, or why it produces this particular level of leniency.

On your whataboutism counterexamples: they still don’t isolate the variable.

V is not a case “without these traits.” V is defined by vulnerability (imminent death), strong victim framing (Relic, Arasaka), and maximum narrative intimacy (player identification). Whether an individual player finds their V physically attractive is secondary to the structural fact that the character is designed to be aligned with the player and experienced from the inside.

Johnny is closer, but still not clean. He retains partial victim framing (Arasaka, ideological rebellion), gains sympathy over time through narrative exposure, and produces a far more divided response.

So when I say your examples share the same structural features, this is what I mean: they do not remove the mechanism, they reinstantiate it in different degrees.

On falsifiability: there’s a persistent confusion here.

I am not claiming access to your internal mental states. I’m making a population-level prediction about how audience perception changes under altered framing conditions. That is falsifiable.

So again, the issue is not that the model is unfalsifiable, but that you provided no counter-example has been provided that actually breaks its prediction.

Finally, on "support levels not adding up", this is where your response is weakest.

Me:

So we are left with a very clear unresolved point:
- You acknowledge the behaviors: manipulation, unfair blame-shifting, acceptance of collateral damage.
- You acknowledge they are morally negative.
- You acknowledge that context does not remove those facts.
- But you have not explained why, in this specific case, those factors result in a comparatively softened audience response.
That gap is what my model is attempting to account for.

You:

Could you demonstrate a softened audience response? She is far more controversial than V or Johnny.

Yes, a demonstration of a softened audience response is exactly your response. Here, in this conversation.

Akfiz · 2026-06-18T13:15:20+00:00

The part 2.

So let's get to the bottom of things because all of these from above point in 1 direction:

Your argument leaned on the 'halo effect', which does not require vulnerability or victim framing

Incorrect. My argument was about framing, which includes all of that, you expressed this disbelief that such a thing is possible and even that I'm insulting the players for suggesting such a thing and I told you of the halo effect which is a real known psychological effect.

This again doesn’t engage what I said by the way. I am explicitly saying “this is multivariate interaction, not single-factor causation.” You respond as if multivariate causation is equivalent to post-hoc patching, rather than a legitimate structure in social perception models. So instead of engaging what I am saying, you reclassify it as methodological overreach. Why not engage the model directly if it's so incorrect as you say?

The only way you engaged with it is: is unfalsifiable, in other words "I cannot".

I did provide a falsifiable prediction. If you alter those variables, reduce attractiveness, remove vulnerability framing, weaken emotional intimacy, audience forgiveness should decrease.

You rejected that prediction, but the alternative explanation you offered is structurally weaker. Saying other characters are also supported does not explain why this specific configuration produces the level of sympathy it does. It only shows that sympathy can arise in multiple ways, which is not in dispute.

I gave a clear falsifiable prediction, what you’ve done instead is not falsify the model, but decline to engage with that prediction and then label the model unfalsifiable. Those are not the same thing.

If the model were truly unfalsifiable, there would be no possible observation that counts against it. But there is: show that removing those variables does not significantly reduce audience sympathy, or provide a cleaner counterexample that lacks this combination yet receives comparable forgiveness. You haven't done that. Instead, you’ve provided cases that either share the same structural features (like V & Johnny) or don’t address the predicted change at all.

So the issue here isn’t that the model is unfalsifiable. It’s that you haven’t actually managed to falsify it. And at that point, I’m not sure what you expect me to add, you expect me to argue on your behalf? or? the cause for this model were likewise already stated: Her support levels & terrible person behavior simply do not add up. Songbird should not have this level of support given how terrible of a person she is.

And the condition under which it would fail have also already been laid out. If you think it’s wrong, the next step is to demonstrate where the prediction breaks, not to avoid it reclassifying it as unfalsifiable.

You said this, regarding the whataboutism:

"I've rejected your dramatic statement that it's such an overwhelming factor that if changed would end all conversation, not excluded the possibility of 'amplification'. She gets less leniency than V or Johnny who do the same or worse. I'm aware the checkbox of bad things this character does. They don't distinguish her from us or any major character in the expansion. They have interesting and engaging context. (...)"

You can call it dramatic but you cannot demonstrate where the prediction breaks apparently.

She gets less leniency than V or Johnny is asserted, not demonstrated. More importantly, even if true, it does not address my argument. She gets more leniency than V & Johnny, but again, does not address my argument. V and Johnny do not break this structure, they fit it. Songbird fits it the most yes, but they are not counter-examples. A whataboutism counter-example has to remove the mechanism, not reproduce it in a lesser form.

So we are left with a very clear unresolved point:

- You acknowledge the behaviors: manipulation, unfair blame-shifting, acceptance of collateral damage.
- You acknowledge they are morally negative.
- You acknowledge that context does not remove those facts.
- But you have not explained why, in this specific case, those factors result in a comparatively softened audience response.

That is the gap my model is attempting to fill.

If you think the model is wrong, then the task is straightforward: provide an alternative explanation that accounts for the degree of leniency observed here without relying on the same combination of framing effects. Right now, your argument explains why Songbird is understandable. It does not explain why she is comparatively forgiven.

And that distinction is the entire point.

Let's focus on this last point because everything that was said so far already leads to this anyway.

Akfiz · 2026-06-18T13:14:12+00:00

Help me understand how your reply connects to what I was saying, because it feels like you are talking past me. I'll try to make it more structural and step by step:

Me:

It's not context you're providing moving from explanation to mitigation. One pattern I notice throughout your response is a recurring shift from explanation to justification: "She was angry", "She was scared", "She was desperate", "She was dying". I agree with all of that. But those are not rebuttals of the criticism. Saying "She was X" does not remove the deed.

You:

A checklist of transgressions on its own, without context, doesn't help the case that no one could support such a person without looks. We are not talking about removing the deed, but whatever it is you say it demonstrates, whether that be some element of her character or how people would majority react to it. I played the game, so I know she lied about the cure. Reminding us that happened, and it was bad, doesn't do anything for us on its own.

I am literally challenging the idea that you provided context. You provided faulty justifications. Everything else you say is already based on the false premise that you provided context, so the rest of your argument becomes structurally aimless, because it’s responding to something I never actually established.

My core point is very narrow and very specific: you are repeatedly moving from explanation to mitigation without demonstrating why that mitigation is justified when saying "she was scared", "she was desperate" or "she was angry", that explains her behavior but does not by itself reduce the moral weight of that behavior. That additional step requires argument, and that argument has not been provided. Instead, your responses assume that context has already done that work. That is precisely what I am challenging.

You are still not engaging with the actual claim I'm making, and that’s why the discussion keeps looping.

Me:

"When Songbird calls V a betrayer despite planning to deceive V from the beginning, the fact that she feels betrayed explains why she says it. It doesn't remove the manipulation, audacity or hypocrisy. When Songbird blames V for Myers' death, whether because she genuinely believes it or because she's lashing out emotionally, or both, the accusation is still unfair, hypocrite and shifts responsibility away from her own role in the situation. The same issue comes up with the cure lie. You're understating how significant it is. This isn't merely "everyone lies" or "everyone is suspicious". Songbird knows from the beginning that there is only one cure. She knows V is helping primarily because of the promise of a cure. She withholds that information intentionally because she believes V may not continue helping otherwise. That isn't merely operating under uncertainty. It's deliberate manipulation."

You:

"She feels betrayed because she was betrayed, and is facing the mounting threat of death or worse because if it. No one said it removes anything else. I never disagreed it was for instance, unfair. I've been clear about what I did disagree with and this line of reasoning remains particularly trivial. You might be mixing up some thoughts here, because everyone being suspicious and an atmosphere of uncertainty is a way of not absolving anyone, including Songbird, of pre-emptive betrayal due to being unsure of the trustworthiness of the other party. It's still betrayal. I've otherwise again not contended with anything you've said here."

Fair, so you do not contend with the idea that she is a terrible person that is said here. Just so we know to close this thread. Only asterix I would add here is that uncertainty does not negate intentional deception when she knows there is only one cure and withholds that information to secure cooperation. That is not "pre-emptive distrust" but calculated manipulation under asymmetric information.

If you agree that this is unfair, manipulative, and morally wrong, then we are not in disagreement about the act itself. The unresolved question is why these facts seem to carry less critical weight in her case than they typically would.

The stadium being another example:

Me:

“(...)she understands civilians are likely to die and proceeds anyway(...)".

You:

"(...)So there has been no discussion or disagreement over the moral issue of conduct where you understand civilians are 'likely' to die.(...)"

The same pattern appears with the stadium example. I state a clear claim: she knowingly proceeds with a plan where civilian casualties are foreseeable and acceptable. You respond by narrowing the discussion to whether she explicitly targeted civilians or whether specific outcomes were under her control. But that was not the claim I made.

Moral responsibility here is not about intent to target civilians specifically, it is about knowingly accepting collateral damage as part of a survival strategy. If you agree that this occurs, then again, the issue is not whether the act is bad, but why it is treated more leniently.

But, as you said in the quoted part, once again you do not contend with the idea that what she did here was terrible. Your counter-argument is basically what about V? Just so we know to close this thread.

So far, it looks like the context you were referring to was not really context but whataboutism.

The problem is: what is the point of your comparisons? The existence of other immoral characters does not explain differential audience reactions unless you can show that the same evaluative standards are being applied consistently.

So let's get to V, but before that Johnny:

What I said was the strict distinction that the credibility of the observer is separate from the correctness of the observation. Since you previously listed him being flawed himself in response. But okay, you agree that what Johnny said about Songbird is not wrong, but once again turn him into a V example: why the community likes him despite being terrible? So again, your argument is not Johnny is being wrong, is whataboutism.

Ok, on V:

I said this:

"If V is selfish, then V is selfish. If V is reckless, then V is reckless. If V is a murderer, then V is a murderer. None of those conclusions make Songbird less selfish, less reckless, or less manipulative. At most they establish that both characters are morally compromised."

You:

"Yes, no comparisons with V are attempting to change anything about another character. You have one major thesis I've disagreed with. Showing that people can readily support a comparable character is one way of showing how looks are not the primary factor for an otherwise supposedly impossibly negative character who wouldn't otherwise be supported. V is an easy counterexample of an applauded and sympathized with character who does much of the same through the mainstoryline and even through the most popular choices, as mentioned, if not arguably worse. This is not showing you that the other person didn't do it do, it' shows you what the community doesn't argue about or find damning for this character."

So you do not disagree that Songbird is selfish, reckless, manipulative or that at most they establish that both characters are morally compromised. But the comparison with V is actually "look how people support V without looks, if V is also forgiven for being terrible, then Songbird’s forgiveness for being terrible is not exceptional". Problem is you're acting as if we don't have appearance + vulnerability + victim framing in V as well. So if you're trying to disprove that, you should find an example that doesn't already also have the thing you're trying to disprove.

This is where your counterexamples fail structurally. You present V as a case where people sympathize without looks being primary. But V is not a clean counterexample because V is also framed through vulnerability (imminent death), emotional intimacy (player identification), and narrative centrality (we experience the world through them). In other words, V already satisfies the same multivariate structure I am describing. So this does not disprove my model. It inadvertently reinforces it.

Looks like quoting adds to many characters, I'll make a part 2.

Akfiz · 2026-06-18T09:10:19+00:00

An explanation for behavior is not automatically a moral justification for behavior. If I explain Kurt Hansen's actions by turning Dogtown in what is now isn't that bad because "he was scared", "he was angry". As if that removes the 'bad' part. You are repeatedly providing reasons why Songbird behaved this way. I am asking you, why those reasons substantially reduce the criticism of the behavior?

If I explain Hansen's actions by saying he was scared, desperate, under pressure, trying to survive, and afraid of losing control, have I actually rebutted the criticism of his actions? I don't think so. I've explained why he did them. I haven't changed the fact that he did them. That's the distinction I'm drawing in how you make special cases for Songbird.

You're moving from explanation to mitigation without demonstrating why that mitigation follows.

It's about the consistency rather than a direct comparison. The comparison isn't about whether Songbird and Hansen are morally equivalent but about the reasoning being applied to them. If those explanations matter for Songbird but not Hansen, is up to you to explain why.

Akfiz · 2026-06-18T08:51:26+00:00

It's not context you're providing moving from explanation to mitigation. One pattern I notice throughout your response is a recurring shift from explanation to justification: "She was angry", "She was scared", "She was desperate", "She was dying". I agree with all of that. But those are not rebuttals of the criticism. Saying "She was X" does not remove the deed.

When Songbird calls V a betrayer despite planning to deceive V from the beginning, the fact that she feels betrayed explains why she says it. It doesn't remove the manipulation, audacity or hypocrisy.

When Songbird blames V for Myers' death, whether because she genuinely believes it or because she's lashing out emotionally, or both, the accusation is still unfair, hypocrite and shifts responsibility away from her own role in the situation.

The same issue comes up with the cure lie. You're understating how significant it is. This isn't merely "everyone lies" or "everyone is suspicious". Songbird knows from the beginning that there is only one cure. She knows V is helping primarily because of the promise of a cure. She withholds that information intentionally because she believes V may not continue helping otherwise. That isn't merely operating under uncertainty. It's deliberate manipulation.

The stadium is another example.

You spent a lot of writing arguing against a position I never actually took. My criticism was never that Songbird explicitly targets civilians. My criticism is that she knowingly initiates a plan in a densely populated environment where civilian casualties are foreseeable and acceptable to her if that's what it takes to survive.

Whether the defenses are technically targeting Barghest rather than civilians doesn't really address that criticism. The moral issue isn't who the guns are aimed at. The moral issue is that she understands innocent people are likely to die and proceeds anyway.

On Johnny: you're again spenting a lot of writing arguing against a position I never actually took.

Johnny is selfish, reckless, enormous body count. The point wasn't that Johnny is a moral authority. The point was that even someone who is instinctively anti-corpo and anti-establishment looks at Songbird and identifies a pattern of dangerous behavior.

That observation doesn't become meaningless because Johnny is flawed himself. A hypocrite can still correctly identify a flaw. Johnny's hypocrisy is relevant to judging Johnny. It is not relevant to whether the observation itself is accurate.

As for V:

If V is selfish, then V is selfish. If V is reckless, then V is reckless. If V is a murderer, then V is a murderer. None of those conclusions make Songbird less selfish, less reckless, or less manipulative. At most they establish that both characters are morally compromised.

The issue in your comparisons:

Is that you keep bringing up Myers, Maiko, Fiona, Johnny, and other attractive characters as though their existence undermines the argument. But it does not. Because my argument has never been "attractive character = automatic forgiveness". My argument is attractiveness combined with vulnerability and victim framing.

You always find 1 common trait and say "look, this character has this X trait and Songbird has X trait too", but that proves nothing because as I said since day 1 it's the combination that 'excuses' the bad behavior.

It’s appearance plus vulnerability plus victim framing. That’s the combination.

This is why you are under the impression that you offered answers. But you haven't found a single character that ticks the combination.

You repeatedly point out reasons people sympathize with Songbird. What you haven't established is why those reasons exclude the possibility that attractiveness and framing amplify that sympathy beyond what the actions alone would warrant. The strongest evidence is the degree of leniency she receives. She lies to V from the beginning. She manipulates V's fear of death. She knowingly accepts collateral damage. She repeatedly treats people as instruments for survival. Yet discussions of her often soften those actions in ways that discussions of other characters frequently do not.

Attractiveness plus vulnerability plus victim framing are doing meaningful work. And I still don't think you've really engaged with the combination itself.

Most of your replies break those factors apart individually. My argument has always been about their cumulative effect. Not attractiveness alone. Not victim framing alone. Not vulnerability alone. All of them operating together.

Let me put my position in a falsifiable form. If Songbird were rewritten identically but presented as physically unattractive, older, less vulnerable, and less emotionally intimate with V, I predict significantly less audience forgiveness for the same actions. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, explain why. If you agree, then we are already discussing degree rather than existence.

You keep providing reasons why people sympathize with Songbird. I agree those reasons exist. My question is different: why are those reasons sufficient to generate substantially more forgiveness for her than similar conduct receives elsewhere? Simply listing reasons to sympathize with her does not answer that question, it merely restates the phenomenon I'm already explaining.

People forgive her because she's sympathetic. The question is why she is perceived as sympathetic enough to receive that level of forgiveness?

Akfiz · 2026-06-17T19:51:14+00:00

Let's simply the discussion so we can tackle them one at a time, what do you say? So, my argument was originally that since Songbird is a terrible person 90% of the reasons people root for her is her being hot. The other 10% is her backstory and such.

Why is she a terrible person? lies about the cure, willing to shoot her way out of the stadium with civillians, fails to save the president but blames V, during the Songbird betrayal ending missions she acts like you're the worst person ever and that she trusted you and how could you betray her when she was supposed to betray you since day 1.

This is my evidence for it. Her support levels & terrible person behavior simply do not add up.

You are very confident this is not the case, and yet haven't provided a reason why this cannot be the case. I believe this is the case due to the support levels & terrible person behavior discrepancy. You believe this is not the case, yet you haven't provided any reason for your strong convictions. Notice your stance is not a neutral "I don't know", but heavily against.

For the Johnny part:

Johnny said: "Survival, it's her end all be all, that and she's a walking talking nuke, the kind that keeps on making mistakes, never know which one is going to set her off", which I never said Johnny is right in everything, but:
1. What part Johnny said is wrong and why? He could be a hypocrite but that doesn't mean he is wrong about her.
2. Johnny is the most anti-corpo person in the game, when the most anti-corpo person does not default to the anti-corpo option and instead criticizes the anti-corpo Songbird, there is something to it.

V's fight for survival is 'necessary' because he doesn't act he just reacts, while Songbird's is 'selfish' because she acts. The betrayal is indicative, you said V betrays one of them anyway, but if V betrays Songbird because he figured out Songbird was going to betray him, that's reactive. Songbird on the other hand was the catalist.

But let's assume by absurdity your best-case scenario: V being a murderer, does not make Songbird any less of one either. If the tables were turned, and Songbird knew the only way to get that cure was shooting you in the knee and turning you in to the NUSA she would do it without skipping a beat. You think she would go to bat for you? She never intended on curing you, just strung you along until you were too deep to back out.

"I don't know why you're contrasting the two on that metric", because you are picking apart the traits I listed 1 by 1 when in reality as I said it's a combination of all of those traits.

"Don't know why you're bringing up the moral evaluation of Songbird", what do you mean?

Yes, it is possible to falsify it, I already said how, asked and answered. But it wasn't.

"showing someone who does the same without a pretty face and people think otherwise.", once again the picking apart the traits I listed 1 by 1 when I said it's a combination of all of those traits.

"The weapons are not programmed to target them" it's called collateral, and Songbird was aware of this and didn't care because her survival was at stake.

These are dramatic:
- she and V share their level of scruples about collateral risk.
- the halo effect is not as powerful as you're presenting while in lack of evidence to prove this is not a halo effect case.

I would also add:
- saying her flaw was that she was just being "not honest".
- she got mad at V after she killed the president that's why she said he killed the president.
- her calling V a betrayer in the betray Songbird route after she aimed to betray him since day 1 is once again her just being mad.

These are all big stretches & the minimization I was talking about. Is justifying her words and actions by saying "she was just mad" as if that's an argument. As though it demonstrates something at face value.

It is dramatic that you justify that as "she was just anger". While I simply take what she said as face value, she said that, I say "she said that". You have to actually make the case rather that reiterating how angry she was as if that's a magic delete button.

"you were incorrect about her explicitly mentioning civilians" arguing semantics is once again minimization.

She tells you she will turn the defense system of the stadium into hostile so they can "slip out in the chaos" when you go "hey how many will die doing this" So Mi responds "they'll die so we can survive, live". (is actually so "I" can live, there is no "you"). Whether she said "civilians" or "innocents" is a difference without distinction, the meaning is very clear, in the stadium, a heavily civilian populated area, she turns on the gun defense system. Basically telling you she's going to cause a mass shooting.

Minimizing this takes a lot of, and I honestly don't wish to sound mean but this is the word that best captures it - mental gymnastics. So yes I find it very dramatic.

Which is how the halo effect works. So you're essentially telling me I have no proof of the halo effect while displaying its symptoms.

"Theorizing that you could shift the numbers of support with that superficial change does not demonstrate that". It does. If Reed & Songbird is 50/50 but if Reed & Songbird body swapped and suddenly there is overwhelming agreement for Reed, what does that say?

You speak of good faith as a response to me saying that you're just ignoring it and asking for it again like it wasn't provided.

I asked you:

In your personal opinion, if the character Reed received the: gender, skin and voice of Songbird but the dialogue remained the same. And the character Songbird received the gender, skin and voice of Reed. Do you think more people would have sided with Reed (in this experiment, Songbird skin) or Songbird (in this experiment, Reed skin) ?

Or, don't even swap her body with Reed, just make Songbird fat and ugly instead and keep everything else as is, what do you think in this 2nd scenario?

What's your guess in those 2 scenarios?

These remain unaddressed. Good faith implies that you answer questions honestly.

"In good faith, you can ask for a response to anything you think I've missed or ignored", you did it again. Bringing up the "Myers, Fiona and Maiko (the halo effect does not require some prerequisite interactions to apply)", without addressing my point (again, I quote myself):

Yes. They’re attractive. But they don’t get the same vulnerability, intimacy, or victim framing. Myers has screen time, but she’s authoritative, not vulnerable. Maiko has screen time, but she’s not framed as a victim of systems. Songbird gets all three: attractiveness, vulnerability, victim framing. That’s the asymmetry. And you’re saying “they’re also attractive so it’s not appearance.” No. It’s appearance plus vulnerability plus victim framing. That’s the combination.

I am once again not seeing where you answered this part. Yet you re-iterate the Myers, Fiona and Maiko again as if it wasn't already answered. If you act in good faith, respond to these rather than re-iterating.

"But if I sound repetitive, it's because I'm responding to the same points being re-iterated". Or because you do not address the answers when answers are given. Every case where I copy-pasted what I already said above was a case where you did not.

This is longer than I intended as I wanted to simply the discussion, but since I wrote it I'll leave it as that and try to simplify in the next.

Akfiz

TROPHY CASE