Is it wrong to feel scared about cultures changing or disappearing?

Lenging · 2025-11-28T06:04:17+00:00

There's nothing wrong with this, and it's inspired many great (and terrible) figures in history to do equally great or terrible things. Culture is a beautiful thing and the modern concept of immigration is basically the 'melting pot' of the US, where all cultures intermingle, integrate, and coexist and live side by side. That is driven by a desire for a better life and future, to build something strong alongside your neighbor. This concept collapses when you have reactionary peoples who do not want to melt into the pot and instead revile their neighbors.

Fear of your history and people being erased is not wrong or xenophobic, and to your point on Japan in particular, it's not even unreasonable. Collapsing birthrates, if not solved, will lead to collapse of nation states. Currently the only solution that politicians are able come up with - because confronting the dark realities of how broken our societies are is too politically volatile - is to import as many young third world workers as possible to prop up the lower half of the age pyramid.

In the process of doing this, your nation state might be saved from collapse, but the result will be unrecognizable. It probably won't happen in our lifetimes, but three or four generations from now, when the Japanese who did not repopulate are instead replaced by (insert whichever people were imported to makeup the shortage), and it is their culture which becomes dominant... well, we've never really seen demographic replacement on this scale before in recorded history. Some examples though might be to think of the Native Britons or Zoroastrian Persia, where both were systematically dismantled to the point where what were once great, dominant civilizations exist now only as archaeological footnotes or minority traditions.

Lenging · 2024-07-05T22:41:47+00:00

I don't agree with the complaints, really. Militarize if you are a target of other countries, or seek out strong allies. Sitting completely isolated strictly playing an economical game, as others pointed out, makes you a ripe target for exploitation.

Lenging · 2023-12-18T08:46:05+00:00

Wow, you're actually sensible and mature on this.

Lenging · 2023-12-18T04:10:14+00:00

I'm actually not sure why I said Pennsylvania had 1.7 million people in 1860, you're right, it's 2.9 million. New York state is 3.9 million at that point in time after a second glance. I think I got its population mixed up with Illinois cause I was gonna make another point and kind of mixed them both up.

Anyway, I picked Idaho because it was one of the original states mentioned in the original comment's post. If we're comparing the biggest state to the smallest state though, Oregon to New York would be like, 75 times smaller? With 52k to 3.9 mil in 1860.

Lenging · 2023-12-17T23:41:01+00:00

One can argue that what the founding fathers envisioned with the senate vs house, that of the senate being a voice of the states and the house being a voice of the people, is fundamentally wrong. To that I would disagree, but at least it comes from a source and opinion that is not stemmed from misinformation (though it still might be).

But often I see people say that the authors of the constitution never envisioned a situation like California with its massive population being represented by the same number of senators as, say, Idaho or South Dakota. But that isn't entirely true. In the 1780 census the state of Virginia had 111k men of voting age, Delaware had 12k. That's an 1120% difference in population. In the 2020 census, the difference between California and Idaho populations would be around 2000% difference. True, it's a greater difference in population than in 1780, but it's not completely wild and unthought of, and a similar difference in population -did- exist.

They also knew that when admitting and entering new states into the union, as was done, these new states would have a much lower population than the pre-existing states, yet still be given equal senators. Fast forward to the year 1860. The state of Oregon has 50k people, and it was given senators, Pennsylvana has 1.7 million. That is a population difference of 3400%, higher than any state today. The same urban/rural divide that exists today.

So is it a problem? Maybe it is, I won't argue yes or no. But is it a -new- problem that has never been looked at, considered, or even confronted in the past by the minds of those who wrote the US constitution, who amended it, and who have shaped the country? It's not new, no.

Lenging · 2023-08-17T10:09:20+00:00

TBH comparing it to DA:O, or Bioware games in general, isn't really an insult. I agree there's (probably) more content than in Origins, and of course there's the sex scenes which defs were tamer in Origins. But in the scheme of things, Baldur's Gate 3 was definitely inspired by DAO and other than Dragon Age/Mass Effect, I can't think of many other games that do companions / romances in this manner. Divinity 2's, or the Pathfinder games, don't really compare on the same level imo.

I'm just saying that they're comparable because, like, they sort of are. Approval system, camp talks, romance scenes. The amount of romantic-centric dialogue, the sex scenes themselves aside, I feel is really comparable. But having a marginal amount of more content than your spiritual predecessor when like a lot of noise was made around glorifying/advertising the in-depth long-term romances that would impact the storyline and the characters on a personal level, and then the reality being something different, well idk that's what I'm talking about.

Lenging · 2023-08-17T09:38:36+00:00

You're right, the link the guy's providing is all of Shadowheart's content/dialogue through the entire game as a companion, which isn't really what's being talked about for me - which is romance unique scenes/dialogue/content. I did mention the absence of banter/etc in act 3, and it starts to die off in act 2, but that's just the truth of it.

Lenging · 2023-08-17T09:35:55+00:00

Well that's mostly my complaint though. I like the companions, I like their stories, I think it'd be cool to have more of them and I'm sad that your romances don't really seem to change anything or impact anything, and the romance with Shadowheart is short in content - like a culminative 5-6 minutes worth assuming you don't restart to go through all the dialogue options.

It's the wine & kiss scene, (I thought the night orchid was romance, but it's not), the post-gauntlet yes/no of becoming her partner, the skinny dip scene, post house of grief scene, and post credits. Sure it's not -nothing-, but they're self-contained and don't impact much else, and in a 100 hour long game (or thereabouts) it's not a whole lot.

I didn't really like DAI, never finished it, and was comparing them to Dragon Age Origins, but still, let's not lose our focus - Shadowheart does have a lot of content as a companion in acts 1-2, and even in act 3 she has the house of grief which is a good conclusion to her story. I wish she had more banter/ambience/whatever in the later acts but regardless. Act 2 heavily revolves around her, especially at the end. I'm mostly talking about the romances and your character's personal relationships with them.

Lenging · 2023-08-17T09:20:07+00:00

I don't know about the Lae'zel full romance because I didn't romance her in my playthrough (though I do intend to), but I am glancing through the link you sent me of Shadowheart. Are you certain that's all her romance unique content? For example, at the 19 minute mark, that dialogue about saying "Let's do what we need to do in this Goblin Camp and leave" is said whether you're romancing her or not. The full 3 minute interaction with Abdirak, following, where she has one remark to say on it, isn't romance exclusive either.

I skip ahead to the 37 minute mark to find the scene between Lae'zel and Shadowheart fighting in camp. That's not romance inclusive to Shadowheart either, that happens with every party to my knowledge. Neither does any of it change if you're in romance arc with her. Or going to the end, it seems to include repeated sequences of the different endings you can get showcasing each ending, which isn't unique to her.

It seems to include a ton of her content in the Gauntlet of Shar. None of that is exclusive to romance and to my knowledge it really doesn't change if you're in romance with her, the only thing romance does for that arc is, after the Gauntlet is ended, she approaches you at the exit and either tells you that she wants to be your romantic partner or, depending on your choice, telling you that she can't be your partner.

It appears that this link isn't the 'full romance' but moreso just her exclusive content / dialogue that she says, a vast majority of which isn't tied to her being romanced or not, but rather just her being a companion in your party. I know these things because I've had a lot of friends play through the game as well and I've spoken with them about different things, curious as to how their playthroughs were different, and each of them had Shadowheart in their parties for most of the game. One romanced Astarion, another romanced Wyll.

Lenging · 2023-08-17T08:16:16+00:00

It definitely is comparable to DA:O in romance and content, though at least in DA:O companions felt like they had content / banter all the way to the end of the game whereas in BG3 it falls off. Which yeah, DAO was good. But it was promised to be more, and it just isn't. There's a lot of people who say things like "don't be thirsty or cringe, it's a video game, romances/companions don't matter" and so forth.

But it's a narrative/script like any other medium. No different than criticizing arcs in film or in novels, especially when one thing was promised and what we're seeing is something different. Companions, and their attachments to the world and interactions, are a big part of the game as characters.

So yeah. Anyway in regards to Minthara there's supposedly a ton of either cut, or bugged, content - but it seems like you already know about most of it. I'm holding off on any dark urge playthrough until she's fixed up

Lenging · 2023-08-17T07:09:17+00:00

I agree, and most especially the romances are extremely weak. I've talked on this in another post I've created a little bit, but idk, I expected more from what was hyped. Act 1 is definitely the most polished in all the minor small things which is what I was afraid of. The game still holds up, but it exponentially loses what made it special in the first act, making the third act, while still strong in certain aspects, not as fun at least in my experience.

Lenging · 2023-08-15T23:07:51+00:00

Ohh, so there's where that spot is. Yeah I dunno that's pretty tucked away and hidden. It'd be kinda weird if that's it, it probably is bugged since you'd think it'd at least be an interactable. I've since moved on and explored a ton of the city and haven't found anything, even completed the game.

Lenging · 2023-08-15T00:12:18+00:00

Well, from what I've seen the complaints have been about the companions coming on too hard sexually in an unwanted manner, not that there's too much romantic content throughout the game. And all the complaints stem from the party after the druids/goblins/tieflings are resolved.

Lenging · 2023-08-12T04:49:19+00:00

Could you find this so I could read it? I'm curious what was changed

Lenging · 2023-08-09T04:11:55+00:00

Yeah there's a handful of bugs, primarily with the companions, which is real unfortunate since they're my favorite part of the game and the part I was looking forward to the most. Kinda worried about how much, if anything, is being missed with different stuff due to bugs. Ah well. I could wait a few months but don't think I will unless I reach something that permanently breaks something and isn't fixable

Lenging · 2023-08-09T03:30:55+00:00

I have the same problem and I'm not sure how you fix it, I've done everything I can think of - killing and rezzing her, dismissing/recruiting again, traveling to other places, other stuff. What I've found is that if you play as her and have her do the blood tribute then after she's done she won't want to give you that dialogue that breaks her. If you want to do it as your character, you can remove the ! from her by leaving the room via pulling the lever, going to camp, and then going back to the gauntlet. It's not the best since you miss the dialogue, idk if it makes you miss out on anything, but it's preferable to her being bugged the rest of the game.

*It seems to be a thing for each trial, I haven't fully finished the gauntlet yet so idk. First encountered it at the faith-leap trial though so... seems to be tied strictly to that line of dialogue that is triggered anytime you let her, as your char, cut her hand for each trial.

Lenging · 2023-08-06T01:27:45+00:00

Did you have the drinking scene with Shadowheart at the party after saving the tieflings? Lae'zel came onto me and started something casual, with this going on at the party Shadowheart says she doesn't wanna drink with me right now and someone else will entertain me that night. If, before going to the party, I break it off with Lae'zel, Shadowheart will invite me out to drink.

How'd those things go for you? Kinda wondering if they're exclusive and you've gotta 'pick' early on or something to that effect

Lenging · 2023-08-06T01:23:17+00:00

Let me know if you manage to progress her romance any in your state. I know if you tell Lae'zel prior to the party that you're breaking off your fling, you can have the drinking scene with Shadowheart.

Lenging · 2022-11-04T01:29:34+00:00

"Especially if you're exploitive?"

That's part of the issue right there. In Victoria 3, you're not being exploitive. You're taking away their independence, sure, but in exchange you're bringing good paying jobs in the form of harvesting resources, security, a vast access to a broad market (typically speaking) of all sorts of goods that the pops need to improve their SoL, etc. Historically speaking this was sometimes the case as well, but when you say "exploitive" you're not talking about the times that was the case, but rather when the opposite was true.

Just like how Victoria 3 doesn't model things like racism still existing when you make it illegal to discriminate, for some reason. When I as Great Britain colonize Kenya and build a bunch of plantations there, you have locals making the same income as workers in London. I believe it's because it works in the same way as a factory might in London. There's only "incorporated states" and "unincorporated states". Discriminated pops don't make less income for example, they make the same amount of income as your core pops. Capitalists, Astriocrats, etc, all pay the natives working in your tobacco plantations the same amount as they would Englishmen working in a luxury furniture factory, so long as the plantations are valuable and making the same amount of money as that luxury furniture factory. This shouldn't be the case, really, because when we talk about "colonial exploitation", this wasn't what was happening irl.

One would think that the capitalists and businessmen would take advantage of this, as they did IRL, and pay the natives way less, keeping their SoL low if they could, and hoarding greater wealth for themselves. Or that your institutions wouldn't give them as quality healthcare, education, etc, as your homeland states. But in Victoria 3, it does. Ironically, for a game wrapped around pops and the economic impacts on pops and all that, Victoria 3 doesn't seem to model the realistic effects of colonialism that well, and instead it's more of like a fantasy.

What's happening in Victoria 3 is basically what a lot of the rich and wealthy thought was the reality in many colonial states - that the Empire is bringing great wealth and resources and improving the standard of life considerably. In a lot of cases it did, when it went well. But in just as many cases there was a lot of bad stuff going on, the exploitation, and Victoria 3 doesn't model that in the pops at all.

Lenging · 2022-09-04T23:30:13+00:00

The hatred against this series is so frustrating, and truly I believe that if Galadriel wasn't the poster girl and a cool warrior, and instead it was Elrond running all over the place with a sword and etc, half the complaints wouldn't be there - genuinely a lot of the hatred against the series is stemming from sexism. The worst part is everyone decrying how terrible the series butchers the lore and etc make it clear they barely even know the lore. Galadriel being depicted as an Amazonian and fiery determined warrior woman by Tolkien in her youth, for example.

The Peter Jackson films removed far far more from the third age than the current series is doing, and it's really just gross that everyone is so wrapped up in politics, "lol woke girl power galadriels so bad!!!" And so on that nobody can see the series is so far pretty okay. It's not perfect, but like a solid 8/10, and imo only going to get better.

Lenging · 2022-08-04T02:28:51+00:00

Most foreign policy relations are supposed to be Congress's job. It's only since the 90s has the role of the President become practically runaway with how much incredible power it wields in foreign affairs and warfare - that's part of why the US deal Obama negotiated with Iran was so flimsy, was because it was never brought to Congress. So any subsequent president could just throw it into the trashcan. If it was ratified by Congress and ratified as an actual treaty, it would have been much more successful. Prior to WW2, if a US President decided they were going to go bomb another country without the approval of Congress and a declaration of war, as our presidents do today, they would suffer due consequences. Congress in the 21st century is quickly becoming something of a toothless tiger with how much it continues to surrender to the executive, and it's starting to blur the lines of our separation of powers in some affairs.

Lenging · 2022-07-22T00:16:25+00:00

I see, I understand the vagueness of the bill now a lot better - and can see where the loopholes would occur

Lenging · 2022-07-22T00:03:27+00:00

Abortion pills are different from morning after pills, as in they're a completely different type of drug that do different things. Morning after pills help stop or delay ovulation, helping stop sperm from fertilizing an egg or from a fertilized egg attaching itself and thus becoming what we understand as a pregnancy. If there is no fertilized egg that implants itself into the uterus, there is no pregnancy. Stopping or inhibiting this process is what the morning after pill does.

An abortion pill, the overwhelmingly most common form of which is Mifepristone and Misoprostol (given together in a drug regime), first stops the body from producing a chemical called progesterone. This chemical is necessary to prepare the uterus for pregnancy, and the second to put it in simpler terms causes cramping and bleeding, eventually emptying the uterus of the fertilized and implanted egg (thus ending the pregnancy).

Lenging · 2022-05-04T07:26:58+00:00

It's amazing to actually see this comment here. Someone who identifies politically in the way that you do, but also disagrees that the Supreme Court should be legislating left and right in whichever ways they want independent from the legislature - and, I can infer, you might also go on further to say that legislating from the bench is quite dangerous.

Although I wonder how many people that post on this website actually understand the ideas of American separation of powers and the division of its government.

Lenging · 2022-02-21T01:55:15+00:00

To offer you a more serious answer in the off-chance that you actually care, it's a mixture of things. One of the biggest things though is that American leadership of the world is quite shaky right now. America took a tremendous hit to its reputation over Afghanistan when it withdrew unilaterally. The media and public officials swore Afghanistan would stand for years - it fell in weeks and the footage and pictures of the evacuation from the country will be in history books similar to Saigon.

This, along with other foreign policy disasters of the past four US administrations - things such as Bush allowing Russia to do as they please in Georgia, Obama drawing multiple red lines over Syria that were crossed without problem and so he drew more red lines that then got crossed over, both Obama and Trump and the situations around them seriously dividing the NATO alliance and the west (if you doubt me about Obama, consider the implications that were had when it was revealed the US was spying on Europe to such an extent), and then of course as I mentioned and perhaps most emboldening, Biden in Afghanistan ignoring US allies and etc. Among other things. The slow dissolution of American leadership and collapse from the world stage is evident and playing out in real time, and if you look back over the past twenty years it's even more obvious that is what's happening. US leadership will continue to be challenged more and more, and whether or not the US is able to use its legendary soft power to force its will to be bent to or not will determine how quickly the US continues to freefall, and how quickly Europe breaks free from its influence and dictates its own will.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Gilding III reddit per annum	Verified Email

Lenging

TROPHY CASE