erin

It does sound more racist, because it is. Why not Yasuke? Just because he's black? Why any of the other AC protagonists? Why choose a Spartan, a highly unethical culture filled with slavery and abuse? Why choose a Welsh pirate instead of a Caribbean native? These are all pointless questions, because the answer is all the same. That's the story they wanted to tell. Maybe they wanted to highlight the historical outlier at an important time in history. We could speculate on any number of different reasons, but "DEI" doesn't make any damn sense, considering they knew how gamers would react beforehand and even went out of their way to make a statement about it.

They wanted to tell this story. If you want a different one, play a different game. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing Yasuke as a protagonist. The series has consistently demonstrated that they don't really mind telling the stories of historical outliers, repeatedly. They shouldn't have to specifically avoid (because that is what your argument has shifted to) Yasuke for fears of "DEI." The "anti-woke" are ridiculous.

Eivor was a foreigner (and an invader) for everything outside the beginning of the game, so was Kassandra/Alexios (also invaders), they just had the same skin tone as the place they're foreign in. There's a big difference between "native characters with understated culture" and just "not foreign." Those are totally different arguments, and it seems like you're trying to make both. Again, why not have an interesting character from history be explored like this. Acting as if past characters are these nebulous "local" individuals when they're often the direct children or relatives of prominent, real, historical figures, if fictional ones, seems silly. This is totally in line with past stories they've told. I really don't see a valid reason a non-local character is "problematic" in an AC game. We've done it a bunch of times. We've played a Welsh guy in the Caribbean, a Viking in Britain, and a Spartan in Greece, just to name a few. I'm sure I'm forgetting other valid examples.

The "women are always screaming" stereotype is sexist. It's a direct extension of the pseudoscientific hysteria diagnosis that used to be commonly accepted. "A women," as you put it, might scream, and you might find that annoying. Women as a category have higher pitched voices on average, and the line between "reasonable yelling" and "hysterical screaming" is often just one of pitch, even when the cause for alarm or injury is the same.

Additionally, neither I nor any of the women in my life "scream" in response to injury. We yell in pain just like someone with a masculine voice, if a bit higher pitched. Some may, but it's not common and is usually reserved for situations of extreme alarm or fear, or occasionally excitement. Any time a woman does scream on video, you always see someone in the comments complaining about how annoying women screaming is. The same is never said about men screaming, unless they scream "like a girl."

9/10 times. How out of touch are you?

Perhaps that might be true of authoritarianism, but that doesn't necessarily hold true for leftism in general. Democracy is not an antithesis of leftism, it's the opposite, and there are many leftist principles in government in Europe. I wouldn't go as far as to label any of them a true socialist state, but leftist policies have shown remarkable success.

This complaint feels manufactured. No one complained about the romance-able historical figures in previous Japanese games, and a quick look at social media and Japanese news shows no outrage. Also, every other game features historically unknown natives? What? We have multiple characters that are children of royalty, at least two that are military warlords, and a Viking raider for fuck's sake. The only game I can think of that has a native of the region not connected to the powers that be is 3, where you play a Native American. You're often just playing essentially a secret police for the state of the country you're in. Why not have a black samurai, a notable historical figure, be the main character. That's super interesting. It's not like Japanese culture is being erased. Your outrage feels misplaced and racially motivated, and I doubt we'd be seeing so much manufactured discontent if it was a white samurai (and there were several).

How does this relate to the article, or the situation with the streamer? Sure, dunk on Ubisoft, but maybe not about a black historical figure being black.

Half of Europe would be considered "far left" from a US perspective. Affordable housing? Universal healthcare? Parental leave for long durations? Walkable cities and public transit? Try getting any of those to fly with the US neoliberals.

If true, this would in fact be a huge step toward quantum computing at scale, which would revolutionize computing. However, they've claimed this before, and have offered no evidence yet of their supposed discovery.

This doesn't pass the smell test, as someone that has followed the Greens for years. If you thought his actions were "tone policing" then I'm immediately questioning your actions, since all I've seen is a standup guy and educator. I'm happy to be corrected with a link, but I'm not seeing what you're talking about.

University of Minnesota

usdakotawar.org

The 38 hangings were far from the worst of the Dakota genocide. Lincoln's role was one of reducing cruelty while still punishing those guilty of massacres of civilians. Originally, hundreds of men were going to be hanged, but Lincoln commuted the sentences of all but the worst offenders. Unfortunately, two of the hanged men were innocent, and it's unclear how the mistake was made. Far worse was the banning of Dakota people from Minnesota and the internment in camps, leading to widespread death by disease, though these were the actions of the Minnesota government.

There are very legitimate criticism to be had of Lincoln, like being the sitting president as one of the states committed genocide, or the appeasement tactics to slaveowners before civil war became inevitable. I do not think this one makes sense to be top of the list, as by all accounts Lincoln was attempting to reduce cruelty where possible and yet still punish mass murderers.

For a bit of additional background, the Dakota war, during the Dakota genocide, was an uprising of some Dakota, attacking anyone of white or "mixed-blood" descent. The state of Minnesota had broken numerous treaties and continued to seize land from the Dakota people, leading some to fight back. However, the massacring of civilians and anyone of non-pure blood is evil, and many Dakota who did not join the rebellion rescued hostages and helped resist wholesale slaughter. The Minnesota government is absolutely at fault for the conditions leading to and the execution of the Dakota genocide, but the rebels chose to commit racially motivated massacres of non-military targets. This does not make the later retaliation justified, but it does explain the hangings.

As for number two, I cannot speak to the other commenter's beliefs or intentions, though I do not believe women were combatants in the Dakota war.

Note: Some historians object to the term Dakota war, as only a small faction joined the conflict, while a much greater number did not. I'm using the term as the consensus name for the conflict, not out of belief that it is accurate.

Jargon was an example from an analogous situation, that of someone knowledgeable explaining to a beginner. OP didn't understand you. My contribution explained it to them. You care more about pedantry than effective communication. I don't know what else to tell you. Seriously, find me anyone doing science communication that uses technical language rather than general. I'd love to provide as many counter examples as you need. My point is that your communication wasn't as effective as it could be, and rather than accepting a helpful addition to the conversation, you made it defensive. Again, I'm not suggesting you are using jargon. What you are doing, assuming meaning from a beginner's usage of general speech, is the same as an expert choosing jargon when interfacing with a member of the general public. In good communication, it just doesn't happen.

If the group chat thinks absolute specificity is more important than effective communication, that is, communication that the other party understands, then they can be wrong too. OP did not understand you. My followup with them confirms this. This is a waste of my time.

You're being deliberately obtuse, or trolling. Are you seriously trying to suggest that science educators use jargon? Watch a TED talk. Attend an open lecture. Open youtube or your preferred equivalent. You're so wrong it's funny. Good communicators reach their audience where they are.

Additionally, it's pedantry to the extreme to pretend that me saying "I use deepseek," referring to my self-hosted solution, is incorrect, when it absolutely is deepseek. Yes, you could be more specific, but it absolutely is correct to refer to deepseek in any of its forms as deepseek. Chat-GPT is Chat-GPT, regardless of version. You've made up rules you're expecting others to follow, and the rules themselves are inconsistent with how people speak.

You care so much about being right that you'll move any number of goalposts and define things any way you like just to be absolutely, technically correct. The idea of saying, "You know what, I didn't think about that. I could've been more nuanced," must be a nightmare to you.