Forum Discussion

Re: Will Battlefield 2042 be apolitical?

@carsono311Thank you.

"Unfortunately, it does not explicitly include any statement about in-game content."
That's a shame. Seems that I will be waiting for some time to see if I will purchase the game.

"Ideologies are useful contextual tools in world-building and storytelling, so the waters get murkier there when anyone tries to limit the creative freedom of the storyteller and I am quite sure we would not want to limit that freedom..."
I agree. In the post above I made that distinction. There are certain aspects of games which do not directly influence game-play and that's where my primary concern lies.

22 Replies

  • carsono311's avatar
    carsono311
    Seasoned Ace
    5 years ago

    @RopeYou are welcome.

    I wish I could give you a better answer, but perhaps a CM can swoop in and offer something more.

    I hope to see you on the Battlefield!


  • @Rope wrote:


    "Unfortunately, it does not explicitly include any statement about in-game content."
    That's a shame. Seems that I will be waiting for some time to see if I will purchase the game.

     


    Having read two pages I'm still bemused at what exactly you are troubled by.

    I wouldn't put Battlefield 2042 at the top of the list for political narrative, far from it.

    There may be some broad story themes in line with the world as it might be in 20 years, but the main theme is to be a 'shooter game' not a political treatise. 🤔

    In real life of course, groups of people shooting each other would be deeply political, but this is a 'game'.

  • ElliotLH's avatar
    ElliotLH
    Hero+
    5 years ago
    @Rope If you mean the badges that are given out or statements that appear when opening the game then this is a chance we may see that in 2042.

    Don't remember any dog tags for this kind of thing in BFV, like there was in Apex, but there were a few screens that appeared which may be what you're talking about. If I remember rightly one was in support of Stop Asian Hate, for example.

    However, as this isn't something we have information about at this time I don't think anyone will be able to confirm one way or another.

    If you mean something different and I've misunderstood then feel free to disregard the above.
  • @SofaJockeyUK I would say he’s bemused because climate change in and of itself is approached in a very political way. Or at least that is the only way I could take someone saying it could be political. I mean all video games that have a story are going to have some form a political ideology. Look at any game and you can find it, be it in a in game organization, backdrop or driving the overarching narrative.
  • @Rope  I completely get where you're coming from, and I 100% agree!

    Nothing ruins a good game, movie, book, TV show, comic book, etc. more, for me, than when a character starts propagandizing about a current-day political topic--and they usually fall on the side of having more government intervention, control, lockdown, censorship, etc. Being a Voluntaryist , I absolutely HATE it!

    If I could push a button and end all governments, I would do it immediately--and I would keep pushing it to make sure they never came back! It would be the best thing to happen to humanity in thousands of years.

    But I digress.

    I sincerely hope that EA & DICE will leave all politics out of this game, and future games. We are purposely bombarded by political messages everywhere we turn, these days, so many people turn to the things I mentioned above as an escape. When those escape outlets also begin to bombard us with those political messages, they cease to be escapes--and that's when I cease buying them.

    I understand that war is caused by rival ideologies, and that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is embedded messages (signs, posters on broken building walls, little comments from characters here and there, heavy in-game police presence and visuals, in-game support or sympathy for a political group or cause, etc.), and outright in-your-face political messages that are sprinkled into everything, to make you more accustomed to seeing and hearing them, over time. It's psychology and sociology--basically, you're being condtioned and manipulated, and I don't want anything to do with it!

    When CoD started doing it before every match, last year, I thought my head was going to explode! I stopped playing it until they stopped with the politics. And even then, I never really got back into it, and felt a little icky from even loading it back up. I would mainly get on when some friends wanted to hang out and play for a while. Now, I don't even play it, at all. I'll pass on cheaters and politics, every time.

    It didn't even matter so much who or what it was about; I just have so much hatred for politics and propagandizing in my "entertainment"--and knowing that a company is trying to force-feed and manipulate me makes me furious!

    There's a cut-scene in BF3 where one soldier says to another that the United States' Founding Fathers were "terrorists" (yes, I still remember that, DICE!). The Founders weren't 'terrorists'; they broke away from an oppressive government that wasn't about to let them go in peace, and (sadly) founded yet another government--one that has also become oppressive and ridiculously thieving--but they weren't "terrorists." They were stupid to believe that a piece of parchment with words scribbled on it would stop psychos and power mongers from taking over, and the age-old nonsensical belief that just voting harder and having the right people in office would change everything. History proves that it doesn't work that way.

    I don't want to see anything like that in BF2042--or any game that comes after it! I've spoken with many others who feel the same way, too.

  • Fringerunner's avatar
    Fringerunner
    Seasoned Ace
    5 years ago

    @Rope You do realize you're both asking for censorship and decrying it at the same time right?

    You don't want politics in the game, though you want the game shaped by *your* political views.

    And yes, proclaimed apathy is a view, even though what you follow up with indicates that you certainly have a stance.

    @SofaJockeyUK put it well, you're contemplating playing a game which basically represents the blunt end of politics via a very thin narrative string in multiplayer, much like all the other games, or did that not bother you before because it was over acceptable things like exactly what we're apparently fighting for now in 2042, resources as usual.

    Or putting it a bit more pointedly and extrapolating a little, you're offended by (taking a guess on an example) something like a rainbow avatar but you're totally against censorship.

    I don't have the slightest problem with you asking if someone can clarify so you can make a purchase choice or not based on the stance Dice takes regarding those things, but just say that rather than try to justify your stance via "being against censorship" when you're clearly asking for things to be censored.

  • ChugKendall's avatar
    ChugKendall
    5 years ago

    @Fringerunner

    @Ropesaid, "Note that I'm perfectly fine with a gaming company doing whatever they want with their IP."

    I don't see where he's calling on anyone to be censored; he just wants to know, upfront, if any political nonsense will be in the game so he can choose not to buy it. No one is being forced to do anything. And I feel the same way.

    EA & DICE can make any kind of game they want. I'm not calling for anyone to try to censor them, because anything that is involuntary is morally unacceptable. They can make whatever they want, and I can choose to buy--or not buy--whatever I want. No censorship, only choices.

    If EA & DICE want to self-censor, for obvious business reasons, that's perfectly acceptable, too, as long as it is done voluntarily (their choice). No one, and no government, should ever try to forcibly silence anyone else or any company.

  • Fringerunner's avatar
    Fringerunner
    Seasoned Ace
    5 years ago

    @ChugKendallI did say i had no issue with him wanting to make a choice based on his personal preferences, but the OP caveated your quote with "i'm not buying your game if you include these things".
    That does equate to asking for censorship imo when the person also states they'd very much like to play the game.

    He's simply using the lure of his money to "vote", which is fine, but claiming it's due to being apolitical and being against censorship, when it's obviously not the case and he's effectively saying "you want my money, then this better not be in the game", the disclaimer at the start loses it's value for me.

    Imo, of course.

    And as you say, Dice will do what they want with their IP, and if the OP wants to find out what political leaning that will be, fine.

    But if it boils down to avatars and banners being the "real" issue, it think it's fair to say we're not dealing with a fundamental rights issue, but just someone who doesn't want to see a challenge to their personal ideology represented in the upcoming game and is absolutely for censoring anything that conflicts with it as those are apparently the terms for purchasing the game.

    Oh, and i was in no way lumping you in with the OP there so we're clear on that 😉

  • Rope's avatar
    Rope
    5 years ago

    @Fringerunner"You do realize you're both asking for censorship and decrying it at the same time right?"
    No. I don't actually.
    Censorship is when an authority removes or suppresses communication. I'm not asking for communication to be removed or suppressed.
    Since both of these options require that it is in fact possible to communicate a particular view.

    I'm not asking to introduce features into the game that would promote any current-day political movements nor to remove them.
    I'm asking whether they have added, or plan to add, features of the sort.

    "You don't want politics in the game, though you want the game shaped by *your* political views."
    You need to read the thread again. Nowhere have I promoted one view over another. That's kind of what being apolitical means.
    At most I have highlighted Apex Legends as an example where political statements are put on the forefront.

    "And yes, proclaimed apathy is a view, even though what you follow up with indicates that you certainly have a stance."
    Unless you're psychic, you can't look inside my mind. So to derive that statement from everything I've said is quite the leap.
    You've got nothing to base this on. You can't simply infer what I mean and claim it as fact when literally nothing I've said indicates that I have a political stance.

    I will reiterate so you understand clearly.
    I hate politics.
    It's divisive, reduces multivariate issues into uni-variate ones to fit a frame of reference and intentionally fosters misunderstanding between individuals whom otherwise might have gotten along.

    "Or putting it a bit more pointedly and extrapolating a little, you're offended by (taking a guess on an example) something like a rainbow avatar but you're totally against censorship."
    You need to stop putting words in my mouth. I've been interacting with members of the LGBT community ever since I was in high school (well over 2 decades ago).
    Some of them I consider close friends to this day. Again, I have no quarrel with any particular political perspective.

    "when you're clearly asking for things to be censored."
    Where exactly did I ask for censorship? I did not ask for DICE nor EA to censor anything or do anything about the expression of political opinions.
    I'm asking whether they will actively add features to their game that enable the promotion of certain political ideals over others. In other words, if they're prone to favoritism.
    That goes both ways. I do not favor one "side" over another because I'm neither a fan of dichotomous nor tribal thinking.
    Just because you have chosen to read that into my question does not make it so.

    Now if you're making your case based on the example I gave.
    Then please, point me to a game that actively promoted the "other side" and I will happily use that game as a substitute for the example I gave.
    Assuming, of course, that does anything to alleviate your misinterpretation.

    Not putting those features into the game at all, if you must put it into terms of censorship, is at the very least equal censorship for all.
    Whereas normally censorship favors the censor, now it would favor none. If it favors none, there is no issue.

    Or, to put it another way. Have all the games that have been created thus far and which did not put these features in place been "censoring" their customers?
    My answer to that question would be no, they have not.

  • ChugKendall's avatar
    ChugKendall
    5 years ago

    @Fringerunner wrote: @ChugKendallI did say i had no issue with him wanting to make a choice based on his personal preferences, but the OP caveated your quote with "i'm not buying your game if you include these things". That does equate to asking for censorship imo when the person also states they'd very much like to play the game.

    Him saying that he won't buy the game if something he doesn't like is included in the game is not censorship; it is a personal buying preference--and everyone engages in the exact same behavior when they go shopping for other things.

    If a shirt isn't up to a person's standard of quality, or the wrong color, they will withhold their money or buy a different one. If a sports drink contains artificial sweeteners or colors, they won't buy it. If the honey in the container isn't real honey (artificial), they won't buy it. If potato chips aren't the flavor the person wants, they will withhold their money, or buy something else. If a car doesn't meet a consumer's demand for better safety features, the consumer will withhold their money, or buy a different car. And if a game company makes a game that includes ideas and expressions that some people find offensive, they will withhold their money, or buy a different game. That isn't censorship (beyond a person's or company's control to fight it); that is simply a person making a buying decision.

    Some people will even write letters to companies, asking them to change their ingredients, features, causes or political parties they support, colors or processes. There's nothing wrong with that, and it isn't censorship; that is merely expressing a strong personal preference. The company can always do whatever it wants--and should--but that doesn't mean that there won't be consequences from consumers refusing to buy their products.

    If @Rope attempted to get the company shut down, have their website forcibly erased from the Internet, or tried to get government to intervene then that would be an attempt at censorship--and something that I would not support. Asking or pleading for a thing to be not included, or removed, is not the same as censoring a thing. As long as their is a choice of whether or not to do it, it isn't censorship; it is a request.


    @Fringerunnerwrote: But if it boils down to avatars and banners being the "real" issue, it think it's fair to say we're not dealing with a fundamental rights issue, but just someone who doesn't want to see a challenge to their personal ideology represented in the upcoming game and is absolutely for censoring anything that conflicts with it as those are apparently the terms for purchasing the game.

    I don't want to put words into @Rope's mouth, but I think he may be at the point that I, too, have reached: I am just sick and tired of the embedded attempts at manipulation and political preaching. We seek out entertainment to get away from all of that and unplug. We don't need it in our games and such, too.

    As far as having personal ideology challenged, I don't know about the other guy, but I can tell you that I, personally, am fully entrenched in my own beliefs and honor codes, and no one else is going to change that. I've lived a long time, and I hosted a political talk radio show for 8 years, so I have vetted my belief system against everything that can be thrown at it, and I still stand firm in my convictions (freedom for all, live and let live). Life seems to be a daily fight, in this modern world, so when I want to unplug I don't want to have to deal with it there, too.

    I still agree with the OP that if this game contains a bunch of political preaching and propaganda, I won't buy it, either. And if they sneak it in, later, I will be done with the series. My principles are more important to me, especially in this day and age.

    And thanks for the last sentence lol. I'm not mad or anything; we just seem to have differing opinions and definitions.

    I love a strong, respectful, intellectual exchange of ideas. 🙂

  • UP_Hawxxeye's avatar
    UP_Hawxxeye
    Legend
    5 years ago

    I honestly think that they learned that lesson with BFV when considering the 180 they pulled with the pacific DLC which featured actual WW2 like footage instead of the history reimagined stuff in the BFV reveal trailer + campaign.

    The great thing about games set in the future eras is that they are much more free to do create whatever they like.

    I am optimistic that whatever the people who work for DICE believe, they have learned that certain stuff does not sell them games. They are not exactly Hollywood which can apparently fail several times in a row and still look for the next franchise to alter beyond recognition.

    If DICE were to fail with BF2042 as they did with BFV, they will be Westwood-ed shortly after.


  • @Rope wrote:


    I'm not asking to introduce features into the game that would promote any current-day political movements nor to remove them.
    I'm asking whether they have added, or plan to add, features of the sort.


    That's clear.

    I'd be amazed if it would be possible from DICE or by other means to give you the details you require because such themes could be anywhere, in the story, in badges, who knows, and to give you an overview that would answer definitively one way or the other would reveal far more pre-launch than any publisher would be prepared to do.

    One person's 'politics' is another person's 'world building'.

    And whilst for me the likelihood of there being anything problematic is close to zero, your mileage may differ.

    I think the only rational choice, given that this is important to you, is to wait until after a) the beta, or b) launch, and then ask again. 🤔

  • ChugKendall's avatar
    ChugKendall
    5 years ago

    @SofaJockeyUK  wrote: "And whilst for me the likelihood of there being anything problematic is close to zero, your mileage may differ."

    My 'mileage' usually does, unfortunately, these days.

    @SofaJockeyUKwrote: "I think the only rational choice, given that this is important to you, is to wait until after a) the beta, or b) launch, and then ask again."

    I will. Have no doubt.

  • UP_Hawxxeye's avatar
    UP_Hawxxeye
    Legend
    5 years ago

    @SofaJockeyUKYeah one cannot please everyone.
    I believe that what people talk about when they use the term "politics" is taking a side in modern controversies by making poorly thought inclusions in a work.
    Stuff like those in Baldur's gate siege of dragonspear (This video and its 2 other parts are a great and chill analysis into what ticks people off )

    That said I think BF2042 will be fine in that regard. No campaign to write a bad story at and generally no nonsense design.

  • Fringerunner's avatar
    Fringerunner
    Seasoned Ace
    5 years ago

    @Rope You honestly think governments are the only ones who can censure?.

    Fine, I'll bite.

    As i mentioned before, i have no issue with you basing your purchase on something potentially offensive to you is in the game, but stating your "terms for purchase" is advocating censoring of the content you don't like, no matter if you can accept that or not.

    If you had left it at "Hey, i'm just wondering if battlefield is going to include support for certain political issues or not, as i'd rather not have it", or just left it with your OP header, i wouldn't have any cause to reply.

    That's not what you did though, and you even gave an example of a game that was unacceptable to you.

    You also claim that previous games weren't politicized, even though as far back as i remember people have had clan or personal avatars with everything from supportive profile pics to just generally or horribly offensive ones, so again, no dice, and people have been temp or permabanned for avatars (even forum ones back when that's all we had) or guild patches as long as I've been playing, we may have been playing different games.

    I'll elaborate, on the off chance you might actually want to understand my reasoning.

    You set personal terms for buying a game, no problem so far.
    You then claim one of those terms is no censorship, shaky ground.
    You then argue that the best solution is to just remove all traces of what you don't like or are indifferent about (or as it turns out, hate) regardless of cause or relevance, because that would be "fair", based on the last post.
    These are all stances by the way.
    At this point the bottom falls out of the boat, no mind reading required either.

    Here's the thing, it's fair *to you*, it's not fair to any other player that might disagree with your stance, it's not fair to those that want no censorship or maybe enjoy politics in a backstory, because what you propose is not adding or removing existing content to fit *your* sole wants which absolutely qualifies as wanting censorship, and that's what makes *that part* of your argument flawed.

    For every you who just wants it all to go away, there's another who feels that things are finally being brought into the open.
    Understanding that is fairly fundamental to understanding what constitutes censorship outside of rudimentary "bad word" filtering or reinforcing personal beliefs.

    *Just* that. The rest is well within the realm of personal opinion, and though i might disagree with some of what you say, that alone isn't a problem for me.

    I'll skip replying to the rest of the ad hominem bits unless you really feel this back-and-forth is worth continuing.

  • Fringerunner's avatar
    Fringerunner
    Seasoned Ace
    5 years ago
    @ChugKendall There's a pretty fundamental difference in discourse between the two of you though.

    I'm not in the same state of "all government sucks!" (grossly simplifying) as some are, but i also don't have a problem with the feeling, i know enough people with similar sentiments, my own personal experience just hasn't lead me there.

    I have of course noted your stance in a couple of other threads, but again, that bit doesn't really bother me, it's a personal opinion that you're not trying to convert anyone to.
    (neither was the OP, to avoid confusion)

    I tend to blame the people, not the system(s), and my personal bugbear is deferring responsibility in politics/leadership, if had to bring one up.
    You blow a (example) $200m budget by 100%, you should not be allowed to be in the building for the next planning meeting imo.
    (could go on a proper rant about requisition and a few other things right now, but another day)

    However, as you yourself point out, personal "code" (which i certainly have too) isn't the same as all other opinions by definition become worthless, and you generally seem to take a fairly rational approach even when fired up, and i honestly don't mind saying "ok, i'm wrong" if someone actually comes up with a good point.

    In this particular thread it's not the disillusionment that bothers me, it's the censorship part in particular.
    It's a word up there with freedom and patriotism that's starting to lose all real meaning due to being co-opted for all kinds of BS, it's up there with someone asking for "the optics of a situation" with a straight face, or briefings with "paradigm" in the presentation.

    (to avoid misunderstanding, none of this is sans the initial bit about misuse of censorship has *any* relevance to the OP)

    I also enjoy a debate, if someone learns something and nobody hates each other afterwards, it was probably worth the time.
  • ChugKendall's avatar
    ChugKendall
    5 years ago

    @Fringerunner All governments suck. Opposing opinions are invalid and unacceptable lol. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

    All joking aside, I do try to be rational, logical and even-keeled, and sometimes people think that I'm upset when really I'm not. There has only been one instance here where I got a tiny bit worked up, and the post actually seemed a lot harsher than my actual feelings at the time, because I was very passionate about what I had to say. It's hard to convey your true emotional state, especially a calm one, through a message board post, because you can't hear a person's vocal delivery (tone and volume), as if they were actually speaking it.

    You and I can agree that the constant pressure that is being put on companies, these days, can sometimes be outrageous, disingenuous, misinformed, borne of an entitled mindset, agenda-driven, etc., but that still doesn't meet the definition of censorship. EA & DICE can laugh in everyone's face and still make the most outrageous and offensive game that they want to, and no one can--or should--stop them from doing it, so they aren't being censored in any way.

    Pressured? Yes. Censored? No.

  • Fringerunner's avatar
    Fringerunner
    Seasoned Ace
    5 years ago
    @ChugKendall Haha, i can live with that.

    In fairness i agree completely regarding the actual situation regarding EA/Dice, something i tried to clarify in my second post to the OP.

    Only thing i had an issue with was essentially that the person was requesting censoring of certain content, while at the same time claiming censorship is bad (which i also generally agree with, though like most things in life, not a straight yes/no answer depending on context).

    It was in no way a "leave poor EA/Dice alone" post, i suspect the only monitoring they do in threads like this is a few of the mods seeing if they need to pull out the fire hoses or CS to settle people down if it goes overboard.
  • TomaSkTemplar's avatar
    TomaSkTemplar
    5 years ago

    as to the regards of political propaganda in games ?

    or bf games ?

    1942 had none, no campaign to sell a narrative.

    Vietnam, was historical, no propaganda basically except from generally accepted historical views, no political propaganda narratives

    2 no narrative, officially, but I would say DICe had to have some contacts regarding possible future events from people that you generally wont access if youre not a 'state employee'.

    2142 if you will did contain mild globalwarmist stuff, but so much into the impossible to know future, that it was just something to make something to resemble battlefront 2 and space ship boarding etc. If you will, it already was political activism.

    bfbc2 camapign was plain russophobia, murricans saving the planet from evil bad russians. 2010. (western hostility toward Russia was evident clear as day as of 08.08.08)

    bc 3 didnt play

    bf 4 Obama 'pivot to Asia' the campaign being basically about hypothetical meddling in Chinese internal affairs, classical propaganda hit piece. (2013 ?)

    bf 1 I had no expansions played/bought so I dont know, except that there were racist overtones - I as central European do not have a state that has colonial exploitation, slavery, as the modus operandi, currently same colonialism is applied to my country by freedom-loving corporate West. But the media is in western hands and they all cry in unison Russia bad !  Considering they are foreign entities working for foreign, (evil) interest, against ours and our future, I understand their motives, but they are not good. Pushing an ideology that seeks to make us feel inferior to the West and bow to their cultural colonialism is an insult nonstop. Some would call it meddling in internal affairs. Pouring of western elites guilt on us easterners as some universal enslavement technique is hollow.

    bf 5 politically was a show of nihilism. Empty from the inside, full of it on the outside 🙂 I mean, sure, some people love to throw nihilism as an insult, against their opponents when arguments run out.

    What I want to say is, that I would generally like to say that it is always those rich who can never fill themselves with enough money, act as a force for destruction. I guess that would be correct, but only partial answer. It is the masses of people who seem to either not want or not care between right and wrong, as long as they get to 'benefit', also not understanding that from doing evil, having a stance of emptiness, not caring about right vs wrong, not having a righteous moral order also with compassion for the sinner, not for the sin, ones own as well as others. To condone or say that it does not matter in your society is utterly wrong, because you do not live in a vacuum, where the wrongs done to others or to others dont affect you at all, because they do even if indirectly. You are thus responsible for yourself as well as for others especially when they do not understand what they are thinking/doing. When I do that, I try my best, but most people are not really understanding. They see me patronizing and trying to control them. Being completely unhinged and being told about whats good and not so good ? Is that not an act of you trying to help a person ? Like telling a young girl to control herself instead of suffering for her immature decisions while being around 15 when hormones work hard ? And I barely missed the thing, where western elites, like some Dr. Mengele want to sterilize children and do some terrible experiments like these new eugenicists that have no respect for life.

    But, lets buy some media, like, all of them and tell the willing obedient masses that you have discovered some ''new' 'scientific' 'truths'', while at the same time denying that there is any Truth to begin with. Underlying motive then, is rebellion against God. Political ideologies as its offspring are just ambience. The real war is for your soul and where you will spend your eternity. Spirit of the world and Spirit of the Most High are not compatible. God changes things primarily on the inside, the worldly one does on the outside, on the surface. One is of Truth, the other is of appearance, illusions, timely. With such perspective, the most important freedom one needs is freedom from sin. The more one does bad, the more stained and scarred on the inside. After a time one might not even resemble oneself. And these things are not really of ones imagination, but of reality that is set apart from the physical, so-called 'real'. Truth did reveal itself, it was not 'scientifically' found. When Truth sets you free, from misconceptions and lies you fed yourself, or were fed, you will see why you are loved and that you are made because God loved you, because God did not create anything he hated. God is the God of freedom and of order. God does not force to obey, anybody. He respects your freedom that much. The world on the other hand, wants to enslave you, keep you in its merciless grip. God is merciful, just, the worldly world promotes the violent, instead of rightesou law they insiset on twisting in into a mockery, in their image. You are basically free to decide who you want to serve. If you will, you will find God, the Most High, Holy Trinity. In doing so, you will get to know that old snake and how he really hates you, you, made in the image of God.

    One could say that I went off-topic, well, not quite. I did write some 'propaganda' if you will 🙂 it is just completely contrary to the worldly mainstream propaganda that would have you choked in hopelessness, fear, constraining your ability to think freely without shame. All one needs to do is look at who it is who preaches the so-called 'new' 'morals'. It is not people who suffered their whole lives because they believed in Truth by their deeds also, but generally people who are well off, who did not bother taking up their cross as a sign of salvation, instead choosing to run away from it.

    I recently spoke to a person who teaches at a technical university, a cousin of mine and her 'friend', both PhD, not wed. My own title is not that, but I did spend 7 years in the university, so I am very familiar with many of either the professors or lesser guys that do much of the work with students.

    I spoke indirectly to both of them, I claimed, to another person who tries to get a degree (we do not have expensive university by any means, your first one daily study is paid by the state)

    I said, do not be under the impression that they teach wisdom there in the university. That PhD. guy did not say anything, but his body reacted, because I told that there are many 'titled debils'. You might make it through it, whether somebody constantly helps you or you jump in the groupthink. Writing your own work without anybody elses work is like near-impossible.

    Especially when the whole system rejects you. You are strange, you question our ideas, 'we claim the same but we do otherwise'. We like obedience especially when logically unsound.

    My time in university was time where I suffered immensely. I did not submit to morally reprehensible group, I was emotionally assaulted pretty much, all the time for standing up to what I believe is right. When I did not forgive those numbskulls, I responded with cold logic and basically disgust. They surely were below me, but I was thinking that I really did something wrong for them not accepting me. (at first, I did not understand that they could be that trashy as people) I was older than most of my roommates, I was actually interested in the subjects, I really wanted to learn. I did not do the thing for the academic title. I did have sometimes not so-correct exchanges with the teachers, who themselves were so afraid for their job that it screamed. I was in the political science department and there we did have some folks paid for by the US to spew some proper russophobia though. Majority of the teachers were however really top notch in my book. Non-ideological.  Discussions with these were really heart-warming, apart from those US-owned apparatchiks at the helm of the institute, who werent people in search for fact, truth as best as possible, these were to fill an agenda and get a paycheck, sometimes on air in US-owned corporate propaganda media. So, there, was a so-called, former communist, who turned to a 'neo-communist'. I was once in his room in the university and above the door from the inside, high-up, there was a mockery, blasphemous, disgusting caricature of the Last Supper. Otherwise a great manipulator, this teacher guy. Not to teach others to use their own brain, only repeat what he says. He said otherwise. Said one thing, did another. He once bragged about his learned witchcraft abilities. Most students did not really get who this person was.

    Witchcraft is of the evil, so when such a person preaches the so-called new morals, he has sold his soul for cheap. Truth does not matter to such a person. When you say that youre not interested in hoemongering or any unclean stuff in the student housing, that was when they started to pay attention, as if they were insulted. I was not one of them. And I did not group with anybody, had to do everything by 'myself'.

    Ive had plenty of propaganda to listen to and question it., logically destroy it. This guy that I mentioned, was teaching 'climate change' how we were to give up sovereignty for this guys cult friends. He called the former Hungarian citizen, certain Gyorgy S. a philanthrope. Great. :D  So much searching for truth by rejecting God in the first place.

    That guy caused me most trouble, had me repeat a year, because I did not write to agree to his 'scientific' ideas. A year later, I had incredible amount of disgust for this person, so I let somebody else write that few pages of sheet for me, whatever, It was so generalist full of nothingburger. This is when you get ideology taught for fact, instead of fact. Ideology is trying to impose a worldview that has huge holes in it.

    This is like me, a central or 'eastern' european, being told that white folks worldwide are responsible for slavery (undeserved guilt being thrown at me as well, lol) against other 'races', only non-white ones. I guess most of you know that contradiction in this is great. It comes from a viewpoint that sees race as some important determining factor and that races are only skin-color based. (something that for real-based nationality based on how one looks/speas is so much more than about color) This screams of an ideology that is based most likely on hatred and division to be based on skin color only. What fairy tales follow is not important. So, take , my context, these ideologues would want me to be enslaved by guilt for things that none of any of my relatives/ancestors or who knows what, ever did. No slavery, nothing. Yet these unruly people do not see their contradictions to reality a problem to start thinking that they are not actually in the right. What do these people do ? They double down, because they have to be right. If you do not agree or resist them, then they are insulted by your 'backwardness', or how they identify their own faults on others via projection. What is also more important, si that this ideology shows that whoever came up with it is really racist to the core, or wishes it to be a division issue. Subversion. It shows that colonial thinking there is very much alive, while claiming otherwise. This is when western european politicians come to us to 'enlighten' us with their hostile stupidity. It means also that they believe to be our superiors, betraying their message. They want colonies, servants, empires, but say that they are the opposite.

    This university teacher was also telling us that we throw too much stuff into our rivers and that we have to get hyper eco-cultist. Because he said so. Because he teached/es at a university, his position gives much credence to what he says,because not everybody knows the reality of powermongering and other bs going on there like in politics, so much focus on academic appearance, but not in quality human interaction that does not impose boss vs serf mentality.

    So, I do not have any river near myself, I do not throw or make much garbage at all. I do not buy things I do not need as well. That guy would tell me some other absurd reason why his cult needs to be listened to, because he is a member. And the endless notions of supposed problems that were never a problem ? A supposed solution to a supposed problem ? Yea, even get paid for that, get praised.

    Whenever this guy started talking, I was really wondering, where did he learn that crap, who told him. A wicked and stupid person teaching decades at a university. There was nobody to tell him to get his head checked, so I understood this guy was just misled, so I tried to look at him as another person who simply got lost whether willingly or by error.

    You can propagate truth, you can also propagate lies. Propaganda is only how. Not what. Deception is not necessarily 'propaganda', the message is, at least according to how I understand it.

  • UP_Hawxxeye's avatar
    UP_Hawxxeye
    Legend
    5 years ago

    @TomaSkTemplarYou forgot to say about how the cult is redefining the words related to discrimination and psychology to fit their opinions and in the process confuse the heck out of everyone else.

    How can there ever be communication if there is no agreed meaning between the terms used

  • EA_Rtas's avatar
    EA_Rtas
    Icon for Community Manager rankCommunity Manager
    5 years ago

    Okay folks I believe this thread has gone far enough. Political discussion isn't permitted here on the forum as is pointed out in the forum rules. With that said I'm going to close this thread off. I thank you for keeping things civil but this isn't the place for this type of discussion.

About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion

Discuss the latest news and game information around Battlefield 2042 in the community forums.16,235 PostsLatest Activity: 3 hours ago