Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
I mean.
I made it hideable with a click.
If Dorku was offended, (Or someone else somehow?) I'm sorry about that, but I'm not actually going to apologize for writing the thing in itself; nobody had to read it, and the nature of it was pretty well telegraphed.
Also, it wasn't that I didn't think they didn't understand indoctrination theory, it's that I didn't think they understood why people took to indoctrination theory. Because they literally said that. They called it "inexplicably popular", and, that's what that means.
edited 29th May '16 5:31:41 PM by RaichuKFM
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
Well, for me, I'd say it was "inexplicably popular" because I see it as extremely depressing, contradicted by canon (the Vendetta AI could detect indoctrinated individuals) and offering even less closure than the original endings did. For me, those factors trump any positive aspects of such an ending, and while it would definitely seem that others don't share that outlook, I don't really understand why that might be the case.
edited 29th May '16 5:45:27 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
I mean, I don't like it either, but I get why people do?
Because the closure of the ending is already shot, to them, and what they want closure for now are the problems the ending introduced?
It's like if someone turns to one of the meta explanations of [S] Act 7, not because that provides a better close to the characters' arcs, or the Quests, or whatever it was they wanted out of the ending, but because it provides a better explanation for the ending itself.
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
New account is voidify
The ending is like Lord English
: part planning, part the reader's own interpretation, part ambiguity, and part Total Fucking Bullshit* . Some see the first and second and say "Time to theorize about how this is Genius!", some see the second and third and say "Time to write a fanwork about what happens on C1 Earth!", some see the third and fourth and yell "GOD DAMMIT ANDREW HUSSIE". All are valid reactions.
edited 29th May '16 5:58:01 PM by SmartGirl333
@Raichu: Overlooking that your definition of "not too long ago" is, as far as I can tell, "just about two years", here's a brief summary of my problems with both.
Indoctrination: I find it unconvincing because indoctrination doesn't really do that. It mostly causes people to make bad decisions through convincing-to-them logic that ends with the Reapers gaining the upper hand. It's shown to be a tool of the Reapers as a group, rather than the Catalyst specifically - they seem to play on whatever insecurities the character has, not program them to fear AI. If the paragon Shepard I usually play, who consistently supports AI rights, was indoctrinated, it would not manifest as spontaneously going back on that belief; it would take some of Shepard's other personality traits and exploit those to weaken the overall alliance. I think it's much more coherent to simply see that aspect of the ending as a writing error.
Inversion: I find it unconvincing because I find it creates an entirely new mechanic to explain something with a much more reasonable explanation - namely, explaining Rose's going grimdark with some new effect that was never seen before and is never seen again when the horrorterrors are right there. It also explains post-Scratch Rose's manifestation of it better, because post-Scratch versions of characters only manifest god-tier powers sometimes, and most of those seem connected to their core classpect and not any modification thereof - but all post-Scratch versions seem to get what they wanted pre-Scratch, and one of Rose's favourite things was occult lore, which we know is tied to the horrorterrors. It just strikes me as a much more coherent explanation without needing to invent entirely new systems that are never mentioned before and never show up again except in an in-character line from a character who is a parody of the fanbase as a whole - including the ones who are way too into their fan theories, to the point where they lose the ability to acknowledge that they have fan theories and convince themselves they are speakers of canonical truth, no matter how out-there they get.
And I tend to interpret lengthy responses to jokes as intended sincerely, because it took me years to get out of the habit of nitpicking every sentence, so I may be projecting a bit here. Sorry.
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
It's okay; sorry that the joke wasn't very clear, on my part. Also, two years? Huh. I might have read it more recently than that, and then forgotten that I'd read it in an old comment, I guess?
Also, yeah, indoctrination theory isn't very good. I never really looked into it much, I could just get why people were scrabbling for an explanation for it, even a bad one, if that makes sense.
Also, I mean, Calliope's in-character statement was a statement of fact, that we can verify with evidence? Sometimes she's wrong, but those are generally when she's a lot less certain of it in the first place, because she isn't preaching the facts of her book, which is a bit silly to doubt, since it's like... Stuff Rose put together through collated evidence, which presumably came from evidence, in-game literature, and her Seer powers. Also, even with inversion, it's still "Horrorterror influence" that was why Rose inverted. Inversion is just the how.
But, okay, those make more sense.
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Mr. Clueless
You know what makes pointless arguments even better? Pointless arguments with walls of text.
De Romanīs, lingua Latina gloriosa non fuī.
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
I apologize for nothing!
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Funny but not helpful
And nor should you, with that avatar
Forever liveblogging the Avengers
I would argue that Calliope's arguments are, for the most part, plausible statements that can, when evidence is available, be verified. But that still requires the evidence; "Calliope said it" is proof only that Calliope is capable of saying things.
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
Well, I mean.
I think we can take Calliope on her word about passive and active classes, for instance, even without other evidence- Because that Calliope is saying those things is evidence. It does not just demonstrate that Calliope is capable of saying those things; rather, it demonstrates that Calliope thinks those things are true.
Which means that the book led Calliope to believe those things were true.
Which means that Rose wrote something that would lead Calliope to believe those things were true.
Which means that Rose's sources (Presumably, Seer powers, in-game literature, accounts from others of their Sessions) led Rose to write something that would lead Calliope to believe that thing was true.
I don't know why there would be significant corruption of the facts from Rose's sources to Calliope- Since it does not seem something Gamzee would censor important details of- And Calliope seems more hesitant about stating theories as facts, than she did the classpect stuff. She's been wrong before, of course, but generally not when she was sure of something that she got from the book.
But, that tangent aside, I think there's more evidence for inversion than just Rose. By... a lot? But, taking Rose and Calliope together, inversion is basically a confirmed thing? Rose was acting Voidy. Light and Void are almost certainly opposites. Calliope says that under the right conditions (including corruption by outside entities, like the Horrorterrors) a player can act like a player of the opposite Aspect and of a "sufficiently different" Class. Granted, Calliope went on to say that the criteria was mostly just activity vs. passivity, so the thought of Classes having definite inversion pairs is more of a stretch.
Because, that's the thing, some form of inversion is basically definitely a thing; exactly how 'strong' it is, and how much it resembles the generally proposed version, is more theoretical, but doubting that any of it exists at all seems, well... It seems like people forgot that one Calliope quote, honestly.
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
Rose's powers are not, primarily, focused on factual accuracy; they are focused on outcome. This is how Light has always been portrayed: a way to skew the results (whether by "stealing luck" like Vriska, or identifying the optimal path like Rose). If writing complete bullshit leads to a better overall outcome, then Rose's powers will sign off on complete bullshit. Now, you can certainly argue that most of the time the truth will lead to a better outcome than bullshit - but we can't know. Not without verification. And so far the only verification is the exact incident that the inversion hypothesis was developed to explain.
And no, it isn't "basically definitely a thing". We know that Rose exhibited Void effects, fine. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there's a switch that can flip Light to Void and every other Aspect has its own distinctive switch. It could just as easily be that Anyone + Horrorterrors = Void. The horrorterrors are enigmatic entities lurking in a no-space that has to be mouthlasered to hell and back to even be chartable; that's pretty Voidy. Think of it not as an inversion, but as an overlay.
edited 29th May '16 8:33:55 PM by CountDorku
Well, maybe the Horrorterrors can only get such a foothold on Light players? I mean, it's a pretty small sample size we have here, but it's one possibility....
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
Okay, but, that's why I said taking Rose with Calliope.
Because Calliope mentions that it manifests as an opposite Aspect thing.
I'd also point out that Rose was exhibiting traits of an inverse role before she went grimdark; that was just the final tipping point into a full inversion.
I'll again point to the Hussie quotes about Rose (and Jade) switching from playing an active (for Jade, passive) role to a passive (active) one later in their Session, which I'm still too lazy to bother finding.
I don't see Light as simply representing fortune, nor do I think Rose's entire thing is finding the most fortunate path, because classpects are broad, blah blah, and for a veritable bevy of other reasons, I don't buy your bit about the book potentially being bullshit.
It... seems unnecessarily high levels of doubt? Somehow, it was the most fortunate path to shove bullshit in the book, so that Calliope thought inversion was a thing, when instead Horrorterrors can just make people Voidy? And Rose was Seer powering this information ex nihilo instead of using the powers to gather it from elsewhere? And B2 Rose simply happened to have voidy majyyks (despite every other manifestation of post-Scratch classpect powers seeming to match up with Aspect) because that's what Rose really wanted, and this doesn't mean the potential for doing that was in her little black heart all along, even without the Horrorterror influence?
There's a line where doubt becomes unreasonable, and it's probably where the alternative case is leagues more dubious.
edited 29th May '16 8:46:04 PM by RaichuKFM
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
New account is voidify
Light is relevance, as well as fortune (in both meanings of the word). Yes, I am basically taking Tex Talks' word as gospel. Except his pronunciations of Equius and Hussie. Those are wrong.for reference
edited 29th May '16 8:56:56 PM by SmartGirl333
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
I am, of course, a devout Mumpslim.
...Okay let's not jump down that hole again.
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
New account is voidify
What theorizer are you referring to?
Nine thousand nine hundred eighty-two reasons.
Impossiblah, who I guess is an ex-theorist, for Homestuck.
The Mumpslim bit is from when he jokingly mentioned his self-centered philosophy of Impslam. The bad puns escalated, and the entire thread is going to hell because of it.
Mostly does better things now. Key word mostly. Writes things, but you'll never find them. Or you can ask.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I'm far more bothered by the way he pronounces Sburb as es-burb instead of suburb.
edited 29th May '16 9:03:25 PM by Moth13
So...I'm expected to take it on faith, basically. Faith that Rose's book is 100% right about everything. Faith that Calliope is interpreting it correctly. Faith that Light possesses abilities that are not shown in the comic.
Yeah, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Hey, I do that too.
edited 29th May '16 9:04:17 PM by CountDorku
Well we know for a fact that the book has been compromised by Gamzee, so I don't think taking things from it with grains of salt is unreasonable. For example, classes being gender exclusive was later ran back by Hussie, so in-universe we can blame Calliope saying they were on Gamzee.
edited 29th May '16 9:07:11 PM by Moth13
New account is voidify
I take the gender exclusivity as merely gender bias. Any class is technically possible for anyone regardless of their gender, but a male is much less likely to be, say, a Maid than a female is. Master classes have such a huge bias that it is almost impossible for there to be a male Muse or a female Lord, but nothing is completely hard-line impossible.
The ess-burb thing annoys me too, but "suburb" is just as wrong- sburb does not have a vowel before the first b. I basically pronounce it as spur with a b tagged onto the end.
edited 29th May '16 9:21:50 PM by SmartGirl333
When the characters drop a bunch of exposition about the in-universe mechanics, the burden of proof does not lie on those of trying to argue that it's accurate.
So, I mean, yes, take on faith, the same way we take it on faith that Aranea was more or less correct about how Cherub reproduction works, and how we take on faith that Dirk was right about how the apocalypse happened. One needs to cite actual evidence to overturn stuff like that, even though it's just talk from a character whose sources are questionable.
edited 29th May '16 9:39:00 PM by Gilphon
Raichu, while your bit about Mass Effect 3's ending was fairly interesting, I think that maybe you should ask before you go into such lengthy detail on an offhand comment, as some people might find it condescending.
Also, what about their comment made you think that they didn't understand indoctrination theory?
As for jokes...well, not everyone's going to find them funny.
edited 29th May '16 5:15:31 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!