[004]
wikibby
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I know the debate about what\'s actually presented as \
to:
I know the debate about what\\\'s actually presented as \\\"right and moral\\\" in Vesperia is still ongoing even a whole flippin\\\' decade later, but this entry seemed to me like ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike:
* ProtagonistCenteredMorality: Though the game tries to present [[GreyandGreyMorality a moral dilemma]] between Yuri and Flynn, the narrative clearly favors Yuri and ultimately vindicates him.
** Even when Estelle and the others learn that he killed Ragou and Camore, they side with Yuri and continue to trust him. So does Flynn, despite noting Yuri\\\'s actions were criminal. Whereas Sodia is made out to be [[InspectorJavert the \\\'bad guy\\\']] for being the only one to [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong insist that Yuri face charges.]] Not only do the others take Yuri\\\'s side again[[note]]during the \\\"Yuri and Sodia\\\" and \\\"Sodia and Witcher\\\" field skits[[/note]], so does her captain. Each time she confronts Yuri, Flynn either makes \\\'\\\'Sodia\\\'\\\' stand down, or he has her leave the room. Whereas if Yuri talks down to Sodia, Flynn says nothing - even when Yuri is blatantly disrespecting her right in front of him.
** In the final act, she attempts to reconcile with Yuri for [[spoiler: trying to kill him]]. Yuri finally admits that she\\\'s right about him being a criminal, but he still berates her and rejects her apology. So while, Sodia and Yuri are both guilty of taking the law into their own hands by resorting to murder/attempted murder, only Sodia\\\'s attempt is [[HeWhoFightsMonsters presented negatively]], while Yuri\\\'s actions are deemed to be [[IDidWhatIHadToDo for the greater good.]]
I would argue that while the party obviously forgives and trusts Yuri, and he never faces punishment for the murders, no one actually says what he did was \\\'\\\'right\\\'\\\', and several people explicitly say it was screwed up and he shouldn\\\'t have done that. The game doesn\\\'t quite give a clear answer as to what was right, so I find it hard to say that that means \\\"the narrative vindicates Yuri.\\\" I feel like the only thing the game 100% presents as \\\"for the greater good\\\" is the decision to sacrifice the blastia and at that point they explicitly go to the world powers and ask them to cooperate.
As for Sodia, the problems with her come off (to me at least) as she\\\'s single-mindedly trying to confront Yuri when there\\\'s bigger stuff like Alexei to worry about. I\\\'m not quite up to her kinda-sorta apology on my playthrough of DE but I thought Yuri\\\'s rejection was because she, like him, tried to take care of things the wrong way even if she\\\'s technically right about the base problem (him not being good for Flynn). This is also phrased as if she just wants to make sure Yuri receives due punishment, but...it\\\'s deeper than that. It\\\'s an obsession as part of her fixation on Flynn, because she thinks he\\\'s a PoisonousFriend to Flynn. That\\\'s the main reason why the game paints her as in the wrong, not just because she wants to arrest Yuri.
didn\\\'t expect to get into these sorts of discussions again ten years later but i guess that\\\'s what a rerelease does. Anyway, if there\\\'s a better way to phrase this (maybe to not quite make Sodia out to be such a martyr - she isn\\\'t, I\\\'m sorry), it can probably still go on the page, I just don\\\'t think this counts for it.
* ProtagonistCenteredMorality: Though the game tries to present [[GreyandGreyMorality a moral dilemma]] between Yuri and Flynn, the narrative clearly favors Yuri and ultimately vindicates him.
** Even when Estelle and the others learn that he killed Ragou and Camore, they side with Yuri and continue to trust him. So does Flynn, despite noting Yuri\\\'s actions were criminal. Whereas Sodia is made out to be [[InspectorJavert the \\\'bad guy\\\']] for being the only one to [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong insist that Yuri face charges.]] Not only do the others take Yuri\\\'s side again[[note]]during the \\\"Yuri and Sodia\\\" and \\\"Sodia and Witcher\\\" field skits[[/note]], so does her captain. Each time she confronts Yuri, Flynn either makes \\\'\\\'Sodia\\\'\\\' stand down, or he has her leave the room. Whereas if Yuri talks down to Sodia, Flynn says nothing - even when Yuri is blatantly disrespecting her right in front of him.
** In the final act, she attempts to reconcile with Yuri for [[spoiler: trying to kill him]]. Yuri finally admits that she\\\'s right about him being a criminal, but he still berates her and rejects her apology. So while, Sodia and Yuri are both guilty of taking the law into their own hands by resorting to murder/attempted murder, only Sodia\\\'s attempt is [[HeWhoFightsMonsters presented negatively]], while Yuri\\\'s actions are deemed to be [[IDidWhatIHadToDo for the greater good.]]
I would argue that while the party obviously forgives and trusts Yuri, and he never faces punishment for the murders, no one actually says what he did was \\\'\\\'right\\\'\\\', and several people explicitly say it was screwed up and he shouldn\\\'t have done that. The game doesn\\\'t quite give a clear answer as to what was right, so I find it hard to say that that means \\\"the narrative vindicates Yuri.\\\" I feel like the only thing the game 100% presents as \\\"for the greater good\\\" is the decision to sacrifice the blastia and at that point they explicitly go to the world powers and ask them to cooperate.
As for Sodia, the problems with her come off (to me at least) as she\\\'s single-mindedly trying to confront Yuri when there\\\'s bigger stuff like Alexei to worry about. I\\\'m not quite up to her kinda-sorta apology on my playthrough of DE but I thought Yuri\\\'s rejection was because she, like him, tried to take care of things the wrong way even if she\\\'s technically right about the base problem (him not being good for Flynn). This is also phrased as if she just wants to make sure Yuri receives due punishment, but...it\\\'s deeper than that. It\\\'s an obsession as part of her fixation on Flynn, because she thinks he\\\'s a PoisonousFriend to Flynn. That\\\'s the main reason why the game paints her as in the wrong, not just because she wants to arrest Yuri.
didn\\\'t expect to get into these sorts of discussions again ten years later but i guess that\\\'s what a rerelease does. Anyway, if there\\\'s a better way to phrase this (maybe to not quite make Sodia out to be such a martyr - she isn\\\'t, I\\\'m sorry), it can probably still go on the page, I just don\\\'t think this counts for it.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I know the debate about what\'s actually presented as \
to:
I know the debate about what\\\'s actually presented as \\\"right and moral\\\" in Vesperia is still ongoing even a whole flippin\\\' decade later, but this entry seemed to me like ComplainingAboutShowsYouDontLike:
* ProtagonistCenteredMorality: Though the game tries to present [[GreyandGreyMorality a moral dilemma]] between Yuri and Flynn, the narrative clearly favors Yuri and ultimately vindicates him.
** Even when Estelle and the others learn that he killed Ragou and Camore, they side with Yuri and continue to trust him. So does Flynn, despite noting Yuri\\\'s actions were criminal. Whereas Sodia is made out to be [[InspectorJavert the \\\'bad guy\\\']] for being the only one to [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong insist that Yuri face charges.]] Not only do the others take Yuri\\\'s side again[[note]]during the \\\"Yuri and Sodia\\\" and \\\"Sodia and Witcher\\\" field skits[[/note]], so does her captain. Each time she confronts Yuri, Flynn either makes \\\'\\\'Sodia\\\'\\\' stand down, or he has her leave the room. Whereas if Yuri talks down to Sodia, Flynn says nothing - even when Yuri is blatantly disrespecting her right in front of him.
** In the final act, she attempts to reconcile with Yuri for [[spoiler: trying to kill him]]. Yuri finally admits that she\\\'s right about him being a criminal, but he still berates her and rejects her apology. So while, Sodia and Yuri are both guilty of taking the law into their own hands by resorting to murder/attempted murder, only Sodia\\\'s attempt is [[HeWhoFightsMonsters presented negatively]], while Yuri\\\'s actions are deemed to be [[IDidWhatIHadToDo for the greater good.]]
I would argue that while the party obviously forgives and trusts Yuri, and he never faces punishment for the murders, no one actually says what he did was \\\'\\\'right\\\'\\\', and several people explicitly say it was screwed up and he shouldn\\\'t have done that. The game doesn\\\'t quite give a clear answer as to what was right, so I find it hard to say that that means \\\"the narrative vindicates Yuri.\\\" I feel like the only thing the game 100% presents as \\\"for the greater good\\\" is the decision to sacrifice the blastia and at that point they explicitly go to the world powers and ask them to cooperate.
As for Sodia, the problems with her come off (to me at least) as she\\\'s single-mindedly trying to confront Yuri when there\\\'s bigger stuff like Alexei to worry about. I\\\'m not quite up to her kinda-sorta apology on my playthrough of DE but I thought Yuri\\\'s rejection was because she, like him, tried to take care of things the wrong way even if she\\\'s technically right about the base problem (him not being good for Flynn). This is also phrased as if she just wants to make sure Yuri receives due punishment, but...it\\\'s deeper than that. It\\\'s an obsession as part of her fixation on Flynn, because she thinks he\\\'s a PoisonousFriend to Flynn.
didn\\\'t expect to get into these sorts of discussions again ten years later but i guess that\\\'s what a rerelease does. Anyway, if there\\\'s a better way to phrase this (maybe to not quite make Sodia out to be such a martyr - she isn\\\'t, I\\\'m sorry), it can probably still go on the page, I just don\\\'t think this counts for it.
* ProtagonistCenteredMorality: Though the game tries to present [[GreyandGreyMorality a moral dilemma]] between Yuri and Flynn, the narrative clearly favors Yuri and ultimately vindicates him.
** Even when Estelle and the others learn that he killed Ragou and Camore, they side with Yuri and continue to trust him. So does Flynn, despite noting Yuri\\\'s actions were criminal. Whereas Sodia is made out to be [[InspectorJavert the \\\'bad guy\\\']] for being the only one to [[TheComplainerIsAlwaysWrong insist that Yuri face charges.]] Not only do the others take Yuri\\\'s side again[[note]]during the \\\"Yuri and Sodia\\\" and \\\"Sodia and Witcher\\\" field skits[[/note]], so does her captain. Each time she confronts Yuri, Flynn either makes \\\'\\\'Sodia\\\'\\\' stand down, or he has her leave the room. Whereas if Yuri talks down to Sodia, Flynn says nothing - even when Yuri is blatantly disrespecting her right in front of him.
** In the final act, she attempts to reconcile with Yuri for [[spoiler: trying to kill him]]. Yuri finally admits that she\\\'s right about him being a criminal, but he still berates her and rejects her apology. So while, Sodia and Yuri are both guilty of taking the law into their own hands by resorting to murder/attempted murder, only Sodia\\\'s attempt is [[HeWhoFightsMonsters presented negatively]], while Yuri\\\'s actions are deemed to be [[IDidWhatIHadToDo for the greater good.]]
I would argue that while the party obviously forgives and trusts Yuri, and he never faces punishment for the murders, no one actually says what he did was \\\'\\\'right\\\'\\\', and several people explicitly say it was screwed up and he shouldn\\\'t have done that. The game doesn\\\'t quite give a clear answer as to what was right, so I find it hard to say that that means \\\"the narrative vindicates Yuri.\\\" I feel like the only thing the game 100% presents as \\\"for the greater good\\\" is the decision to sacrifice the blastia and at that point they explicitly go to the world powers and ask them to cooperate.
As for Sodia, the problems with her come off (to me at least) as she\\\'s single-mindedly trying to confront Yuri when there\\\'s bigger stuff like Alexei to worry about. I\\\'m not quite up to her kinda-sorta apology on my playthrough of DE but I thought Yuri\\\'s rejection was because she, like him, tried to take care of things the wrong way even if she\\\'s technically right about the base problem (him not being good for Flynn). This is also phrased as if she just wants to make sure Yuri receives due punishment, but...it\\\'s deeper than that. It\\\'s an obsession as part of her fixation on Flynn, because she thinks he\\\'s a PoisonousFriend to Flynn.
didn\\\'t expect to get into these sorts of discussions again ten years later but i guess that\\\'s what a rerelease does. Anyway, if there\\\'s a better way to phrase this (maybe to not quite make Sodia out to be such a martyr - she isn\\\'t, I\\\'m sorry), it can probably still go on the page, I just don\\\'t think this counts for it.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
\"Now if she had made a joke about being treated poorly in a Starbucks, that would indeed be a valid example...\"
That seems \'\'ridiculously\'\' specific.
The trope is: \"A \"funny aneurysm\" moment is when a scene, joke, or \'\'\'offhand line\'\'\' that was originally meant to be funny or lighthearted becomes \'\'\'cringeworthy\'\'\' due to the unfortunate and/or traumatic events in future installments/episodes of a work or in real life.\" Emphasis mine. There is \'\'no\'\' reason the line needs to be about how Black people, or any people, are treated in Starbucks.
So, does the line at least illicit a \"cringe\" at the mention of two Black people eager to see a Starbucks, in light of an example where Black people not being treated \'\'welcomely\'\' at a Starbucks has made international news?
Seems [[https://twitter.com/CryingCostas/status/987499860789260288 quite]] [[https://twitter.com/CGordMac/status/988912873920434176 a]] [[https://twitter.com/GordonShuckrow3/status/986940613353492480 few]] [[https://twitter.com/Lazzy_Toro/status/987744472028065792 people]] [[https://twitter.com/Blockdownn/status/987071708887740416 feel]] [[https://twitter.com/search?q=Avengers%20Starbucks&src=typd that way about it.]]
And speaking personally? Yeah, that line makes me wince a little. I mean, not enough to insert \"TRIGGERED\" joke here, but enough to make me FacePalm.
That seems \'\'ridiculously\'\' specific.
The trope is: \"A \"funny aneurysm\" moment is when a scene, joke, or \'\'\'offhand line\'\'\' that was originally meant to be funny or lighthearted becomes \'\'\'cringeworthy\'\'\' due to the unfortunate and/or traumatic events in future installments/episodes of a work or in real life.\" Emphasis mine. There is \'\'no\'\' reason the line needs to be about how Black people, or any people, are treated in Starbucks.
So, does the line at least illicit a \"cringe\" at the mention of two Black people eager to see a Starbucks, in light of an example where Black people not being treated \'\'welcomely\'\' at a Starbucks has made international news?
Seems [[https://twitter.com/CryingCostas/status/987499860789260288 quite]] [[https://twitter.com/CGordMac/status/988912873920434176 a]] [[https://twitter.com/GordonShuckrow3/status/986940613353492480 few]] [[https://twitter.com/Lazzy_Toro/status/987744472028065792 people]] [[https://twitter.com/Blockdownn/status/987071708887740416 feel]] [[https://twitter.com/search?q=Avengers%20Starbucks&src=typd that way about it.]]
And speaking personally? Yeah, that line makes me wince a little. I mean, not enough to insert \"TRIGGERED\" joke here, but enough to make me FacePalm.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
\"Now if she had made a joke about being treated poorly in a Starbucks, that would indeed be a valid example...\"
That seems \'\'ridiculously\'\' specific.
The trope is: \"A \"funny aneurysm\" moment is when a scene, joke, or \'\'\'offhand line\'\'\' that was originally meant to be funny or lighthearted becomes \'\'\'cringeworthy\'\'\' due to the unfortunate and/or traumatic events in future installments/episodes of a work or in real life.\" Emphasis mine. There is \'\'no\'\' reason the line needs to be about how Black people, or any people, are treated in Starbucks.
So, does the line at least illicit a \"cringe\" at the mention of two Black people eager to see a Starbucks, in light of an example where Black people were not treated \'\'welcomely\'\' at a Starbucks has made international news?
Seems [[https://twitter.com/CryingCostas/status/987499860789260288 quite]] [[https://twitter.com/CGordMac/status/988912873920434176 a]] [[https://twitter.com/GordonShuckrow3/status/986940613353492480 few]] [[https://twitter.com/Lazzy_Toro/status/987744472028065792 people]] [[https://twitter.com/Blockdownn/status/987071708887740416 feel]] [[https://twitter.com/search?q=Avengers%20Starbucks&src=typd that way about it.]]
And speaking personally? Yeah, that line makes me wince a little. I mean, not enough to insert \"TRIGGERED\" joke here, but enough to make me FacePalm.
That seems \'\'ridiculously\'\' specific.
The trope is: \"A \"funny aneurysm\" moment is when a scene, joke, or \'\'\'offhand line\'\'\' that was originally meant to be funny or lighthearted becomes \'\'\'cringeworthy\'\'\' due to the unfortunate and/or traumatic events in future installments/episodes of a work or in real life.\" Emphasis mine. There is \'\'no\'\' reason the line needs to be about how Black people, or any people, are treated in Starbucks.
So, does the line at least illicit a \"cringe\" at the mention of two Black people eager to see a Starbucks, in light of an example where Black people were not treated \'\'welcomely\'\' at a Starbucks has made international news?
Seems [[https://twitter.com/CryingCostas/status/987499860789260288 quite]] [[https://twitter.com/CGordMac/status/988912873920434176 a]] [[https://twitter.com/GordonShuckrow3/status/986940613353492480 few]] [[https://twitter.com/Lazzy_Toro/status/987744472028065792 people]] [[https://twitter.com/Blockdownn/status/987071708887740416 feel]] [[https://twitter.com/search?q=Avengers%20Starbucks&src=typd that way about it.]]
And speaking personally? Yeah, that line makes me wince a little. I mean, not enough to insert \"TRIGGERED\" joke here, but enough to make me FacePalm.
