It has been proven, it's the type of society we currently live in as you may not have noticed but blackmail and coercion are both illegal. There's no "philosophical stance" on whether or not blackmail is morally justifiable because it simply isn't in any situation.
Well, Block shows you there is such stance and demonstrates society uses legitimized forms of blackmail to achieve certain goals, so obviously even by today standards there are morally justifiable instances. And who says today standards of society are well enough balanced and infallible?
No society will ever be only divided into two categories, nor did I claim so, that being said however, if there's a society where blackmail is entirely legal and everyone functions on a "too bad, you should've never told anyone about your secrets" type of mentality then the vast majority of humans will turn to blackmail at one point or another, and the overall threat of blackmail will make utterly sure that trust doesn't exist.
Most likely they will create certain taboo topics and will guard them. Because that's what people do, when they have free hand with their way of life and are pressured to establish any group rules.
You're somehow trying to argue some high-horse socialistic moralist viewpoint that disregards any part of actual 'society' in favour of some skewed view of personal justice where no secret is allowed to exist and blackmailers for some reason HAS to exist for the status quo, atleast that's how it comes off.
I just think that blackmailers are playing unconsciously supporting role of scattered corps maintaining the established social order. They rely on what is generally considered right and wrong in society and use it for their own benefits, taking aim at people who don't follow the rules and by doing so, they are helping to hold morality code in society. Whatever that code really is. Blackmailers are for status quo and against social change as such. They are conservative force, really.
Also, you absolutely can blackmail people for peanuts or jaywalking, because what you might think is inconsequential doesn't mean that the person getting blackmailed does, this is also a fallacy you fall into when you disregard the human in the equation.
Well, I guess it's possible to blackmail a person for a jaywalking, perhaps if that person is a policeman who tries to make a career and get a promotion to higher position in power and in his former job issued many fines for jaywalking. If publishing that could harm his chances for getting new post, the blackmailer can offset social stigma and his own profit and blackmailee knows there is some instance that keeps standards he compromised.
Individually people may not like being blackmailed, but on collective level it's just another way of keeping them accountable for their deeds, even when government and official justice branch is ineffective.
I don't think many people here are arguing the actual blackmail story arc outside of just disliking it, but rather pushing against the notion that the blackmail is somehow 'good' and morally correct. If you are solely arguing that the blackmail arc is somehow integral for the story then that's one thing, but the way to put things makes it seem like you are arguing for the sake of the blackmail itself being justified and good which is where I think most people here start to disagree.
At the moment "Eruption Imminent" is going into
"black students duplo-futas on university" protests direction and game portrays "steam brewing in the kettle" society dynamics, so I don't see how blackmail arc fit into something completely different than forcing Ashe to take a stand for duplos, as she is one of them and has her own kind of societal pressure on herself. She can be blackmailed and blackmail works, because duplo stigma in whole society portrayed in the game works as well.
But we don't know why blackmailer stress tests Ashe and what is real reason behind that.
We don't know if duplo stigma is grounded in reality. Maybe they are really succubus-like, can't control their lust, and sooner or later most of them will turn into notorious family breakers, prostitutes and sex offenders, so bad fame is well deserved? At the moment, we only know one duplo in teenage years and Ashe may be minority within minority. So it's too early to say who is right, and who is wrong on this matter. We just know some part of demographics and their worldviews, but nothing really solid to decide for our own.
If duplo stigma is deserved, society can defend its well being by issuing warning about duplos being horny troublemakers that are bound to demoralize your friends and close ones, so beware. And if so, blackmailers conservative actions may have some merit.
I like that the game at the moment holds its ambiguity on that issue and everyone in the audience can think whatever, as it's going to be unchecked. But story can twist in both directions and Ashe may demoralize Fiona, Delilah or even her own sister.
You do realize that what you just said doesn't disprove any of what I said?
A vigilante working outside is evil because they're someone who has decided that they alone should become the judge, jury and the executioner all at once. Regardless of what 'punishment' they decide, it is inherently evil to shove their skewed views onto others and harm others for the sake of it.
I don't think so. It's terrible when only officials can partake in serving justice. If so, civilians, let's call them, people within society outside political power don't have proper incentives for keeping their moral compass sharp and react when justice is being ommited or neglected.
Vigilantes help to compromise ineffective powers, because if those are passive, someone else needs to do their job. Otherwise nobody will do anything and injustice wins. So I think vigilantes and blackmailers are auxilliary, bottom, self-organized
Levée en masse force. Good men with pitchforks and torches.
I think you're misunderstanding the point of what I wrote. You're saying that Ashe is fine to be subjected and outed likely because you believe that it's good for her character development and very much underestimating how easily humans can hate (which again ties into your fallacy when removing humans from equations).
And why shouldn't a protagonist have a safe space in a story? This is something I've mentioned to the dev itself before but if you have a protagonist that CONSTANTLY just lose, where every single situation ends up being extremely detrimental to them, that isn't going to be an enjoyable story because you encounter viewer fatigue, and it's something a fair few people in here are already struggling with.
Dystopias have their fans. I don't see problems with Orwell's "1984" and that book is something just like you've described. I don't know on what trajectory Ashe really is, and I'm gonna judge that when story will be concluded. At the moment VN's messaging is quite open to every option. It can end in a downer (Ashe is going to commit suicide as well, as another bullied duplo and player could decide about it), in many neutral ways or in some heroic arc. I don't know. I'm going to judge it as a whole, when it's going to be concluded in its final form.
Right now, I have a lot of fun with it and every interpretation of portrayed facts and events.
And you again seem to misunderstand my point there, I was not arguing that one shouldn't tell a story like that, but rather that you woefully underestimate just how violent and brutal those years of LGBTQ+ were and to elaborate once again why that is an issue; the blackmail means that Ashe's personal safety is in question and the people around her.
Well, I don't know if that game won't turn into satirical mockery of social movements and their struggles either. It can go lighthearted or smug, turn into parody or do many other bizarre things in tone. So I'm open with that as well. If it's going to be funny, even with blackmail arc, so be it.
I understand why you're not putting any weight on blackmail as you clearly remove any and all humans when you start to question morality, which doesn't really work as with any system that functions with humans in mind, you have to actually factor in the humans into that system.
I don't even know why anybody would like to treat this story so damn seriously and moan about evil portrayal, like we would live still in times of Hays code, where you couldn't show something or you were instructed how to do it.
Let's assume for a moment blackmail is ultimate evil, worse than rape or paedophilia and has no social functions at all. OK. But what's wrong with evil portrayal in media. Killing is wrong, yet people play shooters all the time. So why blackmail causes such butthurt here.
I think Morrigan can tell that story whatever way she wants to. She can turn morality upside down in her creation or do questionanle things to messaging, if that is going to serve some artistic purpose or even make someone think after such provocation. It's fiction. Who cares what people do expect from this? What makes art memorable is when it surpasses our expectation and go in unexpected direction.
It can start as usual tolerance teaching piece and turn into tongue in cheek "Birth of Nation" with futa-KKK at the end. If it plays twist well, who cares? It's just entertainment.
