Hi! Has it ever happened to you to have a contructive and interesting discussion with a CA? Did someone of them ever brought up any appreciable argument to support their pov and why the devs should resolve the LTD canonizing C/erith?
I'm actually coming from the umpteenth pointless discussion and I'm realizing that it never happened to me to hear any theory about how a c/erith outcome could fit the story. I'm not even asking for a good theory, at least one theory of any kind. Everytime I try to approach a conversation with logic reasoning I get counterattaked with "proofs" like Airborn Brigade's weddings, and the credists of KH (not an in-game scene...the credits), and it's getting tiresome. They try to validate their preference through this sort of inductive reasoning, picking accurately selected elements, pretending that a deductive countercheck isn't required.
The only semblance of explaination they've ever given to me is that "Aerith breaks Cloud's shell and brings out the best from him". Probably I'm the stupid one here but I never saw this happening in the OG and in the Remake Cloud opens up with pretty much everyone, so... But at least it's something. Except this, absolutely nothing.
Funny you should ask, because my next article that I wanted to write was actually about how difficult it is to have a constructive discussion with Cleriths.No I never really have, except with the ones who either don't really care because they're normal fans who just slightly prefer Aerith, or ones that prefer Aerith, but acknowledge that Tifa is the cannon love interest.
This has a few reasons though.1: Obviously, if they were reasonable, they wouldn't support Clerith. Let me be clear, if you're defending an unreasonable position, it's very likely that you're not reasonable, and therefore, not likely to be able to have a reasonable conversation. You'll also never have a reasonable conversation with someone who thinks the world is flat.2: Their stance is usually based on an emotional attachment rather than arguments, which tends to hinder neutral discourse. This is why they so often call Aerith "Aeris". This is just pure stubbornness. In these cases you basically already have proof that they don't care about the truth, they care about what THEY WANT, so even starting the conversation really has no point. This is also why their response to being told they're wrong is not "interesting, let's talk about that more", but anger, often veiled behind the victim mentality of "why can't you just let people believe what they want to believe".No, why are YOU afraid of talking about this? You're either right, or you're wrong. If you're right, then why are you afraid to talk about it, and if you're wrong, why don't you want to be right?
3: I think that some of them secretly know that their stance is difficult to defend, so they don't actually WANT to have a constructive talk about it. They know that if they have a constructive conversation, that would lead to them having to admit that they're wrong, so they start throwing up road blocks before the conversation even starts.A perfect example of this would again be the conversation I had with Darkmoon, through the use of an example, I asked him to admit that:"Leaving people when you're going to die, even if you know it might make them sad, does not necessarily mean you don't love them"
In response, he said the following:
"I think what you're really trying to do is trying to get me to admit that Cloud really loves and cares for Tifa, but I'm not gonna admit to something that's not true. Cloud does not love Tifa, and he refuses to be compatible with her. He went back to live at the end of AC just for Aerith's sake and no one else."
What happened here is that they didn't want to admit to something that was true, because they were afraid that that might lead to them having to admit that Cloud loves Tifa, further down in the argument. They were afraid to take step 1, because they feared step 10. This is pure intellectual dishonesty born out of uncertainty.
When people care more about not being proven wrong than they care about being right they will sabotage the conversation. This in turn sabotages their own understanding of the subject matter, which is why they support Clerith in the first place, bringing us back to point 2.4: And this is a pretty big one. There are no places to really have this conversation. The LTD is a toxic discussion and has been for a long time, there is a vicious circle here where the harder it becomes to have a reasonable conversation on the matter, the more sick and tired people get, and the less prone they are to be reasonable. This applies to both sides. If you know the other side won't have a good-faith argument you won't feel a lot of motivation to try yourself.Sites know this, so most fansites straight up forbid talking about the LTD. This is one of the reasons I dislike this entire thing. Take reddit as an example, I often see great Cloud/Tifa posts on the cloti subreddit. But you won't see those same posts on the FFVII subreddit, since because of the LTD even showing Tifa and Cloud (or Aerith and Cloud) in a romantic light is basically a banned subject. You're not allowed to criticize other peoples ships, which effectively means you can't discuss them. All of this leads to more annoyance, which means that when discussions DO happen, they're even less likely to be civil.Every platform has problems like that, you can't have a discussion on twitter since you can only do soundbites in 400 characters, and those are never constructive.You can't have a conversation on Youtube, because it's too open and drowned in a sea of casual fans whose opinions are worthless but who will butt in thinking they're properly informed. The LTD thread on thelifestream.net could be seen as a relatively good place to have a civil, informed discussion concerning the LTD. But as a result, Cloti has basically won that discussion there, causing Cleriths to not even go there anymore.As far as I know there are no places that allow you to have a good 1-on-1 conversation about the LTD, it all lacks moderation. Which is why I started this tumblr page, because it's the closest thing I can get to it.There is an inherent bias, because I am doing the moderating, but it's still more productive than the free for all that exists on other platforms. People have to be more interested in discussion in order to come here, they have to have an actual question, and since I decide what I respond to, they're incentivized to try and ask productive questions, rather than questions that are aimed at earning points with people who already agree with them.______________________________________________There are generally four types of conversation styles when talking about the LTD (or anything for that matter). That can be identified by looking at how discussion points are presented.The first is the debate, which goes like this."Cloud treats Tifa poorly in AC, and even leaves her to go live in the Church, this proves he doesn't love her".This style of conversation pretends to be about persuading the other person. But in reality it's about persuading the people watching. It's assertive and offensive, telling the other person why YOU are right, and THEY are wrong. The reason this conversation style isn't meant to persuade the other person is because this puts them on the defensive, it incentivizes them to close themselves off. They will want to defend THEIR position instead of listening to yours, because they feel attacked. As a result people will often respond using the same style. Both are in the mindset of "This conversation is about trying to get THEM to change their mind", therefore neither is actually open to having their own minds changed, therefore, nothing changes. In essence, when speaking in this manner, the perception is that you are sending thoughts into the ether, and the actual processing of those arguments is happening in the mind of the listener. That's why they're on the defensive, because they're the ones who seemingly are having to reconsider their stance. In
practice this often devolves into a battle about who is the lecturer, and who is the person being lectured.
While this style CAN be civil if both parties manage to stay impersonal about the subject matter this style often devolves into on of the less constructive styles simply because the subject is often something they personally care about, which makes it feel like a personal attack. What's more, instead of actually providing arguments this style too often doesn't go beyond making assertions. It's an offensive conversation style, so people don't want to back up their arguments, because backing up arguments implies the possibility of them not being correct, which would be a defensive principle. If assertions are backed up, they are backed up with other assertions designed to dissuade rebuttals, rather than investigating veracity. The second is the clarification of personal belief:"To me, the reason I think Cloud doesn't love Tifa is because he treats her poorly in AC, and even leaves her to go live in the Church"In this style you're not attacking the other persons position, or even hinting that they should change it, you are merely throwing your opinion out there, people can do with it what they want. This is a more safe discussion style because it allows the other person to ask for clarification from a place of safety. This opens the other person up to engaging with the argument, which is great for you because that allows you to expand on your argument while making it seem that you're on the defensive. This makes the other person think that they can be the one throwing out arguments, with you being the one whose mind is re-evaluating its stances. This makes them likely to think about their responses more, which ironically forces them to really evaluate them. The only problem is that if the other person is looking for a debate instead of a conversation this will embolden them to go on the offensive. There is also the problem that one participant will most likely be wrong, in which case they might divert into more aggressive styles.The third is the genuine inquiry:"Why do you think Cloud left Tifa in AC and started living in the church? I always felt like it showed he didn't love her".
This style is great because it's really asking people to change your mind, and people are FAR more willing to try and change your mind, than they are to try to change their own. Even so, the inclusion of "I always felt like it showed he didn't love her" still hides the real argument here. You are still presenting your argument. The reason Cleriths don't use this approach though, is simple, this approach ONLY works if your stance is correct. If you are right, you don't fear questions, you welcome honest questions because honest questions invariably lead towards the other party no longer being able to give satisfying answers.If you want to really understand why the other side believes what they believe, this is the best. This invites them to give their genuine stance and forces both parties to really think about them. The only downside is that it's harder to get the response you want, because this really lets the other person give the response THEY want to give. That's a problem if you're trying to get to some sort of point, because it's hard to guide the conversation like this. Even so, if you're correct, whatever direction the conversation goes into, the final destination should always conclude in your favor.Which again, is why Cleriths don't do this, and instead opt for the worst style: The dishonest inquiry: "Why don't you admit that Clouds actions in AC show that he doesn't love Tifa?"Aka the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" tactic of conversation. This is the Clerith conversation style of choice. It's 100% hostile, aggressive, and offensive, while pretending to be nuanced by cloaking the attack in the form of a question. But there is no question here, there is no honest inquiry. The assumption that you're wrong is already cemented in the question. It tries to avoid having an actual argument by skipping the actual discussion part and pretending that it's already a done deal. This style doesn't try to convince you, it tries to annoy you, and signal to the world that they are right through sheer false arrogance, it's a way to earn brownie points with those who already agree them, you nothing more. There is a place for this, there are things that are ridiculous to discus, like whether the earth is round or not, but that's the point, when using this tactic you've already admitted that there is no point discussing this, which means productive discourse has now become impossible. This is the sort of question you can expect when discussion the LTD: In conclusion.No, I've not had reasonable arguments with Cleriths, but I would like to, so I am thinking about writing an article that is a genuine attempt at asking them some questions with the goal of actually getting answers, rather than just using the questions as veiled gotchas. I am sure that there will be some of that, since I have to establish the context of why I am asking the question, but it won't be the main goal.
vaporwave
germansingergirl
annaxmalina
areudirty
