The "media's empathetic coverage" just an outright inversion of reality
Of course the author has to assume such a bullshit position, otherwise their take makes zero sense
Liberals will always keep keynesianism locked behind an emergency glass until the possible last moment, at least that's the delusional calculation they make in their heads
Never once do they ask themselves WHY Keynesianism died the first time around and why if it's such a natural solution to the contradictions of capitalism the elites despise it almost as much as they despise socialism
There are three kinds of liberal cope: The nostalgic Keynesians, the "Tech will fix everything" Futurists, and the Presentists who think everything's okay actually, why are you complaining and they all feed off each other in their capitalist realist mind prison
The question is in what way this fact can possibly translate into a Russian military defeat
Yet again our trolls and wreckers fail to camouflage themselves because they're literally too uneducated and socially isolated to convincingly come across as normal let alone as leftists
I've never seen a site that managed to utilize Dunning-Kruger as an effective anti-troll mechanism, hexbear is simply a different beast 
Mindless pigs, they really believe this security theater makes them look good
The fall of the US empire is inevitable, but the real question is whether it will commit a region-wide Holocaust on the way out, and the answer to that question, especially after the last year is yes
Sorry, Zion UnitedHealth only covers muscular reconstruction, vision belongs to entirely different insurance package
deleted by creator
So, you find any internally-consistent setting to 'not be a wallpaper'?
I said they are my personnel favorites, and unless you find settings that are internally inconsistent to be good writing, certainly not "overrated"
The setting can be just a small piece of land, and the story might be focused on interpersonal relations between a few characters, for example.
Again, I already said it's possible to craft stories thru characterization without relying on the setting (12 Angry Men as an example) BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE A SETTING then the requirements I laid out are crucial to allowing worldbuilding and characterization to mesh in ways that doesn't undermine either one, that's been my point the whole time
Because you said that worldbuilding should be used specifically for making the main characters to feel 'small and insignificant'. Do you rescind that claim?
Yes the world should be bigger than the characters, if you're gonna have a world; unless you believe characters should be bigger than their worlds outside of character focus and viewpoint, do you find most power fantasies evocative or examples of good writing? In that case I got a million isekais for you
Also, on this topic in particular, this ignores the pieces of art where there is no triumph to speak of
Why do you have such a literal view of the words I use, when I say "small and insignificant" I don't literally mean physically tiny or always at the bottom of the social ladder, when I use "triumph" I don't literally mean the characters at the end of every narrative hold a Roman style Triumph, we're talking about the broad breath of fiction as a whole, obviously I'm gonna use words that describe the MOST COMMON THEMES found thru-out the ocean of fictional works
It's relational and contextual, like with Over the Garden Wall, where "small and insignificant" means children lost in a dark forest with no knowledge of its inner workings, in another story it means something else
The main characters of Over the Garden Wall do not feel 'small and insignificant', as the narrative is focused almost entirely on them and their immediate surroundings, with worldbuilding being limited to, well, said surroundings
lmao you're just replacing the word "worldbuilding" with "surroundings" yes i.e. THE WORLDBUILDING AND THE SETTING which plays a crucial role in the narrative
It is all very localised, and not expanded upon within the work. There are no explanations for how this world works, what its history is, what is where and who or why the Beast is, and so on, and so forth.
Yes that's part of my original point, nothing is really answered concretely, no over-explanation of how the forest works, the mystery, the questions are still intact throughout the show and elevates and pushes the narrative along, that is what I mean by effective worldbuilding and effective lore, take the forest away it's not Over the Garden Wall anymore, it's a different show which may or may not be good
I maintain that lore is an overrated element of a narrative. In the case of Over the Garden Wall, for example, developing its lore would just detract from the work.
Frankly, I suspect your definitions of "lore" and "worldbuilding" simply don't mesh with mine, for me the "lore" of Over the Garden Wall is fully developed despite the narrative being unfinished
What does it mean for a setting to 'not be a wallpaper'?
Internal consistency and appreciation of scale are my personnel favorites, but there are so many ways to create interesting worlds so it depends on the type of story
What would prevent you from, for example, using worldbuilding to create parallels with real-world anti-colonial struggles and making a narrative about gloom or bloom in a colonial environment?
That's a perfect example of what I mean when I say worldbuilding should make the characters feel small, so their development resonates more profoundly later on, obviously in the beginning of the narrative those characters aren't going to immediately have the power to topple colonial structures or bring about revolution are they?
I think you're stuck on my word choice of "small and insignificant" while missing the far more important "when they triumph their accomplishments resonate that much more" part, I'm not saying characters should never grow into their settings and become important aspects of the world and lore, but that as the characterization develops and mysteries are resolved, questions are answered, new mysteries emerge, new questions replace old ones and the growth of the characters compliments the growth of the lore in a kind of (dare I say it) dialectical way
You still actually need either characters or some other narrative tools in addition to worldbuilding, while worldbuilding can be done without, basically.
I never disputed this point
You don't need more worldbuilding than a particular narrative demands. Consider, for example, Over the Garden Wall, where almost nothing is known about the world except for what we see directly, and that doesn't actually hurt the narrative in any way.
That is another perfect example of how world building elevates the narrative, the main characters literally start the story as "small and insignificant", they're children in a dark forest inhabited by supernatural beings, children who encounter enclosed magical societies, mysteries, terror, the world building is not rationed or subdued, it defines the setting and the characters, it elevates the narrative, 'over the garden wall' is a new world that the children didn't know existed and as they explore that world their characterization develops alongside it, BOOM A CLASSIC IS BORN
Why specifically limit the usage of worldbuilding to making main characters 'feel small and insignificant'?
Because usually you don't begin stories at the end, again unless you're a highly skilled author who can effectively subvert conventions, which most authors are not
Notably, none of those things require lore development, and lore development can even hurt those
There is no dichotomy here, characterization is lore development, world building is lore development, my point is as the narrative progresses the preservation of mystique, grandeur, awe, wonder, terror, etc. requires careful attention to how characterization and world building interact and without the two working in concert the lore is gonna usually suck along with the narrative, again unless someone is a subversive genius author whose works will be taught in university courses, which again is not most authors
Depends on the type of story someone is telling, some can thrive on characterization with the setting simply being an afterthought (12 Angry Men being an example), and worldbuilding without effective characterization taking advantage of the setting, is simply wasted and vice versa
But if you're going to have worldbuilding and a setting that isn't simply wallpaper, then the points I made are absolutely crucial, not everyone is a natural genius at characterization, and for authors who know their limits, worldbuilding and lore-crafting offers a way to expand their vision and realize potential they may not reach thru dialogue and character writing alone, Iain Banks is a famous example and George R.R. Martin is a typical case of someone who understands this dynamic despite excelling at characterization, and unless you're a highly skilled author it's not enough to simply have characters, but the world they inhabit has to feel alive and bigger than them
As you said, the purpose of lore should be to elevate a given narrative, but that process requires more than simply "tickling" the brain; mystique, grandeur, awe, wonder, terror, these are emotions where characterization invariably meets the implications of the setting thru implied/explicit mystery and questions inevitably asked by the audience, and I've seen so many stories where authors fail to recognize that inflection point and end up with convoluted untethered characterization, dead empty settings or worse both
Using music or loud sounds to startle, it's the definition of cheap and hackery
Good worldbuilding must always deepen the implications of the setting, never answer questions directly but hint and create even more questions than before, it has to make the main cast feel small and insignificant so when they triumph their accomplishments resonate that much more
Good lore is a process of asking questions and creating mysteries, but not solving them, unless that process itself creates more questions and mystery
On top of the historically "invisible" labor of women; the tedious work of the industrial revolution was done on the backs of women and young girls, precisely because their second class status made them vulnerable to hyper-exploitation
Of course the theocrats can only metabolize that fact as a desire to return women to second-class status and inadvertently, ironically or intentionally recreate the conditions that led to their vulnerability in the first place, while attempting to turn back the wheel of time on developments that will always smash their archaic desires to dust
Thank God I'm a Marxist
It's not remotely racialized enough for that comparison
Tally Hoo! Peasants!
Eat Shit Yankee Dogs!