I think Warner Brothers need to change their name to a more gender neutral one, Warner Siblings. Brothers implies only a set of men can make movies. :P

But I've heard that calling them sisters is not appropriate as well is that true? (I couldn't find anything on google right now but even in your post you didn't call them sisters so I became curious)

The Stormfront forum is more accepting than this one. Thanks CC for your attempts. I'm sorry your gender and sexuality have left you so angry Habanerose.

If people tell you to "get your shit together", do you start collecting excrement?
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. It's a short expression in the English language that neatly encapsulates a reasonable attitude towards life. You can do whatever you want with it etymologically and semantically, but meaning is use. I have no problem telling women to "man up", and they GET IT. When someone sneezes and I say "bless you", that also has a lot of baggage, but I'm not the type of atheist nutjob to never utter the phrase so as not to imply the existence of a deity. Hell (there I go again!), it's better to have these evocative expressions; they make language richer by providing a backdrop of sorts. Still - it's about meanings; it's about what people are trying to convey. If you account for context and intention, you'll see how benign the words of nice people truly are (and how other people can be sinister without saying a thing).
Anything can be "objectionable", because there can always be someone who will object to it. I don't like certain words and phrases myself; I find the paradigm behind them idiotic and unbefitting a reasonable human being. With that in mind, I don't just call people out and expect them to change the way they speak overnight. More importantly - I'd find efforts to just enforce a change in expressions meaningless. It's the mindsets that displease me, not linguistic constructs. If people finally "get it", we can understand each other clearly, and at that point they may as well speak in a similar way, but the meaning will be different. Still - not everyone has to think the way I'd like them to; not everyone has to get along with me or understand me. If they don't bother me and I don't bother them, it's usually a good enough deal for me.
tl;dr: I don't mind "man up". If you do, that's your problem, but there's nothing fundamentally "wrong" with it.

Also, that man can still be used in a more generalized sense of and as a clipped form of human; such as when Tolkien speaks of "the Mannish peoples" or "the Mannish tongues" to the exclusion of the Elves, Dwarves, et cetera...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/man#Etymology
The noun is from Middle English man, from Old English mann ‎(“human being, person, man”)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_%28word%29
The term man (from Proto-Germanic *mannaz or *manwaz "man, person") and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. The word developed into Old English man, mann meaning primarily "adult male human" but secondarily capable of designating a person of unspecified gender, "someone, one" or humanity at large (see also German man, Old Norse maðr, Gothic manna "man"). More restricted English terms for an adult male were wer (cognate: Latin vir; survives as the first element in "werewolf") and guma (cognate: Latin homo; survives as the second element in "bridegroom").

However, man in traditional usage refers to the species, to humanity, or "mankind", as a whole. The usage persists in all registers of English although it has an old-fashioned tone.

Equating the term for the male with the whole species is common in many languages, for example in French (l'Homme).

That's a possibility, but for the purpose of the argument I assumed that etymology put the term in the worst possible light. Let's assume that courageously facing difficulty while keeping a stiff upper lip is traditionally ascribed to men and enshrined in that expression. This still doesn't mean that the person using it means to express any of that, or that it somehow inevitably seeps into their value system or worldview. Even if it does - there's still nothing wrong with having such a trait association. Anyone can aspire to it.
There may be a biological basis, historical tradition, cultural custom... Ultimately, what does it really matter? People use it as a benign reference, and they do so with the best of intentions. Telling someone to "man up" implies that we have faith in their ability to do so; that this expectation is reasonable. At worst it normalizes a degree of stoicism.
If "man" is to be taken as "human", it very well may be a general pointer in favor of self-improvement. There are better and worse men, and it's measured in virtue, the "being-good-at". "Git gud", as simplistic as it is, is the sort of sentiment I can absolutely get behind. I hate it when people use the word "tryhard" as demeaning, and "git gud" is the polar opposite; it clearly implies that success stems from competence, and competence comes from effort. Don't shift blame, don't complain - earn your rewards. Take the world by the balls. Have I mentioned that I used to play (actual) roguelikes a lot back in the day ;)?

I still do, SLASH'EM with Vulture's Eye to be exact...

Thanks. I saw the DLCs on Steam. It seems they are paying homage to Castlevania, Ghouls N' Ghosts and Gargoyle's Quest. The DLCs should have been included in the GOG version as a complete version. I bought the game because I was waiting for awhile for it to go on sale. Maybe they'll release DLCs sometime in the future.

I think we should contact the developer. See this post.

Hey GOG, I don't remember we having a discussion before where I complained about some game to be too hard. Why are you telling me to "Git Gud"? :P

Bought La-Mulana by the way, looks like a great title. And people: get Volgarr, it is fantastic, tough but fair and rewarding.

This reminds of how I always were and still is somewhat bothered by this. Even as an atheist (agnostic atheist that is), it doesn't bother me because I don't give a rat's ass about people's illusions about gods or whatever (let's face it, we ALL have illusions to cling to help accept reality) but because it's an automatic remark that doesn't really have much meaning, at least I don't apply any meaning to it. Granted, I don't bother people with it that often but does bring up a funny story when I was in high school someone standing next to me sneezed and he said thank you after someone nearby said bless you and then another said:
"Everytime someone says thank you after a blessing, you kill a troll (magical creature, not internet doucebag)" I had never in my life heard that but I thought it was funny so now I bring it up whenever the discussion about blessing someone after a sneeze is particularly meaningful. The funny thing is that it does seem to bother people who take such seemingly meaningless gestures seriously.

I'm not sure if my point is about being humble, trying to see humour in one's illusions or finding meaning in seemingly meaningless rituals but perhaps a little bit of all.

While most reasonable people probably assume that to be the case, I think it's necessary that people question them because otherwise we become systematically ingrained that success automatically comes from competense and failure is absolutely your own fault. I know the current air is different, everyone deserves some success or whatever but that is only a trend. The fact that success is required to be pulled by yourself, that will likely never disappear. My point is poets will never become alpha males but our inner fascination of vulnerability will neither. (And in case someone think I promote passive behavior where one blames everything but oneself, I don't).

It's a somewhat personal issue for me, this whole "language policing". Back in Epistemology 101, upon hearing a very true (and very frustrating) "Yes, but that's how people ACTUALLY use language." (the context is largely irrelevant), I've responded with a sentence that haunts me to this day: "Can't we just make people use language differently?". While saying it I already knew that the undertaking wasn't practically feasible, but I wondered about theoretical repercussions of such an idea. Nowadays I realize that people have tried this and some keep trying to do so to this day. Few things are as terrifying as seeing your old ideas spring to life and lash out against you. It's like an animated corpse of your former lover shambling towards you - you recognize the features, but are terrified by reality...

The more people resist this notion, the less vigilant they are about their own beliefs, huh? I've seen it happen. I'll take a shrugging "I don't know. It might all be bullshit" religious person over the "SCIENCE, BITCHES! LOGIC! SCIENCE! LOGIC! SCIENCE!" assholes any day. There's just something incredibly perverse about the latter approach...

Quite right. For a very simplistic example - people complaining about a game being "imba" and features being "OP" piss me off as wankers looking for excuses (especially if they do so inside or ever BEFORE the match), but... Sometimes things actually ARE broken are require balancing, and we need such people to point them out. Maybe it's just that there's a time and place for everything? That doesn't really work in my favor, seeing how I adore sustaining off-topic discussions pretty much everywhere.
You've raised and pointed me towards a multitude of questions I won't even pretend I have a decent idea how to APPROACH, much less tackle.

Ultimately - I'll settle for chaos, because I like to keep my options open. This is a modest solution, since the world is likely to implement it anyway - let's let people express themselves as they wish and keep a variety of discourses, lingoes and voices. This will inevitably lead to violent crashes of perspectives, as mono-paradigm people talk past each other, but it's probably better than forcing everyone into whatever box we could conjure. With enough variety, people will probably find something to appreciate, and some may even learn to think inside separate boxes, much like operating natively in different languages works... Damn, this in inspiring.
It also plays nicely with my stance on artistic freedom - let's not bully people into following a particular narrative. Let's have a variety of experiences to choose from... Damn, I need to get around to playing that ROM game...

I contacted the developers. Let's wait to see if they respond. I let everyone know if they do.

Thanks mate. :)