The games are examples only, I’m asking in the general sense and even beyond games into movies or books or whatever - where do you draw the line?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (82)
sorted by:
Eh intolerance for the intolerant is lazy midwit opiate. For one there's other ways to eliminate things than naked intolerance, so you don't need to become intolerant if you for some reason think it's evil. For two, intolerance is neutral not evil. It's the reason you don't tolerate something that matters, not the intolerance itself.
You should be against something for the real root reason that it sucks.
And in the case of KCD2 that root reason is brain washing the useful idiots into helping ruin everything by erasing and replacing the ideals that eventually created a great society.
So yes, it still should be on the list. But being on the list doesn't mean you have to treat them all the same. When the attack is subtler so should your response if you're talking to normies. Veilguard and Concorde get open derision and insults for being blatant and ugly. KCD2 gets disappointment that they fell off and how it's bland and soulless compared to the first one, it forgot the dedication to its roots that made it great and focused too much on including all the weird outliers and lost it's luster (ahem, like an allegory for society, ahem)
Again with the lazy simplifications. Being louder doesn't push the window any further than being subtle, as long as both are still pushing for the same goals subtle can push just as far and is less likely to engage defensiveness in the undecided.
It works better, not worse. The downside to subtle is it takes more work. So if you don't need to be subtle it's more efficient to be brash and fast instead.
I guess it makes sense that the brand new handshake called urafag doesn't understand how subtlety works, disappointing nonetheless.