LogFAQs > #909605637

HashtagSEP posted...

...But then you were cheering on the fact that people are dumb and do that. That's stupid, again. You even outright said "Well if people don't treat them as individuals that's their fault for being twins, not mine, and I support people doing that."

Right, so now we're at the crux of it.

To blame Nikki for what Brie does is obviously unfair. But like I said, that's only a starting point. So yeah, you have this initial, unfair moment where Nikki is tarred with Brie's brush, but discussion would hypothetically move away from that, and by then an honest discussion about Nikki's ability has started. And once discussion "morphs" away from that initial, unfair lie, we get to the brutal truth, and that is absolutely fair. So basically, you have this one unfair bullshit moment that starts a very valid conversation, one that hasn't happened enough in the last few years. Very often something that is untrue or unfair is used as a catalyst for discussions that need to happen. That's not unusual or irrational to expect. "This thing may not have happened, but it has started a worthwhile discussion about XYZ".

Recently, there was an announcement that the remastered Spyro trilogy would only have the first game on disk, and that the other two would need a download. Now, to me this doesn't really matter that much since I'm DLing it from the store, although I do see the issue. But what happened then was a discussion on the merits of physical vs. digital, why it's important to have the whole thing physical, the "rights of the consumer", and a bunch of other stuff. Some genuinely interesting topics, a couple of which I hadn't really put much thought into before. And then there was the more spicy discussion about the extent to which Activision, also, are the fucking worst. Now imagine for a second that this turned out to be totally untrue, and that all three games would be on disk, that whoever reported it had made it up. It wouldn't have changed the shady stuff Activision did before, would it? Unfair to criticise them for this in particular because they did nothing wrong, but it would have brought the prior issues people have with the company back into the spotlight, altering the discourse.

I'm expecting you to point out how the situations are entirely different and whatever but the basic point, and the reason I made the comparison, is this: even from a false pretense, a valid discussion can happen. And it regularly does. To expect that is realistic, not irrational.
---

Not to be confused with XIII_Stones.