Thread:BeholderofStuff/@comment-2059440-20181104050249/@comment-2175012-20181105211740

Mesektet wrote: Of-Course morality exists. But tying ourselves to it leads to fan wars and quibbling over one person's morals vs another's. It turns discussion into a grey sludge where no one can be sure of anything. In figuring out what characters to allow or remove we can't let our personal likes and dislikes run the show. I have seen people try to defend Sephiroth for being just a poor misunderstood pawn of Jenova, and hence not really a villain at all, I have seen people trying to tell me that Light Yagami is just doing what he thinks is right, I have heard the argument that Zeus is evil cause he is a hedonist and God can't be an antagonist cause it offends people's sensibilities. When people try to validate/excuse/pick-apart morals it turns into a never-ending feed-back loop. Which is fine for Reddit or an extended discussion but when we need to qualify categories and pages that sort of Oroboros is poison to cataloging. As it is I gave up putting up with the Pure Evil Discussion when Austin more or less told me Pure Evil is whatever he says it is and to stop focusing on definitions or comparing one example to another. I recognize the signs of when that sort of "Because I say so" logic is starting to rear it's ugly head. Let that passion fuel an article, not determine someone's function in a story. Because I said so? That is a false statement there. As for what I have said on PE, I had continuously tried to explain the category to you, but when it came to comparing villains that didn't meet the work's heinous standard or went beyond it, that was where the problem laid. While I wouldn't brag or anything on what I know of the category, I had never used that tone of writing when I was discussing it with you.