Yes, I got the names mixed up, I apologize. It will be necessary to refresh and replay.
We have a company in front of us. The company you don't like, obviously you don't like them either. One of them comes point blank and says that your (this is an example, I don’t mean anything like that) mother... you understand. The citizens standing behind him grin, laugh and hint in every possible way that they agree. Why should I separate these people's faces in front of my fist? Okay, I would understand if someone in the company (Mario) looked different, stood with a serious face, for example, or looked at the birds. But that's not true.
So yes, it’s not very good to generalize. But it is quite possible to understand what follows and the actions do not contradict the reason.
The fact that he decided to keep money out of the house and Bella did not stop him (and not only) - I condemn, but this is also understandable from the point of view of the character formed by the surrounding world. A person who has never seen such money will most likely try to steal it.
But, personally, I(!), I don’t think that just such an act, with the described context (character and situation, the dude lives on Nojiko’s neck), should be perceived as a point of no return and the character should be considered a complete asshole.
Are we talking about justice or laws? These are slightly different things. And I don't think it's appropriate to shoot someone in the face with a shotgun because of an insult., but contrary to popular belief among people who live in bubbles, if you just turn away and walk on with your head held high, even though you'll likely see these people often, it won't do you are strong and will not be stopped by a snickering pig. On the contrary, you will already encounter someone who considers himself above the laws you love.
I know how this works from my personal experience from elementary school. When I was still small and a little stupid, and didn’t know much about the psychology of scumbags.
Why do I need another argument for myself?
This is something like a game of deep psychology, if I understand correctly. Then everything is much simpler - I don’t like arrogant people who pose an existential threat.
Let's assume the situation. You want to take some action, for example, climb the career ladder. Someone else is standing in your way, well, competition for a place. You know that your opponent is cheating and decide to set him up or simply tell management about exactly how he does it so that the place becomes yours.
But you have never seen this person before and here is your first meeting. On what basis might your opinion change (or, conversely, remain the same)?
I suspect you'll apply the same rules I apply to Vanessa. And you will absolutely not care about the shape of her ass or the presence/absence of heterochromia.
So my opinion is based on a couple of scenes at the end of the season and I didn't like it at all. In a short dialogue while changing clothes, she literally tries to get into the protagonist’s head, which would also cause antipathy in me.
Why did I talk about Brenda? Because at the moment, while we have one season, for us and Nika this is a completely unfamiliar and incomprehensible character, who is also... (drums) used. Then we are shown Bella’s reaction (yes, she clearly knows more about Brenda, but they are clearly not friends and for her this is also some person from the street).
And it is on the basis of this reaction that I conclude that in front of me is far from a bad person who can do crap, but also has the brain to regret it. Isn't that what separates people from assholes?
I don’t see any point in talking about Nika in the same situation, because the player chooses his reaction and projects himself accordingly (or farms achievements in the steam version).
The point is that I don't need to justify anyone. I can either understand and accept the action/character or I can’t. There is no additional subtext here, I don’t like those people who deliberately do crap knowing what it will lead to. And I’m sure that everything Vanessa does has been thought through more than once.
This is exactly the point. In people's reactions to random "revelations". I could understand if Nika was made to be completely repulsed and he would not react in any way, in the spirit of “following the plan,” but this is not so.
Stop, stop. Firstly, I don’t really understand what exactly will ruin Vanessa’s life, sex with an older man? It would even be interesting to watch. I still don’t see any arguments in favor of leaving everything as it is, folding my paws and ending up living with an asshole who strokes his daughter’s hand while hitting on her mother. As for Vanessa, neither you nor I have a good picture of what kind of person this is and what his motives are. It's simply not in the text of the season, so naturally my assessment is based on its manipulation.
Separately, I will note that you instantly gave the label to Brenda, probably because her husband cheated on her and she acutely perceives reminders of this.
Is this assessment, like, better than Bella's assessment of Holgerson? Ok then.
In the context of the dialogues written by the author, Nika’s reluctance to continue what she had planned with Vanessa was dictated, in my opinion, by something else. Getting used to Bella's company.
But you can interpret this differently. Only in my opinion this is obvious.
Everything here is so simple that it’s strange to discuss it in a serious conversation. He simply has more screen time in the season (probably this has something to do with the fact that Nika is the protagonist).
But this is interesting, by the way.
I can give you an example of an anti-hero driven by logic and skill, whose actions are reasonable and deliberate, whose goal is likely to be largely justified. The so-called "ambiguous" anti-heroes.
Good Philadelphian Clyde Shelton.
Remember who it is? I strongly doubt that you will be able to justify his actions from the point of view of law and logic (although it depends on whose), but hardly from the point of view of morality.
This is also where the legs of flexible morality grow. It is unlikely that you can call a rich sheikh who approaches students much younger than himself, while simultaneously returning to the bedroom with their mothers, a highly moral person.
Let me emphasize that all this is not confirmed by the script of the first season. This is all speculation on both your part and mine.
And you still depersonalize and consider stupid the same abstract girl who is “put in bed". You describe Vanessa as extremely intelligent, but that label can still stick to her.
It's like this abstract has no brains.
And yes, everyone has their own standards of normality. The only problem is that I don’t use “standards” and at first Bella infuriated me just as much as, most likely, many of the players. The only difference is that I have more flexible ideas about people and their psyche, and I don’t deny them chances because of one fuckup.
But, again, I understand perfectly well that the author can make a Deep Dark fantasy about assholes and I won’t like the updated heroes.
