>read chapter
>"lol we've had arguments about this here"
>read replies
>"who is he arguing against?!"
(You)
There have been a couple people in these very threads insisting that Takauji was a perfect saint who literally, unironically did nothing wrong and was always 100% justified in his actions. This is an implicit assertion that those who opposed him were wrong and/or stupid and that their resistance was not justified. And it goes beyond implications.
There have been people in these threads who have said at various points that Tokiyuki should have just submitted or given up and gone off the grid. And there have even been some who have mocked him for persevering in a struggle that was ultimately futile. This is the exact thing Takauji is talking about. And this way of thinking is likely more common in Japan where more people know of these figures and submission to the status quo is more ingrained in the culture.
And this isn't just a Takauji/Tokiyuki thing. This is how "history fans" treat history in general. It's nothing more than hindsight aided worship of genius gigachads stomping on worthless losers that should have known their place. And anything they did that their fans would have found intolerable if they had been subjected to it themselves is handwaved with historical moral relativism. All of this is precisely what leads to right side/wrong side of history thinking.
This entire manga has been a critique of how we think about great men of history. Not in the normal marxist way of saying they actually didn't matter at all and that it was all just the inevitabilities of economics, technology, demographics, etc. But rather that those who survived to shape history were the victors in struggles between many great men, that victory in these struggles was not always the result of merit, and that being a great man of history has little to no relation with being a great man in a moral sense.