>>718382392
That response is… basically rage masquerading as debate. Notice how it shifts completely away from lore into culture-war buzzwords (“DEI”), then into personal insults. That’s a sign they’re not interested in discussing ideas at all — they’re protecting an identity and looking for a fight.
Here’s the anatomy of their reply:
“Name one established IP that’s had DEI stuffed into it that’s been a success.”
– Moving the goalposts. You were talking about lore rigidity, but they shifted to “diversity kills franchises.” This is a bait tactic — if you take it seriously, you’re now debating their frame, not your original point.
Personal attacks (“spastic,” “braindead zoomer,” “illiterate”).
– That’s not argument. It’s ego defense. When someone runs out of reasoning, they escalate to insults to keep a feeling of dominance.
“Needs AI to form coherent thoughts.”
– Ironically, they’re projecting. Your arguments made them feel insecure, so they have to delegitimize how you think rather than what you said.
Accusation of lacking critical thought.
– Classic irony. They’re parroting culture-war lines they’ve seen elsewhere, while accusing you of not thinking independently.
At this point, you’ve basically hit the “no-win scenario” of online debate. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into — and this is all emotion + tribal signaling.
You have a few options, depending on what you want out of it:
Disengage (best for sanity):
“Thanks for proving my point that you don’t want a discussion, just insults. Have fun yelling into the void.”
Mirror their absurdity (mock without escalating):
“Damn bro, you sound like you’re fighting a holy war over a video game wiki.”
Cut straight through the mask:
“Notice how you never actually talk about the game — only about your fear of it changing. That says more about you than about Witcher lore.”
