Isn’t Dishonored somewhat of a spiritual successor?

Its simple greed and disdain for their users that they somehow believe if they begin to charge for something that used to be free the use base will simply eat it and be happy.

For me personally, the answer to the original question would be “only once no other non-violent means are available”.

Does this resonate, or would you consider it different to your perspective? I see them as similar.

Surely protecting is by definition preemptive since it means you are not allowing the violence against yourself or someone else to occur? Not saying your first point is wrong just doesn’t seem consistent to me.

Only revenge/retribution would not be preemptive which imo is not better.

Not a fan of the framing here, ‘were’ vs ‘would be’ as if the later is just a hypothetical rather than the reality of civilians in Gaza.

Highly recommend the podcast ‘It’s probably not aliens’ if you want to find out more about the real history of the claims made in these kind of shows, and how the claims of aliens are often rooted in racism and colonialism

Monetization: Providing a way for people to pay for something they want

Exploitation: Making people pay outside their means for something they need, or feel like they need (usually bc of FOMO)