[SPOILERS] Stormblood Ending

[Theodric]

I dismiss no evidence beyond that which I perceive to be tainted by biased spin. Garlemald is an easy target for many as the masses have a common habit of reducing events that they struggle to comprehend to very simple black and white concepts. Some simply do it due to a misguided sense of tribalism - they wish to root for their 'team', so to speak. Or merely an individual character that they happen to be very fond of.

Others take debates revolving around a fictional setting far too seriously for their own good to the point where they develop a strong sense of contempt for other posters that happen to read into things differently than they do. As evidenced by the unfortunate little spat that took place on the previous page! Though I have tempered hope that the poster in question has since seen the error of their ways and will offer an apology for such a hurtful outburst and an attempt at ridicule. I bear them no ill will and eagerly extend an olive branch of peace.

Still, as far as your question goes, Cilia, my opinion is that it's a little of both. Nobody is denying that Garlemald has done questionable things. Nobody is denying that Eorzea has done questionable things. It's merely a matter of the 'evidence' often being more about trying to paint one of the two sides in as good or bad a light as possible to fit a biased agenda.

There's a big difference between pointing out that a particular event happened and doing so in a way that suggests that pushes most - if not all - of the blame upon Garlemald or Eorzea. It all comes down to nuances, really. Very few things in this setting are black or white and yet some people present them as being as such which leads to circular debates such as this. As I have stated many times in the past I have absolutely no issue with agreeing to disagree. It's an unfortunate fact, though, that these debates are turning people away from posting on this particular board. Some will falsely attempt to pin the blame on specific individuals and/or one 'side' of the debate but in reality it's due to both 'sides' being perceived as being plagued by bias at times.

It's a lot less tense, at times, to casually debate the lore over in the FFXIV Reddit, Youtube comments or over in the General Discussion sub-forum. That isn't necessarily a good thing because this place can be very one sided at times - especially where Garlemald is concerned - based on elements that are open to personal interpretation and subjective readings. Now, if we do not count those who post here only in passing then there's only a small amount of people who post on this particular sub-forum on a regular basis. As a result avoiding driving people away should be a high priority. I'll be honest, I've been tempted to not bother with this place in the past yet I'm lucky enough to have received some love, support and encouragement urging me to remain here.

Garlemald is, for the most part, a dead horse. At least where those of us who post here regularly are concerned. It is not my intention to 'censor' discussion, for the record. I simply do not see much point in going around in circles. Neither of us is likely to the convince the other - and that is absolutely fine! We're all operating on subjective interpretations of the lore, after all. We both agree that Garlemald is in need of reform, we simply disagree on the extent and justifications for their actions both past and present. With all that in mind agreeing to disagree is the best way forward and as such I will continue to suggest such an approach wherever possible. Especially if it has the added benefit of sparing both ourselves and others from numerous posts and threads that are basically repeating the same arguments over and over.