For Shinji (2)

Well even if the populace ain't all that, a king can still be great!

To address some of these points:

"One's taste for a video game (or say, food, or anything else of the sort) is quite a bit different than one's chosen faith, to the point in which I think it's entirely easier for somebody to shrug off hyperbole aimed at a taste in media or "consumable" goods as opposed to what is essentially a lifestyle choice. Rather than calling one stupid for a given taste in a video game, it'd be more akin to calling somebody unintelligent or insulting somebody for even playing games at all."

You explained some good points about entertainment vs. belief systems and differences between them. However, I feel like no which of those contexts one chooses, it's equally wrong to the others. Generalizing people as being idiots for not liking GTAV is almost verifiably nonsense. Even if people react to it differently than religious hyperbole, it's obvious both seem wrong when interpreted literally and not hyperbolically. Yet I still see comments like that around. One comment Fellstrike made like 3 years ago, I believe, was that people who think Bioware games are terrible have the intelligence of an amoeba. Yet I remember no controversy about it. That's just one example. One other popular IGNer claimed that anyone who liked GTAV more than The Last of Us is an idiot. We still see statements like this very often, but wrong is wrong, whether it's religious assertions or game-related assertions. I understand what you mean and it's a decent point, however. It doesn't make that much sense to me that believing in things that are essentially pseudoscientific - such as religion, astrology, witchcraft, magic, homeopathy - are so judgmentally off-limits by comparison to simply preferring one thing to another.

"They may have simply known enough people who definitely don't fit the negative mold that they don't feel right lumping them together in any way (because lets face it, being lumped in with the bad of THAT category...is saying quite a lot)."

It's important to note that the most intelligent - and diligent - religious people are possibly some of the most evil. You can think of The Bible for example... it requires killing a daughter of a priest if she fornicates, the stoning of homosexuals, the killing of people who worship false gods, the killing of sexual assault victims if they don't call/cry out for help in public areas, stoning of people who commit adultery, etc. These are requirements of The Bible. The people who actually go through with this are considered bigots and evil people, but they're actually aware enough to do what they're told. Then there's the rest of the (perhaps less intelligent) Bible supporters, who are usually ignorant of what it is they actually support. If someone supports Abrahamic religion and any of the books to be true, they're required to support and deem these types of actions to be right. It's very similar for Islam as well. You might hear the terms moderate Muslim or moderate Christian, etc., but those are mainly just denialists (who deny the verses or the literality of most of the books but still believe in the religion), religiously disobedient, and the ignorant religious people (who just have no idea this stuff exists in the books, such as casual church-goers), who seem to make up the majority. Abrahamic religion makes up most of the religious population on the Earth. Even most extremist religious operations such as Westboro Baptist Church are like a complete joke compared to what the doctrine of The Bible requires. They protest homosexuality, but they don't stone anyone to death for example. The group ISIS is arguably the best representation of being committed to faith and actually following through with the commandments required in religious doctrine, and as Sam Harris described, perfect faith is a terrible thing. When more than 50% of the population of the entire world is either Christian or Muslim, I feel like it's fair to assume most are more likely ignorant of the doctrine and belief system they support, rather than killing machines who would willingly kill and stone so many people to death. I'd say being called an intelligent and diligent religious person is usually more worth being offended by than being called an ignorant religious person.

"But, I still think it's overall a better way to go about things rather than just getting some pent up angst over the situation, ya know?"

I'm not really angsty about it most of the time XD I laugh about it a lot. There's a bit of misinterpretation I think that I get offended easily. But after living with people who are very much ignorant, day and night, it becomes frustrating after a while - but it takes like 20 years for it to get to me XD

"I know you're not stupid...seemingly cocky a bit for my tastes but I've known worse and far less deserving of any ego at all lol, but I don't know if it's just the way you write or what, but it's hard to really get a decent feel for you as a person versus you as a robot."

Yes, I'm a bit showy and cocky. I was reading in PsychologyToday there are benefits to being so, though! I like being that way, to an extent. I don't want to be delusional, but I like to show off. I talk about myself from like a third-person perspective A LOT. I can be quite condescending but I try to find humour in being so. I'm almost an ironic self-parody of the extent of how egotistical I'm capable of being. I'm not sure if that last sentence made perfect sense, but it seems sufficiently adequate to maintain a lack of humility!

"I just feel like a lot of people can use more slack lol. Though don't get me wrong, I'm not a freaking saint, and I often do roll my eyes at exceedingly poor spelling or grammar,"

Most of the people I was indirectly referring to are otherwise semi-decent, mostly accurate writers, just they have some mind-boggling mental blind spot of not knowing the difference between its and it's. I don't get it haha. That's why I just assume ignorance in those cases.

"I may not excel at much, but I am usually pretty good at seeing things from other people's perspectives as much as possible, and trying to argue from a side whether I agree with it or not. So...yeah, it's pretty hard to see for me at least lol."

I'm really still not sure what absolute perspective you think I was using in that follow-up blog. Please feel free to elaborate, if you'd like.