politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
That's fair enough, I'm literally just playing through the games now and felt compelled to comment. Kiryu's fundamental value system is presented to us at face value right from his first interaction with Majima in the opening of the first game. He's prepared and unconflicted about fighting Majima, just not for no reason like Majima wants. Kiryu has to have "a reason" to engage in actions typical of Yakuza, though the specific parameters of his reasoning aren't quantified. It's just whatever makes innate sense to him in the moment, which I'm interpreting as a rejection of conventional moral barriers to action. He'll do whatever it takes to achieve the end he seeks, and the only difference between him and other Yakuza (or indeed Yakuza in real life) in this respect is that the ends he's seeking are noble/just. i.e. "chaotic good", with Majima the protagonist being his "chaotic neutral" counterpart. TBH I can't really speak for Tak or Ichi because I haven't finished those games, but the gist I got of what the commenter is saying is that they think although the base case for most people would be to prefer lawful-aligned governance, the outcomes secured by being chaos-aligned would justify their chaos.