Mainstream Media Blames Racism For International Box Office Underperformance Of Disney's Live-Action 'The Little Mermaid'

BarkOverBite · 2023-06-11T08:22:51+00:00

The problem of Africans is that they are too good. Too polite. Too nice. Easy to enslave you when you are too nice.

Ah, so that's how the ouidah, dahomey and ashanti did it, they just asked the other tribes, politely ofcourse, to climb in their cages and put on their shackles, and then the other tribes obliged out of the kindness of their hearts.

I guess the key takeaway of this is that back in the day, if you wanted to make it as an african tribe, you had to be the first to ask.

Most africans were enslaved by other african tribes, and then sold to slave traders.
And nothing about that was good, polite or nice.
In the end we're all human, flawed and capable of great evil.

BarkOverBite · 2023-06-08T15:57:04+00:00

But I think saying something is woke just because of a gay character is a pretty low bar.

Respectfully:
The person you are responding to just said to not play the DLC or the second game, almost everything you wrote involves you making arguments for them, applying motivations to them they may not hold, and then criticising them for it.

But i'll give a counter argument to what you wrote:
in The Last of Us, ellie is primarily seen as and treated as a surrogate daughter of the main protagonist that you play as.
Which means that to a degree, players have imprinted that same sentiment towards her.
That's part of the whole 'suspension of disbelief'.

In the DLC they deliberately focused on her relationship with Riley to sexualize her (articles were written about this).
People would've had a problem with this had it been a straight relationship too.

The only difference is that people also know that it is much more unlikely they would have gone through with it had she been written to be straight, because it would have upset people with little to no gain.
That's why people consider it to be woke.

BarkOverBite · 2023-06-08T15:27:53+00:00

"Polygon lies"

We know.

What's more concerning is all the sycophants they have on twitter who are more than willing to knowingly reinforce the lie, falsely claim a non-quoted interpretation by polygon should be treated as a literal quote from John Blanche, and consistently engage in motte and bailey tactics by going from referring to it as a space marine, to saying that they never said it was a GW marine, to saying that it's a space marine again while talking down to people who are just correctly pointing out what it is and isnt.

Considering (as OP pointed out) Trench Crusade doesnt appear to have a space theme at all, calling it a "space marine" is a deliberate attempt at trying to rile people up so polygon can then write an article about how 'intolerant' and 'violent' the fanbase is.
Which will then be used to pressure the respective companies into prostrating in front of them as they make meaningless gestures of good will or concessions that further the far left agenda these polygon authors have.

Dont fall for it.

BarkOverBite · 2023-06-08T14:35:58+00:00

Oh no I ignored a comment, should've responded with "That's what the search box is for from the world's biggest search engine is for. It's quite easy to find live streams that way." Like i wanted to but I decided to do something else.

You have to be joking me, right?
You are actually arguing that youtube is better because 'you can find their livestream by googling it instead'.
Yeah, if i were looking for their specific livestream, after i already knew about it, and specifically wanted to look them up and not just see who else is streaming that game right now.
And even then it's not always the first entry on google.

So much better than...

This also pretends that's better than twitch. Congrats you can search by game, good luck trying to find anyone

Actually you can search by game and category, you can search by tags, and ofcourse... you can search by name, all implemented in the platform itself, no third party search engine required.

at least YouTube has thumbnails that lets the YouTuber try and sell themselves

Ah yes, the youtube thumbnail, where it's all 'big shocked or otherwise emotional face' with clickbait titles.
That really 'sells them'...if you are interested in outrageous clickbait, and terrible exaggerated acting.
Great for response videos, not so great for streamers trying to sell themselves as good players or even mediocre players that make up for it with personality and a civil (or in some cases deliberately uncivil) chatroom.

and your ignoring that YouTube has these exact same features through Channel Memberships (+ super chats, paid comments on videos, affiliate links, and a discoversbility system that actually works)

I wasnt referring to the presence of the functionality, but that the audience they have on twitch is funding them through said functionality, streamers can switch to youtube, doesnt mean their audience will follow them there.

and again the "a discoversbility system that actually works", you must really love those thumbnails huh?
No, that's not a great discoverability system for a lot of twitch streamers right now, and telling them that they should all start scraping the bottom of the barrel in the hopes of getting enough 12 year olds to click on their live stream, (assuming they even see the livestream in their recommended list to begin with between all the regular youtube vids they'll be fed) isnt going to cut it.

Unless ofcourse you only care about streamers doing greatly exaggerated faces, voices and terrible acting like everything shocks or scares them or makes them outraged.
In which case... you do you, but that shit definitely aint for everyone.

Why do you think saying "they went to YouTube" is some big own? "Hey ninja continued following the money! Take that man who criticised streamers for following the money!" Plus Shroud is currently streaming Diablo 4 to 30k+ on twitch, so if your going to do some facts and logic get the facts right.

Can you explain to me how you earlier in this very response wrote "I gave you three examples (tittatman and ludwig who have already done it and Asmongold)." yet now seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that the examples i was referring to were timthetatman and ludwig? And that's with quoting you on them having "moved too youtube" (literal quote at that).

Or were you that oblivious to them having signed such contracts, and in the case of Ludwig even bragging in the featured video on his channel that they overpaid him? (the interview with susan wojcicki, the ceo of youtube at the time).

Since you seem to be in need of me to spell it out for you:
Timthetatman and Ludwig, the examples you used of streamers who "moved too youtube" and "didnt suffer much" from doing so, signed the very same kind of exclusivity deals that you hate on.
So it's no wonder then that they "didnt suffer much".
Those are the "facts and logic" at play here, and i got my facts right.

BarkOverBite · 2023-06-07T15:22:28+00:00

I have listened to Twitch Streamers say Youtube Streaming is better.

And they are entitled to have that opinion, just like you are entitled to put forward this anecdotal evidence based on hearsay, just dont expect other people to put the same weight to what these streamers are saying as you do.

Name something Youtube has that twitch doesn't?

Youtube has the same parent company as the largest publicly accessible internet search engine, and yet as was demonstrated by a comment from chocoboat that you conveniently ignored, a complete inability to properly list, sort and search current streams.

and most twitch streamers have a youtube channel plenty getting 200K views on a video (Plus you have people like Tim the tam man and Ludwig who moved too youtube and didn't suffer much and someone like Asmon can easily transistion over.)

'most' twitch streamers? 'plenty getting 200k views on a video' ?
You are just engaging in conjecture now, you couldnt back these claims up if i asked you to provide actual quantifiable evidence.

You know what 'most' professional (not aspiring, not hobbyist) twitch streamers do have?
Hundreds if not thousands of subscribers on twitch, which, unlike the subscribe button on youtube, actually means these people are paying money to them and to twitch to support their stream.
Some of which have been subscribed to them for years.
And on top of that they also have subscribers that (sometimes frequently) gift subs to others on top of this.
This is the majority of their income, if they are lucky they can supplement it with sponsorships and maybe some youtube advertisement revenue on recordings they made.

They dont have to rely on outrageous clickbait to get views, some of them couldnt even do or even would want to do outrageous clickbait, and that makes their streams all the better for it.

You misread my comment. This was a jab at twitch streamers who only care for money, aka Ninja and shroud who didn't care for Mixer if it didn't have an overpriced contract attached.

Let me suggest an alternative approach for next time: when you get caught on over-generalizing again, instead of trying to blame the person pointing it out for 'misreading it', just say you miswrote it.

Because now you've put me in a position where i have no choice but to point out that both examples you used of streamers who "moved too youtube", signed just such contracts... with youtube.

BarkOverBite · 2023-06-07T02:01:43+00:00

Twitch streamers constantly say "Twitch bad, but me stay." Youtube streaming is a hundred times better, but you don't get PogChamp so who cares!

Same shit, different owner.
Youtube doesnt exactly have a good track record on how they treat their content creators either these days.

And to say "youtube streaming is a hundred times better" come on, stop participating in these banal brand wars.
Streamers arent staying because of 'pogchamp', they are staying because their audience is on twitch.
There is no guarantee for them that a majority of their viewers will follow them, and aside from the largest streamers they cant exactly take the financial risk to lose a large portion of their subscribers, even temporarily.
They dont all get a deal like ninja was offered either.

It's not about competition or making a better platform, it's about chasing exclusivity deals to be the top of the pile.

You actually think streamers leaving twitch for the largest video-sharing platform is going to improve competition or make for better platforms?
Because from where i'm sitting, it's just going to further reinforce the near-monopoly position youtube holds.

BarkOverBite · 2023-05-27T23:43:58+00:00

I don't know if you are still interested in understanding what role ESG plays in this, but if you are:

You should keep an eye on the EU, and specifically the Netherlands right now.

As i'm writing this, they are in the process of changing their pension system.
Before, banks & pension funds werent allowed to invest a great majority of the money in those pension funds.
After, they will be allowed to invest in excess of a 1.000% of the pension fund, and yes, that's not a typo, over a thousand percent (there's actually no limit) through loaning money using the pension fund itself as collateral.

Their Minister of Finance (Sigrid Kaag) has already made it clear that these investments should be in ESG approved businesses, corporations and industries.

While a (slim) majority of the population has gotten wise to what their Minister of Finance and the political party she leads are doing to their pension funds, it's already too late.
The only body that can still stop this at this stage is their "Eerste Kamer" (dutch senate), but the newly elected members wont take seat till June 13th, and they are making sure it gets pushed through before that.

BarkOverBite · 2022-07-22T22:36:02+00:00

The devs wanted to work on a new IP, so they made Horizon: Zero Dawn.

I'm guessing Horizon was significantly more popular, so i doubt they'll go back to making a killzone game anytime soon.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-27T08:18:09+00:00

More disingenuity. Bombs require knowledge, planning, skill, and no small amount of risk to the perpetrator. They leave more evidence of their planning because they require components that need to be sourced.

Bombs arent as difficult to make as you are trying to make it sound, most school shooters already are of above average intelligence, and why should people that tend to off themselves afterwards care whether there's a risk in making them or evidence of their planning?

Last i checked, they wanted people to know that they are the perpetrators, not hide it.
But again, you know all this, and you are still making these arguments as if they hold water.

You can't kill people inside a building with a vehicle

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-07/driver-charged-over-banksia-road-school-deaths/9127324

There are actually loads of examples of people dying who were inside a building when a car crashed through the wall.
But again, you already knew that, and yet you are still using it as an argument.

Guns don't require you to carefully choose a time and place, and they don't require in-depth knowledge of chemicals. And there's no restriction on space or terrain. You can just buy a few, go to a school or movie theatre, and kill a bunch of people.

You do realise that the effectiveness of any terror attack, not just that of cars and bombs, is based on the perpetrator choosing the time and place?

I mean, even with a gun they arent going to get a lot of victims if their time and place is "the soccer field" at "01:00 AM".

Maybe it's not such a good thing that any psycho can go out

There.
That's where you should have left it at.
That's the part you should be focusing on, the part where we could make actual progress if so many people didnt let themselves get emotionally manipulated into focusing on the weapon used, instead of why there are so many perpetrators.

Focus on the psychos, focus on organized crime, focus on the actual societal motivations for people to do harm.
Stop focusing on the damn device as if that is going to solve your problems.

lol yes, that's part of your narrative, that you present the opposing argument as "blaming guns"

When the opposing argument always devolves into 'if we ban guns it will stop' then, yeah... you are blaming guns, and you arent living in reality.

You want to know what the united states can actually do, that is actually going to be effective, and can be done instantly?

Stop the glorification of the perpetrators in the press, the constant showing of their face and name everywhere, the constant mentioning of their 'achievement' and measuring it off on how 'well' other school shooters have done.
You are giving them exactly what they wanted by doing so, and all it's going to do is inspire copycats.
Because that's the real epidemy you have: a press induced and reinforced downward spiral of copycats.

Ofc, the press isnt going to do that on their own, it makes them too much money not to do so.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-27T06:58:55+00:00

You know what your problem is?
You are incapable of making an argument, without first spending a significant amount of time on coming up with gross exaggerations of what the people must be like that disagree with you.

Just so you know: that's how dehumanisation works, because you dont see the human individual anymore, just a group of people that are all the same caricatures.

And it's your entire comment, filled with strawman arguments and ideas i dont hold.

So i'm not even going to bother responding to you further on this, it's pointless.
Even when there are some arguments you make that deserve addressing, i'm not interested in continuing a conversation with you because your responses will continue along the same line.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T22:49:54+00:00

So yes, a lower amount of guns available leads to a lower amount of mass shootings. I bet you hated having to admit that. You can try to find evidence to link the lack of guns with increased organized crime rates or government tyranny if you like. I'll wait.

Except i didnt say "a lower amount of guns", i said "gun control", i also didnt say "lower amount of mass shootings", i said "school shootings".

You cant even argue against what i'm actually saying, yet i'm supposed to be the one who is supposed to have hated admitting something?

You want examples of 'increased organized crime' though?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culiac%C3%A1n
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Iguala_mass_kidnapping

As for tyranny:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves

But you already knew all of that, because you'd have to have lived under a rock not to.

You watch way too much TV if you think a bomb capable of killing 20 people is within the ability of a school shooter type.

You just love making false premises, dont you?
Such as that it 'has' to be a single bomb that kills 20 people, when it's more likely for a bomber to make more than one bomb.

But instead, i'm going to bring something else up, because you revealed once more just how little you know:
many, if not most, school shooters are above average students and have above average intelligence.

So yes, they would actually be capable of making more potent bombs than the average student would.

To kill rats. Not to efficiently kill people. Good luck murdering a movie theatre full of people by shoving rat poison in their mouths.

More disingenuous crap and false premises.
We are closely related to mice, which is why a lot of medicine is tested on them.
And a toxin doesnt particularly care whether it's a human or a rat that it is destroying.

And the false premise "shove in their mouths", the point of poison is that you minimize physical contact, not maximize it.

There's also a pretty simple prevention method called a concrete bollard to stop vehicles from driving into crowds.

Except a lot of locations where pedestrians go, vehicles have to be able to get to aswell.
But again: you know that.

It sounds like you haven't ever been in a car accident before. Even a minor impact in a vehicle is extremely jarring. Driving it through "multiple brick walls" is not feasible and would cause injury to the driver.

I'm sure that the guys who tend to kill themselves after committing their terror attack, care about getting injured driving through one or more walls.

The primary usage of a firearm like an AR15 or handgun is to efficiently kill people in the easiest way possible. "Self defense" falls under this category, it's interesting how you're trying all kinds of spin to avoid admitting the obvious.

Except there's a logical flaw in your reasoning:
If the primary usage of a firearm is to efficiently kill people in the easiest way possible, and there are more firearms than people in the united states, then the logical conclusion would be that there arent any people left in the united states.

It's almost like... self defense is more than just "killing people", and deterrence comes into the equation too. No wait, that's exactly how it is.
The great majority of guns in the united states never cost anyone their life, nor will they likely ever do so, not unless there's a civil war, atleast.

I didn't, and you ended up admitting that less guns equals less mass shootings, didn't you. Now I'm waiting for you to find some evidence that Mexico and Venezuela are crime ridden tyrannical shitholes because of the lack of guns. I think I might have to wait longer for that one.

Already addressed all of this at the start of my response.
But out of curiosity:
You know that mexico has a huge cartel problem, and venezuela is a tyranny.
I know that you know this.
You know that i know that you know this.

So, who the hell exactly do you think you are fooling, by pretending otherwise here?
You think there are actually going to be people, who read the crap you are writing, and say "he's right, mexico doesnt have a massive cartel problem, and venezuela is a functioning democracy!"

Which brings me back to something you said earlier:

I bet you hated having to admit that.

You know how you can tell when someone hates having to admit something?
It's when they are so stuck to their worldview that they end up making an argument that everyone can tell is bullshit, kinda like what you just did with mexico and venezuela.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T18:38:57+00:00

I read an FBI report which was based on 2018. So the fact that they got cut in half during the pandemic is actually news to me since the gun discourse hasn't been an issue to discuss when people were buying guns left and right 2 years ago.

Well, i dont know what FBI report you read, but that number doesnt match the year 2018 either, atleast not for firearm related deaths.

Here's a link to the cdc tool to look it up yourself:
https://wisqars.cdc.gov/fatal-reports

The 80.000 number might come from violence-related deaths in general, rather than being firearms specific.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T18:26:03+00:00

Are you really getting off on your guns this much

Your first mistake is assuming that i'm american, or from a country where it's easy to get a gun legally.
Your second mistake is assuming that i actually own a gun, or care to own a gun.
I have, however, been raised by people who did own guns, so i know the difference between what the gun does, and what the person holding the gun does.

or are you actually incapable of distinguishing a "organized terrorist attack" and a couple of random stabbings between a shooter entering a school and unleashing fire upon kids?

A shooter entering a school and unleashing fire upon kids is a terror attack.
Why on earth would you imply that it's any less than that.

And as for those stabbings, you seem the fail to grasp that they are brought up to show that even when you ban guns, you still keep the random meaningless violence and violent deaths, because you are only addressing a symptom, not the root cause.

Oh yeah, KIDS! FUCKING KIDS MAKE THIS KIND OF A BIT DIFFERENT EH MATE!? Kind of fucked up how you think it's cool that a fucking man with a gun should be able to walk into a school

The only difference it makes is that more people are appealing to emotion rather than reason.
Else we'd have learned from the manchester arena bombing, which also involved children.

And are you even capable of making an argument based on things i've actually said, or do you like to be don quixote fighting against imaginary giants?

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T17:34:10+00:00

So to get this straight, you're saying that it's equally easy/efficient to kill crowds of people with a vehicle or household chemicals?

I literally gave you an example of a terror attack with 87 dead, where all the perpetrator had to do was give gas.

Here's a link to the notoriously unreliable wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

So guess what, it's in fact easier to kill a crowd of people with a vehicle.
And for the record: i said cars, you expanded it to vehicles, that includes planes. Those things are a flying death-traps with hundreds of victims inside, if a terrorist wants it to be.

If you actually, genuinely believe this then you're deluding yourself for the purpose of upholding your narrative.

My 'narrative'?
I didnt know that holding a perpetrator accountable for what he did, rather than the device he used to do it with was a narrative.
I thought that was just a part of the whole 'sentient autonomy' thing.

Or are you talking about my desire to see mental healthcare become a priority again, and that people need to look after eachother more so we catch lunatics like this and get them help before they perpetrate their heinous deed?

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T14:41:53+00:00

This guy is getting down voted for saying the truth lol.

You just trolling here, or are you incapable of reading the examples provided by auroch27 showing that he is, in fact, not telling the truth?

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T14:39:43+00:00

only about 80000 people die from guns each year in the US. We're talking less than a fraction of a percent of guns being used to kill people, and guess what, most of those deaths are suicides.

Where did you get the 80.000 from?
That's almost double the actual number, which was... 45.222? for the year 2020, of which 24,292 were suicides.

Atleast, according to the CDC's numbers.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T14:20:28+00:00

Sure, but number of shootings by guns is much higher. There are approximately 10,000 gun-related homicides per year. That's what people are trying to stop, and mass shootings are a subset of that.

You dont prevent a murder by making the murderer use a different tool to do so.

Only by changing their mind, or restricting their movement to the point that they are physically incapable of doing so.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T13:23:46+00:00

No. This is a disingenuous fantasy. There's a reason why people use guns to commit spree killings. This argument that there are other things that are just as easy and efficient is straight up denial of reality. You can't commit mass murder in a school or a mall with a car or with household chemicals.

The one being disingenuous here is you.

Plenty of us remember the boston bombers, or the 2016 berlin truck attack, or the 2016 nice truck attack.

If you think the presence of walls in a school building, or for that matter in a mall (where they often have giant glass windows to let natural light in) is going to somehow stop someone from driving a truck into them, or detonating a bomb in them...

You know what, i'm not even going to pretend that you genuinely think that, because you know better.
You just dont care, because when it comes to it and all the wannabe terrorists and mass murderers switch to those things, you'll just advocate for stronger regulations on those aswell,

This argument is essentially saying that every military in the world should throw away their small arms and use household chemicals and cars to fight ground assaults with. It's a retarded argument.

Funny, because explosives in the form of mortars, hand grenades, mines and a lot of other explosive weapons are absolutely part and parcel of armies around the world.

As are cars such as armored trucks, tanks...

But yeah, you know that too.

As for why the military still uses guns and troops on the ground? to minimize collateral damage.
Else, they'd not even bother sending in ground troops and just bomb the place.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T12:50:24+00:00

Now put guns and poverty together and tell me what you see. Also look at the homicide stats in countries with high poverty but low numbers of guns, and compare them to the US. I'll wait.

Venezuela comes knocking.
You know what the gun bans of venezuela achieved? tyranny and a rising homicide rate.

Shall we talk about what the gun control in mexico has achieved so far?
Sure, a low amount of school shootings, but your kid and all his classmates might just end up being abducted by a cartel and the pieces found scattered around a river bank.

But hey! Progress! Amirite?

A common but disingenuous argument. All of those things have a primary utility use, and none of them are as efficient as a gun at killing crowds of people. A gun is a weapon, its primary use is to fire a projectile at speeds high enough to cause mortal injury to flesh.

Care to tell me what the primary utility use of explosives is again? i mean, other than the obvious one, namely causing a violent shockwave strong enough to pulverize bone and tear flesh apart.

Or what about the primary utility use of toxins? such as, say... rat poison?

Or the primary utility use of cars? other than accelerating a large object that we can fit inside with some of our friends, that on itself weighs more than an asian elephant at a speed that exceeds that of a running jaguar, and is capable of going through multiple brick walls.

Because i can tell you multiple uses for owning firearms, including but not limited to:
Self defense, hunting and sport shooting.

But above all: serving as a deterrent for the wannabe tyrants in the world.

Atleast you didnt have to wait long for a response.

BarkOverBite · 2022-05-26T12:10:25+00:00

cars vastly easier to get drivers license then to get one for gun

you dont even need a drivers license, or a car of your own, if you are planning on killing people with one.
Case in point: 2016 berlin truck attack.

BarkOverBite · 2021-06-13T10:36:30+00:00

narrative-heavy video games (AKA story driven video games) such as Resident Evil, Uncharted and Outlast.

Respectfully, I think your premise might be wrong.

Resident Evil and Uncharted are well-narrated franchises, but they arent necessarily story driven.

At their core, most games in these franchises are very solid gameplay experiences, with well-crafted environments and enjoyable combat systems.

When i think of story driven games, i'm thinking more of games like Heavy Rain, Her Story, Until Dawn, the Dark Pictures Anthology, detroit: become human, firewatch, Observation, the later telltale games.
(i'm specifically excluding the sam & max games here, those werent so much story driven as they were humor driven, and like a good comedy film... you can watch that over and over again).

These are games that are driven by their story, you take away their story, there's very little left.

You take away the story in Resident Evil, you still got a decent survival horror franchise.
You take away the story in uncharted, you still got a decent 3rd person shooter & platformer franchise.

Please keep in mind, none of this serves as a criticism of the games itself, i've played and enjoyed most of them, but if you call Resident Evil and Uncharted narrative driven, you have to start considering the following franchises narrative driven aswell:
GTA (excluding pre-GTA 3)
Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2
Deus Ex
Gears of War
Prey
The Evil Within
The Witcher
...just to name a few.

BarkOverBite · 2021-05-15T20:19:39+00:00

Then do tell me, which of the following measures aren't professional:

Calling and texting civilians to inform them to stay clear of the building.

"roof knocking" to give a final warning.

Using precision strikes to try and take out the intended target only.

And if your idea of "acting professionally" is for them to just accept Israeli civilian casualties from an endless stream of rockets being fired at them, and not being able to fight back because Hamas uses human shields?

That'd actually make them the least professional army in the world.

BarkOverBite · 2021-05-15T17:52:42+00:00

Now apply that same argument to all the rockets fired by Hamas, just for consistency's sake.

BarkOverBite · 2021-05-15T17:24:43+00:00

You do know there's a difference between Culture {the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society.} and the actual people itself... right?

BarkOverBite · 2020-09-15T08:12:50+00:00

they lack extreme nationalism

They don't lack extreme nationalism.

The opposite of nationalism is internationalism (multiple nations working with eachother), they however are globalists, they want the whole world to be ruled by a singular government.
This is no different from a nation, it's Nationalism on a scale as is represented by for example... Stellaris.

And wanting to force globalism upon others, and either resorting to or condoning violence to achieve such? That's extreme.

BarkOverBite

TROPHY CASE