I'm removing it. Also, for the record, this is the original comment:
- Harsher in Hindsight: In one of the Negotiator games that preceded this series, "The Suspicious Cop", making a romantic advance on said cop causes him to declare the (male) player character a sinner and murder him on the spot. At first this seems like a strange over-reaction, but when Ted became a Creator's Pet mouthpiece for Michael Gibson's Christian propaganda, the aforementioned incident started making an unfortunate amount of sense. It gets doubly so as well considering the backlash against Police Brutality like that in the real world later in The New '10s.
I'm striking it on the following grounds:
1. Inaccurate. The player character is implied to be a woman, not a gay man.
2. Making assumptions about the author's beliefs. While Gibson is probably a far-right conservative if his characters' political rants are anything to go by, there is no evidence that he is anti-gay.
3. Also, the titular "suspicious cop" is the antagonist in that game anyway, just like the Lusty Barfly who murders "liars" or the Vagabond who murders people who won't give him money. They're the bad guys. They're the people you have to defeat. Suggesting that they be held up as examples of what Gibson actually wants to see happen is just... no.
4. The only point here that seems like it might be a legitimate use of this term is that last sentence... but even then, I really don't feel like it counts. In order for it to be "harsher in hindsight" it has to be something that was NOT seen as harsh at the time the game was released. Police Brutality is indeed a major talking point today in the year 2020... but it was also a major talking point back in 2000. Of note, the Rodney King beating, trials against the police officers, and the riots that caused mass destruction in Los Angeles, all only happened less than a decade prior, and were still a major talking point by 2000.
Point is, there was never any point in this game's existence, where the shooting wasn't harsh, and it seems like pretty obvious stretching by the troper who added this, trying to create an agenda that doesn't exist. So I'm removing it.
Edited by Mimic1990
The "harsher in hindsight" example claims the player character is male and makes assumptions about the author's views, but I'm pretty sure the player's character is female. So... should that example be removed or what?
Hide / Show Replies