Uruanna

I think the writers pretty much admitted they had no plan for Trinity, seeing how their goal completely changed from immortality to apocalypse between Rise and Shadow. They were just the reason for Lara to track them across the world and stumble on ancient stuff.

I'm looking up the opening scene for Rise of the Tomb Raider and I can't find the therapy session itself. Maybe it was only in the trailer and they cut it from the game, I remember people thought it was weird when they released that trailer because it was unexpected at the time that this was the direction they were taking? But the game does have you find tapes of Lara's recorded sessions talking with the therapist, like how she's having control issues and it turns out she has become a different person in a bad way.

The third game of the reboot trilogy starts with her tracking this evil organization that's been screwing with her family, finding the item they're trying to steal to trigger an appocalypse, stealing it first, and almost triggering that same apocalypse because she doesn't know what she's doing, thinking she's doing good. Second game also started with her tracking the same organization to figure out what they're doing, and from that, she stumbles into some archaeology. It's a long character arc, she was looking for unrelated answers, but she learns that she can be good at figuring out ancient stuff, and she finds out the hard way that she can also fuck up badly when she doesn't know what she's doing. It's supposed to end at the point where she's mature enough to do better. We just see all the "fucking up" parts.

The second game of the reboot trilogy starts with Lara in therapy session about how she became a thrill addict from her survivor's guilt from the first game and how she's liking it.

That was very clearly on purpose, she starts panicking about the first guys she kills to survive (and there's a very obvious rape vibe when she gets ganged up on), and near the end she's screaming I'm gonna kill you all. That is the narrative arc. Welcome to trauma stories?

Have you not seen those movies that end up saying "if we kill the big bad, we're no better than them" after mowing down countless faceless mobs

It's not all out of incompetence though, some of them do know that's not how the law says it should be (and many don't, sure), they just want to bully their way into making it work that way and then just keep doing it that way because they don't like the current way.

The Greek trolley was not a car either. We came up with a big idea, we made something very limited and pretended that it was that idea, and we've only added a coat of paint since, is the analogy I prefer to make.

Your argument is literally that you don't like the editorialized title, that's it's lazy and unprofessional, that the title alone is somehow distorting facts, that you think your version is better, and that the writer is a hack because of it, even though the point is correct, and you claim that parroting a press release can be the job of a good journalist. And you're trying to wiggle out of it by pretending that it's not the point you're making, even though I am quoting you. I am telling you that this way of splicing quotes used to be correct even if you don't like it, and what your argument leads to, and you still want to stick to it.

Exact quotes can be in the article. The title can be an editorialized summary that gets the point across as long as it's a correct interpretation that you give your argument for in the article.

What you're asking for is state propaganda, that's where it goes, that's where it is right now. It teaches politicians to spin longer phrases that clearly sound like promises and denouncing bad things so they can then deny everything the next day, because "that's not what I said." And on the other hand, it punishes those who make a short, blunt comment and then get hounded about the exact word they use, not allowing for any explanation - or any mistake. That's how you get nations refusing to call something a genocide, and Nazis pretending to be upset at getting called Nazis, that's how you get any left winger denigrated because they used a word you decided was not right, while denying the meaning of a word that a right winger said. You erase the importance of meaning by focusing on the importance of an exact quote while denying an interpretation. It teaches the media that asking questions and making editorial interpretations is forbidden because only the exact phrase from the press release is permitted, making it easier to manipulate the message being put out, because copy-pasting is easier than interpreting, and it reduces variations that expose the gaps and underline the problems.

You yourself right now are denying that this is really what she said because that's not her exact words, leaving an opening to deny the entire comment - because that's how it goes, not necessarily from you, but from anyone who comes after that. Hell, you're already dismissing whoever wrote this as a hack because you don't like that they didn't use an exact quote, even though the meaning is absolutely right and you know it. Even your suggestion will be met with "but what was the exact quote" from people who will promptly ignore everything you say that's longer than one sentence, and what you thought was more correct than this title will be deemed not correct enough. Like it or not, this is historically how journalism did things right, this absolutely was how quotes worked, until Fox News had to argue in court that only an idiot would believe they were news, and then nothing came out of it except Fox getting more power. This is how people keep moving toward more autoritarianism, that is what they have been doing, and that is what is happening now. Diversity in journalism is a good thing, and what you are defending only pushes toward uniformity.

Remember Covid, don't report on things = they stop existing.

But the actual use of the word is a redefinition from the literal meaning, though. Democracy is power to the people, and states are the ones that keep adding conditions on who has the right to vote, starting with citizenship or criminal records - and deciding who gets to be a citizen as well as inventing new crimes that can lose you that right. This is a legal limitation that is decided by the state and it is always redefining the word. So no, modern and ancient states alike never really had a democracy, they just created a word and then decided that actually some people don't have that right, beyond the literal definition of that word. Power to the people^not everyone is people^.