And he is clearly not celebrating this violence, he’s saying he is fascinated by it. Would you feel this way about a woman telling you she watches a lot of True Crime documentaries? I consider both interests to be perverse; it just seemed like an odd thing to fixate on when the article had quite a bit more to it than that.

Okay then it was what I thought (see previous). Done?

> Would you feel this way about a woman telling you she watches a lot of True Crime documentaries?

I would think that about anyone who takes the time to frame the conquest in that way and then do a heel-turn in the next paragraph. This is not me saying that the conquest was evil and blaming someone for being interested in it—this is the author framing it in terms of the suffering and then “And yet” (note conjunction) thinking that it was awesome. This is just what he himself chose to write.

Would I judge someone—or I guess specifically a woman—for explaining their fascination with True Crime in the same way? Uh. Yes.

> I consider both interests to be perverse; it just seemed like an odd thing to fixate on

You’re just casually policing off-hand comments. But that’s not odd? My comment, ill-contexted as it was (and sorry for that to the gamer author) was in response to someone focusing on the crimes the conquistadors. Both my response and the quote from the author (on another piece) was relevant to that point.

Considering that I also made a response to the whole article here (which you have replied to by the way) this is clearly not a fixation.

> when the article had quite a bit more to it than that.

It certainly has a lot of volume.