>>40145190>"All Dark Pokemon are evil"Never really said that, but it is pretty much the entire identity of that Type, yeah. I don't happen to believe it's very nuanced. And I don't think Chaotic is much worse.
>"Flying type is slapped onto anything that needs Ground inmunity"That's true though? Flying is easily the Type with the least personality. Very nearly every Flying Type DOES have it slapped on, or is just a bird.
Pointing out that Chaotic isn't that narrow of a concept in comparison to other Types, literally isn't a strawman. I don't know what you're getting at. You said Chaotic is a narrow concept, but it clearly isn't that narrow really when you look at some of the other Types.
>Feel free to back this argument in any wayThe fact that nearly every Pokémon of the Normal Type is exceedingly normal? It represents normality, yes, in addition to generalization-specialization and Type-neutralness. Saying something has no elemental powers is just another way of saying they act "normally".
>....because you've already provided several examples of Normal types that don't fit this statement.Fuck, got me there.
Well... But the point with this is that those Pokémon are the rare EXCEPTION to this rule. They're the few Normal Types who DON'T behave normally, which is WHY I'm saying they should be reTyped. What they are and what they say they are does not align.
>In what way do ANY of those 4 Pokémon fit as "generalists"?>In the very fact they have no elemental association, dummy.But that's irrelevant. They don't have a Type to represent what their specialty is, but they still HAVE a specialty. They don't need an elemental association, but if Chaotic Type existed, they would suddenly HAVE a well define elemental specialization, now wouldn't they?
