To put it simply, if you don’t know where you are going or trying to go, how can you get lost? How can any direction be a detour when there isn’t a destination and there is merely where you are?

When we say “set back” that assumes there is some singular goal or direction for humanity. It’s relative. If in 500 years the dominant view is that monarchy or feudalism are superior and current philosophies of government are out of style, they might say that the relative egalitarian sentiment that swept Europe and much of the globe into the 21st century was a “set back,”
The argument exists and can’t be universally disproven that modern society and technological advancement aren’t actually an objective improvement over living a more simple life without the tools and such of society.
I’m not making that argument and I am not inclined to agree, but I can’t really dismiss it objectively and completely without subjective data.

It’s a hard call for “favorite” but indeed- I’m more than a bit put back that Felix isn’t on here because that was one of the firsts that came to mind for contender for me.

So when the time comes to fight terrorists or some such broad group- the raids and torture and bombing and killing and trials usually stop short when the trail starts to lead back to people who prove some net benefit to the organization or individuals controlling the dogs of the hunt. So they can’t say exactly who they are going after or they might miss some “bad guys” and they might be forced to take down some “bad guys” who they’d rather keep around. Best to leave it vague so they can point the gun at where it is most convenient.

So there is often little consequence and history shows us that heroes become villains and vice versa and sometimes either over the course of time as views change and memories fade or fuzz. American military bases and schools and government buildings are named after Generals and soldiers of Military other than the US government, who engaged in active and unlawful war and treason and people fight to keep it that way. Men who tried and often succeeded in saving lives or resisting inhuman governments have been killed or exiled as war criminals because the zeitgeist demanded it or someone needed to be accountable. History turns and so there is often little point in worrying about how you’ll be perceived in a hundred years as long as you are remembered in a hundred years. That is the lesson we teach.

One of the oldest most well known examples of American corruption of scale like this is United fruit and South America- the intentional and lingering destabilization of an entire continent to secure favorable fruit prices for a private company- using the US military as a mercenary army for a private company. It is often decades or centuries before we uncover the full truth the the mass public, or some fraction of. What people think of you a century later doesn’t usually affect you and it doesn’t detract from your profits in life. More over, history has traditionally taken a roast view of bad men that did big things, you can rape and slave and steal and cheat and murder and be caught after death and still have statues and buildings named after you and be a legend who is held up and taught as a hero- perhaps with a footnote that you’re problematic to modern standards. Boo hoo.

So to be able to go after the broad range of people involved with some knowledge in terrorism means painting with a wide brush- but it usually stops before you cut off your arm to spite your hand. In other words- you think there weren’t very rich and powerful people who have been indirectly involved in horrible things? Who at the least have allowed them to happened or helped intentionally create conditions where a foreseeable outcome to a reasonable person would be potentially bad things- weighed them as insignificant risks to success in goals and profits, or even banked on those outcomes as the results were predicted to act in their favor?

Then there are the “soft supporters.” Enablers. Many things are “open secrets” especially within certain groups. No one in Hollywood knew about Harvey Weinstein..? We know that isn’t true. People let him do it and largely kept quiet- either they saw it as “the ways things are” or they didn’t want to endanger their own well being from retaliation for standing up or because they relied on the man for their meal ticket. That’s politics. So of course many organizations that are criminal or adversarial to foreign powers or such problematic behaviors get some leeway or even a blind eye or support around the globe- America included- especially when they don’t “shit in their own back yard” and cause problems elsewhere but pose benefit to your organization or self. It happens.

So to go to war against JUST one terrorist banner ties your hands- you can’t go after just the guys involved in an incident- the funny thing about suicide bombers is if they have any career success there tends to be no direct perpetrators to go after once the crime is done, and it is nigh impossible most of the time to untangle all the people who performed “mission critical” tasks of planning and support and intelligence or were somehow involved in giving approval etc. and good luck separating the ones who were ignorant they were helping from the ones with intent. Did the suppliers of chemicals or flight training or so many things know or suspect a part in the plan? Unless you have dead nuts proof like them saying they knew… prove it.

We all have our off days. No doubt I’ll be back to my good old ways before long.

Sometimes a way to get away from that is to focus on magic or the like or unarmed combat or using some sort of spirit or animal or monster etc. as a weapon or tool- but the concept largely remains the same and it is often the case we have a hero who has special abilities and/or items or one who is just skilled naturally or one who is not skilled and must survive and navigate with a lack of skill or power- but the overall gist works out about the same.

So it is certainly the case that there are things that tend to “play well” in a genre. A staple of fantasy for 1000+ years is the “magic sword” or, if the author wants to be “different” perhaps an axe or scythe or some novel and often impractical weapon of their choice. Sometimes it is a staff or book or armor or jewelry- but it’s a persistent and almost expected element and even if The item isn’t strictly magical it often holds some quasi mysticism or special attributes like being “space metal” or some rare and exotic material or being forged by some extinct or ancient or otherworldly power etc etc. when that is missing from the genre it tends to often be noticed

We can see dabbling with these concepts in mainstream pop media- the film “Scott Pilgrim Versus the World” is in my mind as many other minds an excellent film. Witty, fun, entertaining, interesting, somewhat novel (in mass film media) and yet it is designated more a “cult classic” than a “block buster” and has had success but primarily with a niche audience. It would perhaps be unwise for film makers to attempt to carry that same style into the majority of mainstream film then, now, or in the near future.

Indeed, sometimes we get these tropes and cliches because the people most likely to watch that type of entertainment WANT those things. Expect them. New and novel often aren’t well received in media. How many people are avid fans of experimental or art house films? How many in that genre are terribly profitable vs. Being artistic expression for the sake of it or technically, conceptually, philosophically brilliant but not the sort of entertainment most people want to unwind or relax to? When most people are looking for a fun diversion and a little fantasy they don’t turn to experimental extinsentialist surrealist indie films.

Some of the repetition in a genre comes from such work where someone “did the homework” so others sort of ape off that- the high fantasy genre is rife with influence and even copy catting and “borrowing” from LOTR. We see that in anime too- where a well liked work is aped by others often with much less effort. Sometimes the results are objectively good and other times not so much- but there are some measure parts attempting to “cash in” or capitalize on other successful properties as well as “fan service.”

Of course there ARE itsekai that are more or less “alive of life” or where the protagonist or circumstances are greatly different, but especially when you get a volume of properties in the same genre- especially a relatively niche drama- they’ll tend to start having similarities or seeming formulaic. And yes, some degree of this is going to be in quality or effort. LOTR is a fantasy with quite a bit of lore, there are many popular franchises like this, War Hammer universe, D&D etc. and they do have devoted and large fan bases. These properties tend to at least be accesible to people who don’t have the entire encyclopedia of knowledge and they also tend to have a lot of thought and/or care into them. LOTR has entire actual languages and an almost living history.

Not having spouses or likely serious long term relationships tends to leave room to explore romantic storylines and the sorts of relationship dynamics that exist between people from very different backgrounds and worlds. Having a protagonist who hasn’t had certain experiences also brings the ability for “firsts” and novelty and such.
So we tend to get these sort of commonalities because they are what makes sense to a wide audience. More specific fiction can be more diverse but it often tends to have optimal appeal to a narrower audience.
Other things tend to work out as well- a protagonist who is powerful or accomplished or gifted or skilled speaks to a wish fulfillment aspect of the viewer. If you are “escaping to another world” most people either are A: living awesome real lives and want something they can’t get in this one or B: not living an awesome life and living similar in another world wouldn't be super cool. There are riffs on this- Konosuba being a take for example.

It streamlines things and sort of Govea a pass to enjoy the ride- it’s like someone taking a year or whatever to study abroad or such. It’s generally expected or acceptable for people in that age group to go away from home and find themselves and explore and such. That also functions as a bit of metaphor or parable.
But an important factors there is this- younger viewers can at least have some aspirational comprehension or romanticization of being in that age range. Viewers that age can directly relate, and older viewers can recall what it was like to be that age. It’s not quite the same if your protagonist is 40. That can be unrelatable or not aspirational for kids and teens.