Internet shitstorm of the week

[Mischief Maker]

http://pepperonideluxe.tumblr.com/post/ ... -like-this

Nice little kafkatrap down at the bottom there too. Funny thing is, the gulls can represent whoever you want them to.

Is a frigging rat lecturing seagulls about horrible opportunistic feeding practices?

That... actually turns the comic into unintentional genius!

If the rat had succeeded in guilt-tripping the seagulls into sparing the rabbit, the second the gulls flew off the rat and its fellows would probably swarm the injured rabbit and skeletonize it in seconds.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Oh, I get it

Gulls = The Patriarchy

Squirrell = Feminism

Rabbit = XBox Live

[Lord Satori]

http://pepperonideluxe.tumblr.com/post/ ... -like-this

Nice little kafkatrap down at the bottom there too. Funny thing is, the gulls can represent whoever you want them to.

Whenever I see that word I see "kefkatrap". That's a nice find, there.

Gulls = The Patriarchy

Squirrell = Feminism

Rabbit = XBox Live

Implying that Feminists would defend Xbox Live.

[evil_ash_xero]

You can't let the emotional response that one gets to seeing someone harassed make you blind to other things.

One's devotion to a particular cause also shouldn't be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye to the unsavory elements which are parasitically feeding on that cause and threatening to derail much of its potential in the process.

Well, there is a sub sect of GG that is trying to stamp out the harassers.

I don't turn a bind eye to it, however, I personally won't let it overtake the conversation. Because then they've won. Because that's the only leg they have to stand on.

[Ed Oscuro]

Anita Sarkeesian wants in games. What type of woman she wants in games is hard to make out, as she doesn't like "men with tits".

She actually use that phrase? If so...

By complete coincidence, looking at the source for that image was "UnBooks:A UTP: Link Gets Pregnant and Dies"

[evil_ash_xero]

Anita Sarkeesian wants in games. What type of woman she wants in games is hard to make out, as she doesn't like "men with tits".

She actually use that phrase? If so...

By complete coincidence, looking at the source for that image was "UnBooks:A UTP: Link Gets Pregnant and Dies"

Yeah, Episode 10. Whenever that arrives. Maybe next week in game magazines.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/56 ... ideo-games

[BryanM]

Bryan, you've been SJW since some time during that friendzone thread (emo fox's I think).

Hurm.

Nope, explaining to forever-alones that the friend zone doesn't exist, that you can't "solve" someone into having sex with you if they don't want to (such logic explicitly leads to the conclusion that a gay guy could get any straight man into a relationship) has nothing to do about being decent to women. That's a basic explanation of how the world works.

Wait, you're right. That is social justice... in trying to lift up men, protecting them from women and themselves. My heart aches for these poor oneitis never-been-touched kids. I just want to shake them and scream the fact they have nothing to be nervous about, you either match with someone or you don't, that showing them your pokemons or whatever you're interested in is a far better strategy than worrying about what they care about... Ugh, it breaks the heart to see anyone gobble up the mountains of bullshit we're told as children.

She actually use that phrase? If so...

It's a pretty accurate description of say, the writings of Frank Miller.

More accurate would be that Frank Miller writes women as "How Frank Miller Sees Frank Miller, with giant tits" however.

I'm impressed anyone here can watch Sarkeesian's videos for longer than a couple minutes. It's the most boring sterile shit I've seen on youtube in quite a while - bullet point lists being rattled off. She needs help on her presentation desperately.

^The strawman is strong with this one

It's not a strawman. Gameragate is a bunch of children making noise that no one cares about.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

What's the deal with Gamera? Apart from its from that blog.

[Mischief Maker]

What's the deal with Gamera? Apart from its from that blog.

Gamera is friend to the children. I guess since gamergaters are children they have Gamera on their side? Yaaay!

Oh, I get it

Gulls = The Patriarchy

Squirrell = Feminism

Rabbit = XBox Live

Actually it's a cartoon recreation of the opening scene to Way of the Gun. The rabbit is the car, the seagulls in the distance are the guys sitting on the car, the seagull in the foreground is the boyfriend, and the rat is Sarah Silverman, pressuring her boyfriend into starting a fight.

[Ed Oscuro]

She actually use that phrase? If so...

It's a pretty accurate description of say, the writings of Frank Miller.

Haha, oh god, how right you are. Just a few issues of Sin City did that. Well, the police woman partner (lesbian) chick seemed like a decent enough character. The others? Totally fetishized.

Didn't think this one through. I'm just a bit hypersensitive to any complaints of gender transgression, which apparently is not what she's complaining about. I'm not going to try the "but what about double standards" gambit either since this is apparently about media representativeness.

[Squire Grooktook]

Didn't think this one through. I'm just a bit hypersensitive to any complaints of gender transgression, which apparently is not what she's complaining about.

IIRC in her master thesis or something, she argued that Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley were terrible female characters because they rely on violence, and that captain Janeway from Star Trek Voyager is a good female character because she relies on politic. Might want to look that up to confirm though, not sure.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

What's the deal with Gamera? Apart from its from that blog.

holy shit im slow

[Ed Oscuro]

She can say some dumb thing if she wants, but it doesn't quite eliminate the nugget of truth in what she's upset about. (FWIW, I'm more fond of Janeway than those other characters myself; Janeway isn't too far from the Lean-Luc mold here. I think the issue is finding a good mix of action and brains.)

The thing about focusing on somebody like Frank Miller is - well, that's just one guy who has found some kind of niche. He doesn't have to change. Sometimes shaming is the correct course of action, but he's an artist and not a policy maker, and at most only a minor public figure, so my sympathies are going to lie more with his right to free speech and not being at the end of a campaign. I'm also not sure his fairly self-aware parodies of action character stereotypes are the most ripe target. Should somebody pitch him on shaking things up and trying different ideas? Shouldn't he have thought of this himself? Probably, but at this point I have no idea what his current ideas are. Sin City is nearly 20 years old and The Dark Knight is nearly 30. For all their failings in portrayal, they appear mainly to be deliberate stylistic choices; at the same time, there are some characters and events in both that make clear that he's not just interested in making knuckle-draggers feel good about themselves.

I'm also not especially fond of the "you should stop doing what you want to do and do something just for me" that gets passed around the Internet so much. Carrots and sticks also plays into this.

This isn't to say that Sarkeesian is being particularly fundamentalist about this. If every Jewish character in media was offensively bad and Jewish people were always being confronted by that whenever they tried to access mass culture, it'd be obvious to many men that something would have to change.

Overall, I think this is a tough case. People are basically asking for statistical proof of something that is a feeling - it may well be that characters like Ripley and Sarah Connor stuck particularly badly in Sarkeesian's craw for some idiosyncratic reason. That's not stupid; at most it's not a widely shared feeling. Still the overall truth - whether or not female characters are well-represented in media in a way that women approve of - is out there to be judged and acted on.

tl;dr - anybody can exercise their freedom of speech, but there is also a freedom from hatefulness. It's the overall picture that needs to change, and the basic problem confronting people like Sarkeesian is that they are trying to paint a picture of this overall bad issue with single issues. There's no obvious source of statistics on portrayals of different characters in fiction, and even if there was, it would still be too complicated (think Lara Croft in her original trilogy, vs. Lara Croft in her ads and merchandising efforts - extremely different vibes there).

[Squire Grooktook]

She can say some dumb thing if she wants, but it doesn't quite eliminate the nugget of truth in what she's upset about.

Indeed. Writers in general within the medium should make an extra effort to write opposite gendered characters from the perspective of the opposite gender. Many, many of the arguments I've tangentially heard her make certainly have a grain of truth in them.

That being said, it's not about whether Sarah or Ripley are more interesting/likable characters, or whether they are believable as females. She seems to be making the argument that a female character, regardless of what her personality is like, who relies on violence (by choice or not, since it's not like Ripley had much of a choice) is "not a real female character" or is being "mascinulized" as an effort to promote male virtues in female characters, and downplay femininity in general. Therefore, female action leads are not only poor examples of female characters, but actively bad ones who are trying to promote masculinity in women by their very existence.

What this essentially amounts to is an excuse to criticize any female character within an action game or action based setting, regardless of her motives, characterization, background, or story arc (all of which are limited and tricky as they are, given the limited plotting and characterization potential in 2 hour movies or action focused games). If fighting is the only option and you have to use it, then you're not really a girl.

If I'm totally wrong and she doesn't espouse these opinions, then please let me know (I've heard the "real female character" argument tossed around by her followers and critics quite a bit, and this seems to be what it means on all accounts. She apparently explains in much greater depth somewhere in her thesis entitled "I'll Make A Man Of You", and I'm 99% sure she referred to Ripley and Sarah in it as "terrible" because violence is the solution in those films). I'd feel relieved if I found out that someone with influence in the industry does not hold the above opinions, or no longer holds them.

tl;dr - anybody can exercise their freedom of speech, but there is also a freedom from hatefulness. It's the overall picture that needs to change, and the basic problem confronting people like Sarkeesian is that they are trying to paint a picture of this overall bad issue with single issues. There's no obvious source of statistics on portrayals of different characters in fiction, and even if there was, it would still be too complicated (think Lara Croft in her original trilogy, vs. Lara Croft in her ads and merchandising efforts - extremely different vibes there).

I'm most certainly not arguing that she doesn't have a right to have her opinions or express them.

I've said this before, but I think the main problem with the tactics here is that they attack, rather then support. Instead of saying Bayonetta is sexist and that such things should be censored, they should be pointing out examples of "real female characters" and good writing/characterization for female characters, bringing such games to the publics attention (because many of them do deserve more love. Beyond Good and Evil, etc), sending a message to developers that we want more of this, showing how such smart writing can be implemented in a variety of genres, etc.

Instead of trying to censor things that we don't subjectively like, we should be trying to promote things that we do like.

But like I said, when you attack you stir up controversy. The upbeat idealistic blog preaching the virtue of good games isn't going to get as many hits (and by extension, money*) as the furious raging debate stirred up by insulting everyone's favorite games and characters. It's telling that only the last video of the series is planned to address "good" female characters, and every single other one is attack, attack, attack. It should be the other way around IMHO.





*

Spoiler

Of course, I'm sure many gamer gate people are also utilizing the controversy for monetary gain and publicity. "DON'T TOUCH OUR GAMES!!!" is also a seductive siren call, now that the conflict is in full force. The Mighty No.9 incident is a great example of people on the opposite side stirring up a controversy over nothing.

[Lord Satori]

Requirements for being a real female character:

1. Character identifies as a female.

2. Character exists.

If she's made it in form of media, then CONGRATULATIONS! She's a real female character!


Points if you could find the comic I got that from 'cause I forgot.

[Ed Oscuro]

Agree with what you're saying - not only is it the carrots vs. sticks thing, but I also don't think that the "shaming" tactic works here. Like, who does it really bother that Frank Miller exists and does the things Frank Miller does? If every work of art was a clone of that, it'd get annoying really quick, but that's not what we have in the marketplace or in the public.

That said what I'm trying to highlight is that it seems unavoidable to do these "case studies;" hopefully it is better than nitpicking but given the differences here are a bit difficult to characterize I don't see how they break through. Anybody can point to a gross caricature of a black person with fat lips and see it's not realistic. But some "man with tits" criticism is talking about something that would definitely be more helpfully visualized through sheer numbers. The "what it is" is hard to envision, but the fact of there being a lot of it would be harder to refute.

Still I think we should have no illusions: This is still a grab for power (albeit one that, so far, I think is more a long-needed realignment, and that's if it actually happens).

What I don't get - it goes back to my point about the harder-to-pin-down emotive aspects of what it is that's at issue here - is what kind of artistic freedom for artists is being envisioned here, and indeed for anybody who's not hawking a special vision of femininity or is not approved to speak about it. If we have Princess Peach, that's too passive and not able enough. If we have Ripley, then we have a man with tits. There is a lot of room here, but I start to suspect that really the issue is that it's more about women wanting to take control of their own narrative. I've been involved with another movement trying to do that - but to some extent this is just a hoped-for good which has to be balanced against other uses. In the end it might even be a pipe dream. There is going to be a narrative which is seen by the other. There's all the gender-transgressive stuff, but even more than that there's also the fact of other people (namely, men) as well as the fact that anybody anywhere has the right and even a duty to narrate gender portrayals for themselves. So basically I am pretty hesitant to go on board with anything that says that there could never be a good portrayal of Ripley, because (especially given the character's role in the history of film and indeed mass culture, starting in 1979) that's patently false.

Requirements for being a real female character:

1. Character identifies as a female.

2. Character exists.

If she's made it in form of media, then CONGRATULATIONS! She's a real female character!


Points if you could find the comic I got that from 'cause I forgot.

Oftentimes I'm tempted to think this way. But what this is really about is real people and their issues of ownership of self - not that this extends to ownership of other concepts, but rather of not having their image warped in the mirror of culture. I can understand that.

I mean, if I was Jewish, and every time I wanted to do something it was through the mirror of "hey, Juden" it would get old in a hurry. So I imagine I'd come up with a whole array of defense mechanisms to try to protect my own image as it's being disseminated through the lens of fiction. Is protecting fiction equally important to reality, or vice versa? Well, thankfully that's not really at issue here.

[Squire Grooktook]

But some "man with tits" criticism is talking about something that would definitely be more helpfully visualized through sheer numbers. The "what it is" is hard to envision, but the fact of there being a lot of it would be harder to refute.

I think that the big point is that a lot of these "bad" things, men with tits, too feminine, objectifying, "trophy" characters, etc. is that they are all very highly subjective. Whether a character is believable or not, on multiple levels, and thus fits into any kind of statistic is something that could be argued eternally on both sides.

I agree with what your saying though. I think the key is variety. Men don't really have it that bad in video games because they have everything from beefcakes (Bill Rizer) to ordinary guys (well, a bit less common there) to gorgeous pretty boys (Alucard). If there were more games that had more diverse examples of female characters and leads, both in terms of appearance and characterization, then I think it would be a much better medium overall.

[Lord Satori]

What bothers me about this is that these "feminists" are judging these characters based solely on the fact that they are women, which is pretty much exactly what they stand against. Not every women is a dainty snowflake, a hardened tomboy, or some other label that's being pasted on these characters. If any of these characters were to be genderswapped, they suddenly wouldn't be complained about because they aren't "serving as a role model for women" or something like that. Well, nobody said your role model has to be from a fkin videogame, you know. There are many amazing women in real life that have proven that women can take care of themselves and whatnot. But what is essentially being said is that because these characters were likely created by men, they aren't "real women". But you know what? Gender isn't as big as you might think. I have a few OCs myself that I've considered changing their gender, and a few of them I already have! And saying that a character makes their gender look bad is like saying that a faultily constructed plane makes all planes look bad therefore, people shouldn't fly anymore.

[Mischief Maker]

...to gorgeous pretty boys (Alucard).

Alucard was a boy?!!

[Ed Oscuro]

@ Squire:

Yes and no - obviously just decreeing that the problem is solved if some randomly selected criteria are met won't do it. I think the issue here is really the democratization of media, and equal opportunity to have a voice. But it's also how those issues are perceived, so just taking a range of body types and saying "women now get these too" probably isn't doing what women developers themselves would do.

The issue of marketing and money is one of the hidden elephants of this story. Probably a lot of this is really close to becoming an obsolete discussion, because people know (or at least hope) that some women might be interested in playing a game, and they don't want to ruin those chances. That said, from the standpoint of big money, I don't see any publisher spending a particularly large amount of time worrying about these issues when they're trying to figure out tone, gameplay, and promotion for the next hyper-big blockbuster game targeting men.

@ Lord Satori:

I think that so far as those arguments go they are being misleading on what the real grounds for the problem are. It's basically "this isn't how I would have done it," which is always a precious thing an artist always wants to hear coming from a non-artist. It's still a reasonable pressure tactic - free speech and all; if I put something out there I'm not immune to criticism, as it should be. However, ultimately the only way to do it right is to have some confidence that women have a reasonable amount of ownership over their own story.

I believe I wrote something earlier about black stereotypes - again, something might not be obviously, blatantly wrong to outsiders (in this case, men) but still be agonizing to people who want to take over some control.

...to gorgeous pretty boys (Alucard).

Alucard was a boy?!!

Alucard is Dracula backwards.

[Squire Grooktook]

But it's also how those issues are perceived, so just taking a range of body types and personalities*FTFY and saying "women now get these too" probably isn't doing what women developers themselves would do.

While that's definitely not the be-all-end-all of the issue, I wouldn't be so sure about that. One primary and often repeated criticism I hear from listening to female players (in fact, probably the only consistent complaint I've heard besides a lack of female leads in general, complaints about characterization itself are almost non-existent in my experience), is that there's not enough diversity or room for choice in the medium, where finding a character who looks or acts the way you think is ideal or relatable can often be extremely difficult. The most common actual suggestion for improvement I see is a desire for more freedom and diversity, which the triple A market is desperately in need of right now. In more ways then one!

There also have been a number of excellent female developers, who's work and writing isn't terribly different from those of good male writers and designers. Writing characters of the opposite gender requires some extra thought, but it's not impossible as attested by the large number of likable female written male characters and male written female characters in fiction.More female developers would make things much, much better. But I don't think it would radically change things, rather re-balance them and make it easier for everyone to find something they like (the ideal situation).

And of course, there is no single thing that female developers would do: Women have varied and subjective tastes just like men, and don't all share the same opinions on these subjects. I've met and seen quite a few female gamers from a variety of age groups and demographics, both in person and online, and their tastes are as diverse as any group. Opinions on this very subject seem to be as fiercely divided as it is for men. That is why I think games becoming more varied is the ideal situation. Male or female, the entire body of games or media in general will never be tailored to one individuals expectations or subjective tastes. Instead the ideal situation is where what's on the market is diverse and varied enough that no matter who you are, there's something you can get into. Variety is the number one thing I hear requested from female players, so it's the number one thing I'm supportive of in this issue.


I think the black analogy is a little extreme. Even my grandpa could tell easily that the foolish depiction of black actors in film was "disgusting", whereas here the depiction of females in games varies drastically from genre to genre and demographic to demographic, and both men and women are both very split on what would be ideal for the medium as a whole. Of course, actually listening to what the majority of women say (and having more of them take charge) would be the best way to create more inclusive games.

The issue of marketing and money is one of the hidden elephants of this story. Probably a lot of this is really close to becoming an obsolete discussion, because people know (or at least hope) that some women might be interested in playing a game, and they don't want to ruin those chances. That said, from the standpoint of big money, I don't see any publisher spending a particularly large amount of time worrying about these issues when they're trying to figure out tone, gameplay, and promotion for the next hyper-big blockbuster game targeting men.

Unfortunately the big boys don't care about anyone who isn't a massive majority right now, hence why I've completely given up on them. This is really where the efforts for creating more inclusive games should be. And making games that aren't garbage.

[Skykid]

I would never trust user reviews, my God.

What kind of user reviews though?

Just to go back slightly to an element of this previous discussion (and where I mentioned Jesus wept for humanity on encountering amateur film reviewers), I found this today from an amateur so-called *Super Reviewer* on Rotten Tomatoes regarding the new Turtles movie:

An insanely enjoyable and off the wall good-time at the movies. A terrific re-boot to a classic series that I and many others grew up with and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Producer, Michael Bay and Director, Jonathan Liebesman have delivered an explosive, hilarious and tremendously exciting guilty pleasure that you can watch again and again. This movie packs plenty of over the top martial arts action, spectacular special effects, outrageous humor and a lot of heart. The Turtles are done extremely well, they have great chemistry together and capture the real heart and essence of the Turtles and their brotherhood. William Fichtner is excellent. Megan Fox is surprisingly good in the film and really goes for it in this film. A non-stop action-packed joy-ride that's just awesome. A roller-coaster ride you don't want to get off of. One of the summers best and most enjoyable movies. A sensational adventure.

The only conclusion I could get from all this was that he has one dying brain cell stimulated by bright light and fast moving imagery.

In contrast the professional Empire critic couldn't be more on the money, "Heroes in a half-arsed shell"

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/rev ... FID=138563

Of course one has to lament the 'user feedback' proceeding the article, because they're all as plank-thick as reviewer A - but I highlight this contrast just to reiterate that there is a place for professional criticism, at least where said critic is actually educated enough in the field to be able to level criticism rather than 'opinion' - which seems to be the impenetrable cave of all argumentative naysayers. "That's just like, your opinion man!"

But qualifying this, I of course don't think paid critics are at all valuable in most cases. The majority whether film or games, don't really have the required education to accurately appraise something, hence Godzilla 2014 has a 73% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.


As an aside, here's Super Reviewer A's profile page if you want to laugh at his picture:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/id/200490042/

[Squire Grooktook]

*snip*

Heh, yeah that's pretty bad. Though in that case, that user review strikes me as quite similar in style to the style of professional review I don't like: more concerned with presenting a bunch of opinions with no back in a smooth manner then giving any actual insight or content analysis. If I saw that kind of recommendation on, say, a forum, it's the kind of thing I would glance over and seek a second opinion or more in depth write up immediately.

Of course, I don't think professional reviews are all worthless by definition. It's just that modern game journalism has two major strikes against it for me:

1: Hates arcade games
2: Often doesn't tell me about content or details that make or break the package.

A good example of the 2nd issue is a lot of 3d character action game reviews. When I learn about such a game, the first bit of information I want to know to get a feel for the combat engine is what the cancelling rules are for a normal attack: Can you break into an evade or a dodge at any time, or does it lock you in place? This is a design dichotomy as old as Contra Vs Castlevania, and one that's as important as anything the game can do in determining its playstyle. Suffice to say, in my experience the number of reviewers I've found willing to delve into in depth system mechanics like this is too few to make any kind of game journalism website or publication profitable to follow.

[Skykid]

Well in a modern industry where games have become pieces of cinematic 3D inertia where losing isn't an option, you're getting reviews that mostly outline the spectacle and emotional experience in-line with that cinematic scope.

Asking most current gen games journalists to go into detailed mechanisms and how they relate to skill based play is like asking to change the entire gaming play field.

That said your appraisal is still a little too blanket for my liking. I have read good reviews that manage to get all the pertinent aspects of said titular game across, and well. I don't necessarily need or want to have mechanisms dictated in guidebook format as long as I have a picture of what makes the game fun, why it will resonate with me as experience, and what I can look forward to in terms of adventure and or reward.

I also require the writing to be interesting and well formed, taking the occasional risk where necessary. Ultimately I'd rather read a well written piece of work that gets the core notes across rather than a stoic essay that makes sure to dictate every key structural element and how it affects game play. If I want that shit there are tons of amateur sites, including HG101, that overrun on acceptable and engaging article length by about 3000 words because they don't understand editing or brevity, are usually poorly constructed and full of typographical errors and spelling mistakes, and tons of superfluous claptrap in amongst valid and interesting points.

Or in other words, nigh-on unreadable.

It's a balancing act between the good aspects of both professional and amateur games journalism, and neither one has really managed to strike it acceptably.

[BulletMagnet]

The only conclusion I could get from all this was that he has one dying brain cell stimulated by bright light and fast moving imagery.

Of course, in this day and age he could also be a stealth paid studio shill posing as Random Guy on the Street, and he'd have plenty of company.

[Skykid]

The only conclusion I could get from all this was that he has one dying brain cell stimulated by bright light and fast moving imagery.

Of course, in this day and age he could also be a stealth paid studio shill posing as Random Guy on the Street, and he'd have plenty of company.

That... is true.

[Squire Grooktook]

That said your appraisal is still a little too blanket for my liking. I have read good reviews that manage to get all the pertinent aspects of said titular game across,

I know it's a bit blanket, but as I said, I know that there are a few decent reviews out there who know how to get points across like that. It's just in my experience they're rare enough that I can say without much remorse "game journalism is terrible.". I can't really feel it necessary to subscribe to a magazine because 1/20 reviewers knows how to give the information I'm interested in within a coherent package.

And of course, some luck would be required in hoping that said 1 good reviewer out of twenty would even be assigned to one of the slim number of mainstream games that I'd be interested in these days.

[Mischief Maker]

Female game character in a magical fantasy world equips a giant broadsword +10 and uses it to slay a mighty dragon = bad female representation.

Female game character in "depression quest" buys a cat to help stave off her crippling mental illness = good female representation.

[Squire Grooktook]

For there is nothing good or bad, but thinking make it so.

Except Metroid Other M. That shit was legit offensive.

Female game character in a magical fantasy world equips a giant broadsword +10 and uses it to slay a mighty dragon = bad female representation.

Sounds like one of the oldest female rpg protaganists who incidentally was designed by several women.

It's just a piece of circular logic (HOW DO I ACTION GAME LEAD???) used by bloggers to keep a never ending debate going and keep their blog going in doing so. I've only heard it from one or two internet personalities running their own websites with ads on them. Never heard a single female player voice any kind of complaint like this (and I have heard complaints about other things).

[Mischief Maker]

Saying #gg is about Zoe Quinn is like saying WWI was about Archduke Ferdinand.