This article makes zero sense. Of course its not her money and she knows that. Just because its transferred to your account doesnt make it yours if it was done in mistake, especially when they found it right away, followed the correct procedures to get the funds back, but had already been taken out of account and…

That’s always my biggest gripe with these sorts of controversies. They always end up involving something that its in-depth enough that you could write a bloody thesis on it. There are so many nuances and variables, it could lie anywhere on a spectrum.

I think you really got it right when you said that each argument here is a minefield. No matter where you step, it’s a slippery slope in either direction.

Came in here expecting to see the boycott being about how the game is owned by the chinese government and about the genocide.

Think of all the people who have opinions that you don’t like working on projects you love who don’t have YouTube channels.  The horror!  You should probably just stop enjoying anything because there’s bound to be someone in there who you disagree with.

I don’t know if I like this. I mean clearly this guy has views I strongly disagree with. But... so? That means he can’t work on games?

Laserface1242:

Exactly. Rowling is WAY more liberal on trans issues than the mainstream and the attempts to brand a mild difference of opinion as not only “transphobic” but as good as colluding in murder are flat out insane.

Maybe if these digital storefronts stop carrying broken games it would give publishers incentive to not release broken games.

I think that’s a particularly unpersuasive argument, because it implies the developers are responsible for the incorrect assumptions of a minority of players. CDPR has been quite clear what the game is based on, even to the point of collaborating with RTG in the production of the tabletop game’s fourth edition,…

I take issue with one thing in your post:

This struck me as odd too:

I’m old. I hadn’t seen any of the previous works and had no idea who Elliot was nor what Elliot’s former name or identity was when the story broke.
Didn’t really care, either; not in the news business anymore. But my first response in my editor days would have been, “Who?”
And I would have said since this a public…

Nothing like setting up a total strawman to excuse your bad behavior.

“The TJA informs journalists and other members of the media that “there’s never a reason to publish someone’s deadname in a story” [emphasis ours]—something that happened repeatedly this week in relation to Page.”

By saying “Elliot, formerly known as X”, and then never saying X again. You just have to say it once, because X is the famous name, and then people will know who you’re talking about. No one had ever heard of “Elliot Page” before this moment, so obviously you have to tell people who you’re referring to. That’s the…

I was taught in j-school to write for clarity and that if an activist group tried to police your language, to throw their tips in the trash. you can’t cover this story without using the both names. otherwise there is no story.

>hasn’t even played the game

the lady doth protest too much, methinks.