d: free, but also still blamed on women somehow

I’m speaking from experience and the people I interact with who do have problems with said character designs (such as Nier Automata) but do NOT have the same problems with the similar amount of what’s shown in the real world. It’s a contradiction that is all too common and prevalent that it’s laughable.

Is it impossible for these people to speak about abortion without revealing their contempt for women, or do they choose not to?

We weren’t having a productive discussion. You’ve been talking to a straw man this entire time.

Irony overdose alert!

I’ve never had as much fun making other people angry as I did when scanning down people running complexes and warping in to take their salvage.

It would take less time for corruption to set in than it would to organize an area with codified laws.

It’s like you didn’t even read my post.

I could easily have written rebuttals to the above points, but these would have relied on assumptions regarding Pink Footpath’s reasoning. Assumptions that could easily be rendered unnecessary by asking some questions.

is different from taking one look at the headline photo of an article about a game, and assuming that it represents the totality of the thing itself.

It isn’t the responsibility of consumers to market a game to themselves. No one has a responsibility to research this game before deciding not to buy it.

If a person wrote a comment here about liking the aesthetic elements of the game, but not being interested in playing an action-rpg, would you put as much effort…

I would suggest that if you do not understand the arguments being made regarding the sexualization of female characters in video games, or if you think (as you apparently do) that they are merely an objection to female sexuality itself, you should be engaging in some more complex analyses, yourself.

This. You can often tell from the shallowness of these sorts of critiques (“I feel uncomfortable with the sexuality on display!” ... like what does that even mean?) that the people making them have decided that instantaneous affective response trumps critical thought.

The truth is an underage kid was at a drinking party. Kids got drunk. Kids did stupid things. Kids died as a result.

Is there something I’m missing here?

See here’s the thing, you’re talking about what appears to be a portrait photograph that may be 1-2 years out of date, and equating it (so far in this thread) with the level of dishonesty that would be involved if a journalist were to use baby pictures to represent an adult human being, or photographs of a completely…

My emotions all the time now, tbh.

Clearly you just boxed one section and ignored the top part of my original comment

Pictures of both parties should be furnished as they look today.

“It should be talked about.”

“Okay, let’s talk about it.”

“That’s enough. We’re done.”