She also said that Bayo was a single mother...so yeah...don't put too much stock in what Anita knows about video games, since it could fill a thimble and still be half wrong.

Uh, yeah, she doesn't say anything about "gamer" at all, you realize? "I'm not a fan of video games. I actually had to learn about video games." That's...pretty goddamn cut and dry. That would be like me saying I'm totally a sports nut, when I've not actually a fan of a team, have never seen a game, and know…

That is some lazy ass logic.

Relevant to the point she's making. A few months ago Kotaku in a fit of unbridled fairness for once ran an article concerning video games and statistics, and one of the contributing authors even specifically mentioned Sarkessian by name in pointing out that people like her specifically choose data to prove their…

Sam Elliott is a real actor, I know that. I wanted to know why he mentioned him in the same breath as Nova. Fucking casuals, I swear.

Well, let's put it this way: Marvel Heroes used Richard as the default instead of Sam because Richard is the most famous of the Novas. And, hate to break it to you, it's not like Sam…

Who the hell is Sam Elliot? The Nova that people know are one of two characters: Ol' Buckethead being Richard Rider is largely considered the most famous and iconic Nova and the current Nova, unless it's changed very recently, has a black helmet and is a kid named Sam Alexander. Sam's mother is Latina, but I'm…

No cries of misogyny? No explanation of how you can't have a game without non-seuxalized female characters? No whining about representation and how it needs to be in every goddamn game? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL KOTAKU?!

Also, it's nice to know you advertise your bigotry right out in the open like that. Very helpful. Thank you.

That is correct, but not all men. Not even the majority of men. Facts are facts are facts.

You are the only one making that syntactic difference, neighbor. Go and read the article, and check to see how GG is referred to. It is treated as a whole entity, a singular thing.

And yes, it's normal for people to defend something they hold a belief in. Is it normal where you come from that if someone says…

You mean it surprises you that members of a group that are innocent get defensive when they, as a group, are held accountable for the actions of an individual? Does it bother you when someone says, "Men are rapists," and men say, "No, not all men are rapists," as well? Gross generalizations are gross…

Ohkay, so you've obviously missed the point. First of all, you can't structure a campaign in a...loosely associated group of people who may not all be on the same page from issue to issue. There are plenty of people who are crying out denials and disavowing the actions taken by some of the group, but those voices…

Ah, yes, the notion of policing. You and Alexander have similar thoughts it seems. Tell me, how do you police a "group" that has no codified membership, no organization? See, I basically say the same thing in regards to feminists and SJWs. While some of the message may be on point, the rabid bitching vocal…

It was not a fact. But starting a sentence with Blanket Generalization is less interesting than starting it off with fun fact. Also, since this entire thing is about blind suppositions and unverifiable statements, so you know...seems to fit.

Doesn't it suck when you put your foot that firmly in your mouth? You realize the joke, right? You should probably eat crow and get it over with, if not you just look bitter.

Games? You mean game. Don't go giving people credit for things they haven't done. And DQ is a game in only the most nominal sense of the word, the same way a shitty choose your own adventure book is a game.

And you've got the same mentality as a lot of people, which is to say that you attribute intent to a group,…

Of those people, only Anita believes in something, and her belief is more like that of a religious ideology, rather than anything based in reality, because it sure as shit isn't based on anything resembling facts.

Fun fact: the only people who take the actions of individuals to mean the actions of group are those that seek to disparage the group.

The question becomes, who wants that responsibility? Who wants to risk creating something, and then having their name dragged through the mud? Most likely no one. The internet is the goddamn Wild West as far as things like this are concerned. Most things of this nature can be boiled down to: whose ego does this…

Oh, the community is fucked either way. It's just a polarized battlefield now. I'm just waiting to see which shitty fallout has the greatest effect.