The key word is “may”, which suggests the traumatic and disturbing content isn’t always going to happen. As the article says, it appears to be optional. When in reality, it is unavoidable. Remove that word and the in-game content warning is sufficient.

If they removed the “may” and just flat out said it includes those things, it’d be much, much, much clearer.

Using “this game may include references to” as a preface to the content it’s warning about in Boyfriend Dungeon is about as accurate as saying this jar of peanut butter “may have been produced in a facility that also processes nuts” as its allergy warning. It’s not just the crux of the story, but the foundation on…

I read it more as “Original content warning underplayed how central the more difficult themes were to the story, and most people are asking for an updated content warning explaining that those themes are a central part of the main story, since the game is marketed as a mostly-lighthearted romp. A few people want the…

“I really disagree with Sakurai on this. There is nothing I like more than when people put words in my mouth.”

The basic appeal of Jeopardy is that anyone, from whatever walk of life, can win so long as they have the knowledge and skill. And nothing exemplifies that more than our new host, who rejected a bunch of more talented people and then gave himself this job.

I’m not sure why the pseudo-contest aspect was even promoted.

Whatever you do, don’t start asking confused questions. That’s what Jeopardy! wants.

Great, now I’m angry all over again.

Ken Jennings.  All they had to do was hire Ken Jennings.  

But not other, more conservative folks of course. 

Wait what? I don't understand how this is related to anything this post is about?

Sadly, I can absolutely understand why a sexual assault victim might view forcing a large hush money payment as something potentially closer to justice than the roulette wheel of shit that making a public accusation is likely to yield.

Or giggling and looking around for a camera to stare directly into.

“(Fallon is called out by name as knowing she was a junior in high school while she was drinking in his company.)“

Had the change not been made: “there is something to be said for the fact that Marvel refused to replace a man with a woman in its promotional materials, especially in light of Scarlett Johansson’s lawsuit and Disney’s tone-deaf media response.”

I was worried the world had passed me by, but then I read literally every comment on this terrible thing that I’m sorry to admit I wasted time reading, and it appears that everyone has had the same basic reaction, which seems to be some form of “I can’t believe I wasted a part of my life reading and thinking about…

“there is something to be said for the fact that Marvel jumped at the chance to replace a Black man with a white woman in its promotional materials.”

That’s only part of the problem. The other part is that it’s been at least nine hours since we were able to stroke our outrage boners and we need release.

So if I’m reading this correctly, the problem is that Marvel temporarily replaced the promotional Twitter account avatar of a character whose show dropped several months ago with a different character whose show dropped last night?