Ah, that’s the problem, you’re using Klepek’s quote on what *he* thought of the paper.

What Klepek quoted was literally from the email where she stated she had no desire to be involved. He can obviously write about her public remarks, but he quoted her from private conversation, a private conversation in which she stated her desire to be left alone.

Yeah, Klepek is a dirtbag. In response to this woman who he clearly seems to admire for doing her good work?

“I haven’t read the essay, but I’m going to formulate an opinion based on what I presume I would think had I actually read it!”

That was from Jamie Walton’s Twitter, btw.

Probs because Rapp said some pro pedo things on her twitter, which gg sent to Walton to get her on board. So now you want to talk to her, because she’s involved in something video game related.

You’re missing the point: You do not understand what censorship is. Localization and censorship are not mutually exclusive. And before you reply back “THAT’s NOT CENSORSHIP”, try to find a source for censorship that backs up your point.

Censorship(noun) the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

There’s a whole lot to unpack in here, but this part in particular

The government doesn’t need to be involved for censorship to take place. This has little to do with freedom of speech. You’re playing semantics at this point when everyone knows what’s going on, despite people using different words.

Second Reminder: The above is false.

This is false, censorship can come from a number of different parties, government censorship is just the most egregious, especially when in places like the US where there are laws against prior restraint

But then the narrative of persecution would be damaged. The whole point is to push a specific narrative of the “culture war” and if they admit that most of the bad things they report on are fringe people not ACTUALLY associated with the groups they’re vilifying then the narrative goes out the window.

Thats why I stay out of this crap. Anyone who actually want to have an actual discussion that isn’t inflammatory quickly has their comments buried under the louder angrier ones.

This article does a fantastic job of trying to force any discussion of censorship into 1 of two camps, turbo harassment neck-beards or the enlightened ones. I dont think that was specifically your goal but its definitely the tone of the article.

The easy answer is GamerGate, the all-too-familiar amorphous group of gamers who organized in summer 2014 after game designer Zoe Quinn’s sex life was made public and eventually ended up at “ethics in games journalism.”

This shit is bad for all sides of the argument and all people involved. I’m strongly agaisnt removal of content or altering content during localizations. I bought Fire Emblem Fates, but I canceled my Bravely Second preorder (mostly for altered endings and editing the art book).

“And the original author’s intention was... what exactly?” For them to actually have a conversation: hint that something changed Belka’s mindset once she met Camilla, show that both are well known among assassins and how they deeply respect each other’s skills, how they are counting on each other, etc. “It also tries…

I was with you until the very last line.