Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,476
2,758
118
This whole boykott attempt and accompaning bullying has done more damage to the trans movement than Rowling over her whole lifetime.
That seems unlikely to me, though I would say I've heard almost nothing of the boycott whereas I associated Rowling far more with the anti-trans movement than with her literary output (this is maybe a factor of age as I was 16 when the first book came out, and I've only got older since).

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with people having to think seriously about where their money goes when they buy something, for any reason. I won't buy Warburton's bread, even though it's actually pretty good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gyrobot

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,918
1,788
118
Country
United Kingdom
What's the evidence for Rowling boosting the comment saying Brianna deserved to die? I can't find anything on it.
That was Kellie-Jay Keen/Posie Parker. Without putting too fine a point on it, she's a far-right ultraconservative heavily involved with and sponsored by a bunch of US anti-LGBT organizations and is part of a systematic effort to build bridges between old-school TERFs and the far right.

Mocking dead children is honestly par for the course for her. She has previously suggested that men in the US who own firearms should bring guns into female bathrooms to hunt for trans women (yes, really). She's said a lot of racist shit. She's incredibly homophobic. She's worked with actual neo-Nazis.

Rowling hasn't boosted or reposted that particular comment, but the two very openly cooperate, support and defend each other, signal boost each others activism and generally act as online friends.

Like, I realise this may come as a shock to people who read Rowling's dog-whistle manifesto and think she must really love and support trans people because she says she does. We know what Rowling's real views are because she accidentally sent them in an obscene message to a child. She has worked even more closely with people like Baroness Emma Nicholson who believe very much the same things as Kellie-Jay Keen but know how to manage their public image better. She hates trans people. She is perfectly willing to throw gay people under the bus if it hurts trans people. She is willing to build bridges with outspoken fascists if it hurts trans people.

The clinic that treated me and provided me with therapy, staffed mostly by volunteers from other parts of the NHS who wanted to help people noone else would, was closed down after JK Rowling (among others, admittedly) specifically targetted it and spoke out against it. I'm probably not referred any more (I have no idea, I have received no information about what happens to me now) and I have no idea what would happen to me if I sought another referral because I don't think there are any clinics in this country doing the same work. I'm lucky in that I wasn't waiting for treatment, I can't imagine how the many, many trans people who were waiting for or receiving treatment are handling this. Most of my friends were already getting treated through sketchy-ass online clinics due to a lack of services, but those are being aggressively targeted too.

The ability of anyone to enjoy their little wizard game is not important to me. What is happening in this country is fucking evil, and JK Rowling is very much part of it.
 
Last edited:

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
True, but another important thing about Tolkiens work is that it is presented as fictional mythology/origin story, not a fictional history. It is supposed to be a set of legends and narrations and he basically always had particular narrators in mind. And we do get occasionally hints that some stories are told differently elsewhere or that we don't really know all that much about cultures that are not used as viewpoint.
That's fairly debatable.

If we're talking about LotR, there's the conceit that what we're reading is recorded by/taken from the Red Book of Westmarch, that the events occurring are meant to be our own world in the distant past. However, the actual text is written in standard third person, with nothing to suggest that what we're reading is in any way false. 'The Silmarillion', sure, a lot of that is presented in the style of myth, but LotR uses tight third person for most of its writing.

Of course he still wanted orcs to be evil and twisted. But while he never really solved the "evil orc with free will" problem, he hardly ever wrote anything about orcs that was not supposed to be knowledge and speculations from their enemies. That avoided the topic of potential good orcs/orc redemption.
Maybe, but again, we never see orcs acting in anything other than one way, whether it be 'zoomed in' (e.g. LotR) or 'zoomed out' (e.g. The Silmarillion). Even if Tolkien himself was struggling with the idea, none of that comes across in the books themselves, and there was never a "word of God" moment from him that I'm aware of. And while it's fairly redundant to discuss spinoff works in this context, it's telling that after all these decades, the closest "not evil" orc I can think of is Adar, and even he's not technically an orc, nor is he what you'd call a good person by any stretch of the imagination.

The thing is that i don't really think that Rowling has ever been all that influential.

Sure, the Potter books have many fans. But how likely is that those fans take any political advice from a children book author ? And sure, she has money and money means political influence. But she is not really that rich. It is millions, not billions and most of that is not meant to be wasted on politics.
You know, in a sane world, I'd actually agree with you, but search the Internet, there's not exactly a shortage of people who compared Trump to Voldemot, or protestors who stylized themselves as "Dumbledore's Army." I mean, I like HP good and all, but to borrow a quote on the matter, "read another goddamn book!"

On the other hand...

 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,475
7,048
118
Country
United States
Look, I know getting negative feedback is rough on the ego, but are we really calling *this* harassment? Some of these aren't even like, directed at her.

 

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,476
2,758
118
Look, I know getting negative feedback is rough on the ego, but are we really calling *this* harassment? Some of these aren't even like, directed at her.

If people telling you they're a bit disappointed in you is harassment, I need to get myself to the police and make some reports. Yeah, mum, how'd you like that?!

No, really, this all seems pretty polite (the few I read, the text is incredibly small).
 

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,557
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
Maybe, but again, we never see orcs acting in anything other than one way, whether it be 'zoomed in' (e.g. LotR) or 'zoomed out' (e.g. The Silmarillion). Even if Tolkien himself was struggling with the idea, none of that comes across in the books themselves, and there was never a "word of God" moment from him that I'm aware of. And while it's fairly redundant to discuss spinoff works in this context, it's telling that after all these decades, the closest "not evil" orc I can think of is Adar, and even he's not technically an orc, nor is he what you'd call a good person by any stretch of the imagination.
I kinda skimmed through that conversation, but, if I may, aren't you taking Tolkien's work a tad too seriously ? I mean, a tad too realistically or historically ? They are fairy tales, they have evil species like other fairy tales have devils, demons, stuff like that : baddies who are the incarnation of baddies, and to whom the logic of free will, morality, diversity, etc, don't apply. These are real life concepts for real life people, or real life group of people. Fantasy worlds aren't duplicates of that, they aren't structured like ours. Fantasy worlds are magical, they have zombies that eat without shitting, they have skeletons who talk without glottis, they have predatory ghosts of formerly loving people, these are all dreamlike concepts, absurd reductions, incarnated contradictions, and that's their values. And yes, it works as if racialism was valid in there because racialism is unrealistic and magical. It doesn't have to make sense in our world. It wouldn't.

Orcs are Michael Myers : pure boogeymen, big bad wolves just like witches and vampires in stories where they are. And they are complex and varied in stories where they aren't. But it's just a premise, like the premise of a devil (which makes zero sense, motivation-wise, especially in exorcism movies). It's "the evil in people" as seen through a child's eyes. And Tolkien's world, its whole poetry, is essentially this at the roots : the sublimed impressions of a child.

In short it's a mythology. A cartography of pure abstractions, as an environment in which some true characters carve a path. Expecting everywhere similarities with our world is a fool's errand : there isn't, there doesn't have to, it's just written like that. And it's not a flaw, it's a genre.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,175
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
I kinda skimmed through that conversation, but, if I may, aren't you taking Tolkien's work a tad too seriously ? I mean, a tad too realistically or historically ? They are fairy tales, they have evil species like other fairy tales have devils, demons, stuff like that : baddies who are the incarnation of baddies, and to whom the logic of free will, morality, diversity, etc, don't apply.
If Lord of the Rings is a fairy tale, then practically every work of fantasy is a fairy tale.

That devils, demons, and other species exist in fairy tales is irrelevant to their existence in other forms of fantasy. And LotR isn't a fairy tale. From a Doylist perspective, it isn't structured like one, nor was it intended to be written as one. From a Watsonian perspective, Arda operates under pretty concrete rules, with defined histories, cultures, etc. Fairy tales are far looser with their worldbuilding, far shorter, and don't really exist as defined texts (e.g. there's countless versions of Cinderella, Snow White, etc., there's only been one definitive primary source for Lord of the Rings.) The closest Middle-earth ever gets to a fairy tale is 'The Hobbit', and even that, I wouldn't call a fairy tale, given its length, its versimilitude, and that in the greater context of the setting, it's a series of events that definitively happened.

These are real life concepts for real life people, or real life group of people. Fantasy worlds aren't duplicates of that, they aren't structured like ours.
Not really. Fantasy worlds can operate on whatever rules they want. Some fantasy worlds are our world with fantastical elements (low fantasy), others are their own unique settings (high fantasy). Fantasy settings can take inspiration from the real world (some moreso than others), some have hardly anything to do with it. But if we're talking about structure, yes, a good fantasy (or sci-fi) setting generally has structure - rules to inform the reader as to what's possible and what isn't. Back to the fairy tale analogy, that's another distinction, because fairy tales don't really bother with worldbuilding.

Fantasy worlds are magical, they have zombies that eat without shitting, they have skeletons who talk without glottis, they have predatory ghosts of formerly loving people,
All true, but-

these are all dreamlike concepts, absurd reductions, incarnated contradictions, and that's their values.
This isn't.

First, all the examples you've cited aren't exclusive to fantasy. You can find ghosts in the supernatural genre, zombies in the sci-fi genre, etc.

Second, "dreamlike?" No, not really. That depends on the text. You can tell a story where these things are metaphors, and/or may or may not be real, but you can just as easily (heck, I'd argue more easily) make them concrete, definitive entities. Zombies alone, for instance, may be a metaphor for something in a work of fiction, but in the fiction itself, are definitive entities with definitive rules.

Orcs are Michael Myers : pure boogeymen, big bad wolves just like witches and vampires in stories where they are. And they are complex and varied in stories where they aren't.
Um, yes? That's kind of my point. That a fantastical creature is presented in one way in one story is irrelevant to how it's presented in another story.

It's "the evil in people" as seen through a child's eyes. And Tolkien's world, its whole poetry, is essentially this at the roots : the sublimed impressions of a child.
Completely disagree.

First, there's hardly any children in LotR (and certainly no POV characters), and hardly any see orcs. And if we're talking about the audience, how many children have read Lord of the Rings, and more importantly, who were able to slog through it?

Second, it doesn't matter whose 'eyes' are seeing the orcs, their actions and motivations remain the same. There's nothing in the entire Legendarium to suggest that when it comes to the orcs (or anything really), what we're seeing isn't the truth of the matter. There's no indication that we have an unreliable narrator.

Third, Tolkien's creative process for LotR is well documented, none of it strikes me as "the sublimed impressions of a child." Children generally don't spend their time in Oxford crafting English mythology on the basis that pre-Arthurian mythology had been wiped out, nor picking and choosing inspriations from other mythologies (Norse and Abrahamic come to mind).

Fourth, again, LotR isn't a children's story. This is maybe a cheap shot, but contrast Lord of the Rings with Chronicles of Narnia. CoN, you could reasonably call a fairy tale, given its style of language and lack of focus on worldbuilding, to the extent that some elements don't make sense (if Jadis is so worried about humans, why is she more worried about humans coming from Earth than coming north from Archenland? Furthermore, how the hell did Frank and Helen even populate Archenland so quickly?). LotR, on the other hand, is highly invested in worldbuilding - nations, cultures, races, languages, etc., and its style of writing is presented as something definitive that happened.

In short it's a mythology. A cartography of pure abstractions, as an environment in which some true characters carve a path.
Again, disagree. LotR isn't abstract. There's very little in it that's abstract.

Expecting everywhere similarities with our world is a fool's errand : there isn't, there doesn't have to, it's just written like that.
Well first, if I'm reading fantasy, I generally expect to see similarities to the real world, as writers live and write in the real world, and subconciously or not, tend to take inspiration from the real world. Sometimes more explicitly than others, but the inspirations are there.

Second, regardless of what similarities I may or may not expect from Lord of the Rings, it doesn't change the fact that the similarities/inspirations are there. Look at any element of Arda, you'll generally find a real-world antecedent.

And it's not a flaw, it's a genre.
Um, yes? That's kind of my point. Fantasy tends to take inspiration from the real world, because it's written in the real world. That's not a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,928
801
118
Maybe, but again, we never see orcs acting in anything other than one way, whether it be 'zoomed in' (e.g. LotR) or 'zoomed out' (e.g. The Silmarillion). Even if Tolkien himself was struggling with the idea, none of that comes across in the books themselves, and there was never a "word of God" moment from him that I'm aware of. And while it's fairly redundant to discuss spinoff works in this context, it's telling that after all these decades, the closest "not evil" orc I can think of is Adar, and even he's not technically an orc, nor is he what you'd call a good person by any stretch of the imagination.
Just to be clear, i am not saying there are any good orcs in Arda or that Tolkien wanted to introduce them later. He pretty certainly did not. I am just saying that Tolkiens Orcs are not a good example in discussion about the free will of always evil fantasy species because Tolkien never actually solved the underlying inconsistencies. His orcs are always evil. And have free will at the same time.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,928
801
118
The New York Times and The Guardian, among many others. There's currently a blow up about their trans coverage being absolute garbage
Really ?
I admit i might have been wrong here. Maybe she gets more real exposure than i thought.That is probably what i get for mostly sticking to Guardians News sector.
 
Last edited:

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,476
2,758
118
Really ?
I admit i might have been wrong here. Maybe she gets more real exposure than i thought.That is probably what i get for mostly sticking to Guardians News sector.
On BBC News (website) frequently as well, not so much promoting her view as writing a new article every time a trans person (or, more often, just someone who isn't anti-trans) breathes her name. She does get an awful lot of (IMO sympathetic) coverage though.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,113
3,849
118
This whole boykott attempt and accompaning bullying has done more damage to the trans movement than Rowling over her whole lifetime.
I doubt it, this game and all the drama will likely be forgotten in a bit and she won't be. I mean, there've been lots of Harry Potter Games and lego sets and even controversies other the years and most of them are forgotten already.

Not to mention, she a rich and successful and high profile person, and most trans (or allies) getting angry about this aren't nearly so big.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,036
6,341
118
Country
United Kingdom
Really ?
I admit i might have been wrong here. Maybe she gets more real exposure than i thought.That is probably what i get for mostly sticking to Guardians News sector.
Rowling's article was also cited in the US Senate as a reason to oppose the Equality Act.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,738
5,910
118

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,928
801
118
Yes, i admit i have been wrong. Rowling herself probably has done more damage than the byocott.

I really underestimated her influence. But in hindsight, it should have been obvious that she is pretty convenient for those who want anti-trans legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
2,060
906
118

I thought this outlet has historically been pretty liberal too.
Might be, but when put on the spot in having to make a choice between taking a progressive or a conservative stance on a topic, liberals tend to lean conservative just to be on the safe side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,306
12,216
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Might be, but when put on the spot in having to make a choice between taking a progressive or a conservative stance on a topic, liberals tend to lean conservative just to be on the safe side.
Then all that makes them are two bit cowards that can't commit they're operating under fear.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,702
1,287
118
Country
United States
Look, I know getting negative feedback is rough on the ego, but are we really calling *this* harassment? Some of these aren't even like, directed at her.
So meanwhile, here I am checking my followed channels on Youtube, and lo and behold...


Minimization/rationalization of what happened here because "it's okay when we do it" in 3...2...1...
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,475
7,048
118
Country
United States
So meanwhile, here I am checking my followed channels on Youtube, and lo and behold...


Minimization/rationalization of what happened here because "it's okay when we do it" in 3...2...1...
I dunno what you want be to tell you man, people have been getting wishes for their death for mildly criticizing Hogwarts Legacy. I figured a cherry-picked collage of harassment would have at least one death threat, you know? But "You do you, I'll be back when you're done" makes the cut?

Do we really want to draw up battle lines and make each other answer for the worst examples we can find on The Other Side?
 
Last edited:

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,909
985
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Kathoey (the term "ladyboy" is generally considered offensive) are no more common in Thailand than trans people are in many other countries. The reason why you think this is a "thing" in Thailand is because Thailand has a particular history with sex tourism, and because for a long time white people have specifically traveled to Thailand in order to pay for sex, including sex with kathoey.

That's not the only reason, but you are not doing yourself any favours if your goal is to demonstrate that this is anything other than personal incredulity. The fact that something is "a thing" to you doesn't actually matter. Trans people in other countries have a history and identity just as long-lived and socially relevant as kathoey do in Thailand, it's just less relevant to you because it's not being marketed to you.

Note that this is not to downplay the presence of trans sex workers in other countries or to present sex work as shameful, only to point out that the reason white people are familiar with the presence of kathoey in Thai culture is primarily due to sex tourism.
I believe I first heard of em in a travel show with Bourdain, nothing to do with prostitution, and the way the story went, it wasn't like these folks were taking hormones and undergoing surgeries but rather some kids were raised to be girls when they were boys, by their families and society. It sounded like a more traditional thing, like how for example in Napal some little girls are treated like goddesses from ages 5-18, something in that vein. An exotic mystery of sorts. And sure I bet you'd incorporate that into sex tourism too cause some folks are undoubtedly into that, but it originated as a traditional thing fist. So yeah, that's what's making it a thing.



I'm not sure where this is coming from, but you've misunderstood.

The reproductive behaviour of most animals is driven by simple sensory and chemical signals. Most insects barely have a central nervous system, and yet they manage to reproduce with each other by reacting to basic pheremone signals. Humans don't work that way. There's no hard evidence that human pheremones even do anything. From an evolutionary standpoint, getting humans to reproduce with each other is actually very difficult. We have to be persuaded into it, which is why our genitals have an enormous number of pleasure receptors. Unlike most animals our sexual behavior is mostly if not entirely learned, which can result in all kinds of outcomes like people being turned on by shoes (or tigers).

Animals didn't evolve sociality in order to reproduce, and reproduction is not the "purpose" of sociality.
Socialization evolved as a tried and true method of prosperity. It isn't the same as the insect hivemind because there you have something closer to just a single person and a million robots that follow its whims, so it can be conceived as one macro-organism in the way it behaves. And on the matter of genital shape, the reason why the male member has those wing-like shapes at the base of the glands is so that it can scrape out the seed of other males during the act, so it's not quite that hard to get apes to mate as you're making it sound like lol.


I think what you are attempting to say, and I agree, is that there is more than one way of being masculine or feminine. What I kind of wish you would take from that is that me wanting to be masculine or feminine doesn't necessarily align with your own ideas about what I might mean by that.

However, if what you mean is that the meaning of masculinity and femininity is completely indeterminate and noone actually notices or cares about these things, you're simply wrong.
Oh sure, it isn't indeterminate, but you also don't get to make it up. That's my point. You need a certain degree of social recognition. Basically society sets the limits and you then get to play within them and find the degree of each element that fits you best, but it still has to be within the bigger broad limits. This is why the drag queens dress like insulting caricatures of celebrity women, and not like I dunno, a frumpy librarian or something more usual-looking. They're hitting that upper limit of femininity on purpose while being very clearly men to make the impact they're trying for.

How would you make it feminine?

What is the difference between the way you would wear your hair long and the way a woman would that make one masculine and the other feminine?

For example, I imagine that you don't heavily condition or treat your hair to make it look soft, smooth or shampoo-ad glossy. I imagine you don't backcomb or curl it unless you're into a certain type of metal. I imagine you don't heavily style or shape it. Maybe you straighten it sometimes, but I imagine you probably try not to make that obvious. These things would be an acknowledgement that the aesthetic purpose of your hair is to look pretty rather than epic. Now, maybe I'm wrong, I've met metallers who took a great deal of care over their hair, but it's a statement to do that, because it is more transgressive (for men) than just wearing your hair long.
I don't do anything to my hair besides wash it pretty much, it's straight and slightly wavy so I just brush it to keep it from tangling before going out and usually wear it tied in a typical ponytail unless we're having fun somewhere and I let my hair down in a literal sense. It's like a play mode engaged thing and feels liberating XD. And sure I do think it's beautiful too, but in a handsome way, not in a cute way, it's majestic. As for your question of how you'd make it feminine, it's mainly about haircuts and stuff like tying it in pigtails or twintails or something. Also some dudes have this "man-bun" thing which to me looks totally feminine too. Also dying it in girly colors would be one way too. I have it be its natural dark brown which looks a bit blond in the summer and am fine with that. Also a big part of having it be masculine is pairing the look with a beard too. I find that adds more character as I've been wearing my beard longer these past few years.


You've been telling me the opposite.

I'm not not a woman because I have a penis, but because I'm non-binary. I'm not a man either, although I also think that at some point in my life I was. What I want to be, and what I have worked hard to become, is neither of these things. I can resemble both of them, I've been mistaken for both of them and I can enjoy things which are associated with both of them, but resemblance is not reality. What I want is to be free to express myself in whatever way I want without having to buy into one of these two identities.

TERFs, the actual sincere feminist TERFs not JK Rowling and her child-murder-fetishist friends, would argue that the way to do that is to retreat completely into an identity based on your "real" sex. You can do whatever you want but you have to admit you're a man and that your primordial spiritual essence comes from your penis. Unfortunately, those are also people who think that said primordial spiritual essence makes all men into necrophiliac rapists (you know, symbolically, so we don't have to do any work to substantiate it). I reject this. I reject the notion that I have a fundamental spiritual essence, and I especially reject that it comes from something as stupid as my genitals. I'm not ashamed of my genitals, but they're a very small part of me (insert joke here). They symbolize nothing.



The thing is, I could so easily turn this back. I could argue that the reason you believe that your genitals contain the essence of "what you truly are" is because you're not introspective enough to have found a better answer.

Being trans, even binary trans, is fucking hard sometimes. Noone just wakes up one day looking like a perfect glamorous woman or hunky man and never gets clocked. Being non-binary is even harder in some ways because very few people are ever going to get it. At the end of the day, we all live at the mercy of a world dominated by cis people, and if cis people want to make your life miserable there's not much you can do about it. Noone becomes trans or non-binary because they haven't given it enough thought, kind of the opposite.
I don't really think your genitals contain the essence, I think your essence generates the genitals, because every fetus is a girl at its base before becoming male or female as it gestates (it's why men have nipples, those develop earlier in the process so we both get em), so due to that it is normal to not be 100% one way or the other, but that doesn't mean you're a girl or nonbinary. It's part of being male.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,702
1,287
118
Country
United States
I dunno what you want be to tell you man, people have been getting wishes for their death for mildly criticizing Hogwarts Legacy. I figured a cherry-picked collage of harassment would have at least one death threat, you know? But "You do you, I'll be back when you're done" makes the cut?
Tell me you didn't watch the video and haven't been paying attention, without saying you didn't watch the video and haven't been paying attention. Shelby and Matt were harassed the entire duration of the stream and on every social media outlet, their accounts were put on a de facto hit list, and their community subreddit was brigaded and false-claimed to the point it was locked, and her account was deleted. Which is actual, legally-actionable, defamation.

Or does it suddenly just not count now, unless there were death threats? Which, by the way, had you actually watched GR's video -- they did receive death threats which were screenshot and put in the content of the video.

Such odd timing for that standard for "harassment" to suddenly and without warning, change.

Do we really want to draw up battle lines and make each other answer for the worst examples we can find on The Other Side?
"Worst examples" is a weird way of saying "baseline behavior", as just about every major streamer who played the game on Twitch are reporting the exact same behavior, from the exact same people and groups, for having done nothing more than stream it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CriticalGaming