Pluvia said:
Getting upset because a woman might have slept with people? Yeah that is sexist. You said that was intentionally misrepresenting, I say you're attempting historical revisionism and went to find the original threads to show what they said.
See here's the thing you seem to not understand: there's a difference between "upset a women slept with people" and "upset a women slept with people while in a committed relationship". The former is something very few people take issue with, the latter is one very few people don't take issue with. That's what happens when you live in a society that has had monogamy as the norm for so long we literally do not know how far back it started because it pre-dates our written and oral history.
You are painting this issue as if those who took exception to that are the taking issue with the former, when in reality it's the latter and the difference is so large it's disingenuous to even imply they are comparable.
"but the fact the gaming press as well as other sites"? But the fact they what? Didn't get outraged about TMZ nonsense of some nobody maybe sleeping with people?
How terrible. They should have been outraged about a women sleeping with people eh?
The fact they didn't get outraged wasn't the issue. You know this already.
The fact they didn't report on it (despite the fact that had it been a man they would have, and we know this because not a month before they literally did that) wasn't the issue. You know this already.
The fact a woman slept with people in itself isn't the issue. You know this already.
The fact that the person in question who slept with people who broke every rule of journalism by not disclosing their relationship while reporting on her work is the issue. You know this already.
The fact gaming sites, as well as Reddit and 4chan attempted systematic censorship of all discussion on the matter is what made this go from typical monthly gaming drama everyone forgets about into something people took legitimate interest in. You know this already.
We've done this song and dance already, you and I many times over the past two years and I've also seen you do it with others in that time. You can't pretend you don't know these facts when discussing them with people who know that you are aware of them. Unless you have a memory formation problem that you haven't told us about, there is no excuse for the constant need of these established facts to be repeated.
Oh the majority makes Blizzard's game? That's like, tripling down on "The majority is always right" hahaha. I'm going to be honest, I'm loving how much you've repeated that argument like it's a good one. No attempts to change it, just double down and hope it makes sense the fourth time haha.
The majority of people who buy Blizzard's games are, in fact, the ones who should be considered when making and changing a game. This isn't even Economics 101, this is Economics 100.
You may be complaining about the "majority is always right" argument, but the problem is this isn't a law being passed, it's economics, and in economics the majority is, in actuality, right, at least when it comes to who one caters their products to.
But then again it's disingenuous to call it a mere majority given it's in reality a near unanimity, with those who wanted or supported the change being so few they statistically do not exists.
When it comes to a company doing something related to its product(s) where on one side it's the near totality of their consumer base and on the other wise it's so few people that one hand can be used to count them with fingers to spear, you're god damn right that's a case of the majority is right, and those who think otherwise are the people who would in a meritocracy never rise high enough in the corporate ladder to ever be in a position to make such a call in the first place.