Azzy

And yet demonstrably true. Nestor to his credit at least put forward counterpoints as to why Rey isn't "literally perfect" rather than deflecting and running to strawmen and sexism, problem is her flaws are inconsequential and superficial: another trait of a Sue. Oh boy here we go

For a flaw to work it has to have at least some consequence to her character. The only time she shows any real sign of failure or reflection is her first encounter with Kylo Ren and first finding the lightsaber. Which leads to her getting caught and she breaks free by herself anyway. Best might be an exaggeration, inexplicably good at everything is entirely fitting because even she doesn't know how she's doing half the stuff she does.

I could keep going but I don't think you'll ever get the point that Rey being a Sue is not a gender issue.

Rey: Orphan living alone in a desert? Check. Meets a someone/something who likes her instantly? Check. Awesome at everything she does? Check. Loved by all the resistance? Check. Beats up Ren using the Force? Check. Beats up Luke after not really teaching her about the Force and generally ignoring her? Check Letting herself get captured leading to Ren killing Snoke after the latter ordered him to kill her? Check. Crucial part of the resistance going into IX? Check. There was no lie in the evaluation. I'm not omitting some important plot point or context and I'm spending more time breaking down her event story than the movies do at explaining why she's so brilliant. I even left out the most blatant hack writing when Snoke implies that the balance of the universe made her so powerful because of him and/or Kylo Ren. Great movies though.

And yet here we are, she is comparable and it is honestly laughable. Regardless of what you feel about it, it's a condensed version of Reys story so far retold with original characters with the point that the only real difference between a bad fan character and a bad film character is the budget behind the screenplay.

Mannequin Skywalker wasn't using Jedi Mind tricks 20 minutes after learning the Force was a thing, lost his arm in his first sabre fight (despite years of training with actual Jedi no less), at least had a partial explanation for being a decent pilot and was treated with general distrust and suspicion from the cast outside of Space McGregor and Portman. Rey uses Mind Tricks 20 minutes after learning the Force was a thing, has already owned Kylo Ren in her first fight (oh the suspense for the new film), is an amazing pilot despite never having flown before, knows more about a ship and how to fix it than those who've used it for years, is instantly a crack shot with pistol, everyone that meets her instantly likes her, those that don't she just beats up and then leaves and while most struggle lifting rocks she lifts a several ton cave entrance 1st try. The term Mary Sue is overused and vaguely/widely defined, Rey however is a textbook Sue and the biggest reason there's so much furious arguing over it is through the majority of defenders having made it a gender issue over abysmal writing. TLJ could have done a lot to make her character more grounded but it didn't and saying Star Wars has always had issues doesn't absolve the new characters of theirs.

- A character chasing women desperately for the plot - Another two characters going on a pointless sidequest that doesn't amount to anything to the end story - The awesome and cool Mary Sue getting the real plot that moves the story forward, barely stopped by any kind of conflict or indecision wait...

I must have missed the "majority" of gamers going ballistic at diversity and inclusion in video games like Overwatch, Watch Dogs II, AC Odyssey, Mafia III, Apex, while being so sexist as to allow Horizon Zero Dawn to become one of the best selling titles on PS4 despite having a female lead. Inclusivity has always existed in games and always will, the problem isn't a majority of people who play video games being an -ist, it's that nobody can can tactfully push the envelope without going to straight to mass antagonising in the face of criticism (valid or otherwise), see Battlefield V. I've already said I what I think about it in relation to games. Of course I'm going to dismiss your screeching. You're right; they have the creative freedom to do that, Steam has the right to remove it under breach of TOS. Just to reiterate I don't care for media created just for offense, and I don't consider "murder people I don't like simulator" as artistic expression, just an expression of contempt and often those that argue otherwise; sophistry, to get reactions from people. How often do you see real outcry or movement over Valve purging games like this from it's platform as some form of censorship? I've never said anything against that example. I have said that anybody is free to criticise, and pushing for change because of panic over another group; not something the creator has done, is silly. Often are isolated =/= Never related I just like to see proof beyond reasonable doubt before I definitively connect something to something else, otherwise it's just a theory. It didn't suddenly appear with it either. They died as any kind of relevant movement and interest in them is in slow decline. Concept, exploration, deconstruction. Video games cause violence, studies show they're wrong, video games causing violence is a lie. Fascists are infiltrating games and recruiting/influencing substantial numbers of people, absolutely no reasonable proof to support it, why should I or anyone else believe it? ofc I'm not little

That article only comments that they were inspired to create a news source that appealed to the audience they apparently found on World of Warcraft. Not influencing neutral parties through subterfuge or active involvement in games themselves. Equivocating angry sentiment from 2005-7 over Chinese paid account padding as being the same force behind the farce of gamergate and the alt-right? From video games to white nationalism. Okay, setting aside the media spin that was desperate to find reasons for 2016 election result and video games and "gamers" being the favorite thing to club, I'll take that with a pinch of salt like everything else Bannon says.

A shame there's no real way of knowing said numbers and the gross overuse of the term fascist in click-bait news. But how is a photoshop over a character indicative of an entire fanbases political leanings and reasonable evidence for a commentary piece? It's bizarre. Sure, I've seen shops of Trump over the Emperor (the good guy), but I've also seen shops of him over Horus (the bad guy). I don't really buy fascists infiltrating entertainment mediums for recruitment and this actually works in any way, as much as internet news outlets love to push the idea along with media from video games to genres of music and film being simply overrun with racist and nazi fanbases. I'm hoping this is aimed at genuine extremists and not support for an internet meme police. I might accidentally just be talking past you at this point as it's all getting really hypothetical beyond the example of Warhammer.

My mistake. I'm not against the discussion of fictional works, I'm against the idea that a creator must own all interpretations of his work and exercise restraint in the case it might be interpreted by some fringe group as an ideological dog whistle. Because photoshops and memes aren't always political and much gets left to interpretation when a lot of it is played for group humour. Fair enough.

If your logic is that whether a video game decides to have gay characters or define a characters sexuality being a commentary on individual rights, then I can see why you think that. Either way I don't care about the sexuality or race of a video game character. If I look for a review of a game I'd hope to see the game judged on entertainment value, not scored or penalised based on progressive points, though I'm more than happy to make an exception if it really does offer a discussion point or unique perspective on problems that can be faced instead of just pandering. It is if it's being interpreted as support for the Pride movements which are political, many do still support legal and political action. And if they have examined it, see nothing wrong and still stand by it along with the support of people who aren't extremist groups? Applying moral pressure to somebody is still an attempt at forcing action, and retroactively changing content based on potential offense or wrongthink is still a form of censorship. The problem with the example of Warhammer is it's not anything that was said, the core piece of the lore is that Mankind has turned into a militaristic regime at war with several factions and often itself. Everything is excessive and ridiculous and if anyone would apply any of it's examples to real life; that's their own idiocy. There's no way of telling what percentage of a fanbases political leanings consist of unless we're willing to take news articles that cite Trump photoshops, memes, and previous disagreements no less for evidence. A condemnation of fascist/racist groups is enough. As I could only agree to regulating content on very fringe cases. Who says Wild Westerns or Superhero films aren't supported by large groups of fascists? We have this and this for the latter after all.

I didn't say that. Individual rights is still political even when we all agree to it, in modern politics regarding transitioning folk there are those that would argue against it for whatever reason and that's why it was removed. You can't keep something strictly moderated 24/7 when an hours worth of unfiltered hateful comments can spawn some news article about how your company is bigoted by not taking them down fast enough. Integrity would be standing by your work and disavowing extremist interpretations of it, not changing your work by; in the case of Warhammer, the complaints of another minority. The alternative is censorship of content and an industry will follow whatever precedent has been set. I'm not naive enough to discount the possibility that there is some that would take advantage of an entertainment medium to spread ideology, individual agency being what tells them to keep politics out of their games, left or right. That's still holding creators accountable for their customers which is something they cannot control, my opinion has always been that creators such as hobby and gaming companies don't support fascism and it's more than fair to assume that, they're just in the business of making money.

People can ascribe meaning and value to things beyond what was intended. If you want to invoke meaningful thought or discussion there's always going to be a chance somewhere that a bigot might enjoy it based on his own interpretation and sensationalist click-bait news outlets publish stories with wild accusations with specious evidence such as the example of Warhammer, this is not the fault of the original creator and the only way you could prevent such a thing from happening is completely safe and neutral, filtered content. I don't have as little faith in an individuals agency as you do where I can accuse hobbies of somehow spreading ideology, echochambers form everywhere. What's the line between sketchy media and something that's fine, when one dubious article can cause a discussion like the one we're having? ?

Why are you advocating that companies should take responsibility for interpretations of their content and on the same hand say that companies shouldn't have to sanitize their content, because the former would certainly lead to the latter in a world where everything is viewed and criticised through a political lens when corporations want to avoid controversy as much as possible. If something as inane as a completely fictional dystopian hell future where humanity is in a constant war for survival is enough to turn someone politically fascist; I doubt it would have taken much in the first place, if he wasn't already a fascist to begin with. Demanding companies start policing who is allowed to consume or purchase content is just bizarre and incredibly authoritarian in the current political climate, if you want to fuel victimhood and vindicate conspiracies of the oppression of certain political dissent; by far the biggest recruiting tools and propaganda of current far right parties: go for it. Everything is a political statement so you're obviously a weeaboo space communist. I bet you have a mini shrine of Chairman Mao too. Who'd have thought the average consumer wants to avoid politics in their escapist entertainment, and people expect the opinions of a games entertainment value over how progressive the game is in a critical review. Wild. Nintendo removing user generated content that supports current political issues is reasonable insofar as remaining apolitical. If the company made a statement saying they removed them because they're against the rights of individuals or refuse to remove content from the opposite spectrum then go ahead and flame them for it (or support if it's you're thing for whatever reason) as clearly that is taking a stance. This assumption of motive/guilt, that if somebody isn't with you they're against you is absurd, juvenile and one of the causes of political discussion in general being so toxic in recent times. Yes, video games like most media forms have had undertones but that doesn't make every game in existence fair game as a political platform or companies should be obligated to comment on current agendas.